e
To Design Is to Understand Uncertainty, by James Self
Image courtesy of Michel Boot, Delft University of TechnologyThis is the second article in an ongoing series by Dr. James Self in which he explores designers' approaches and tools in support of a thoughtful, reflective design activity.
CAD vs. Sketching, Why Ask? · To Design Is to Understand Uncertainty · TDRs & Conceptual Design Practices
Design practitioners are well-aware of and indeed exploit uncertainty as a means to facilitate design thinking, innovation and creativity. As design intentions are explored through the use of designerly tools such as sketching, design activity remains divergent, iterative and uncommitted. This ambiguous uncertainty facilitates design thinking and the exploration of often ill-defined design problems. In short, there exists a unique relationship between uncertainty and design activity. Because to design is to engage with an exploration of ideas towards the yet to be. Understanding this relationship is important if we are to develop our understanding of what it is to design.
So, what is uncertainty and what contribution can it make to design activity and design thinking?
In order to understand uncertainty as it relates to design activity it is important to first attempt to define it. The Oxford English dictionary offers the following definition:
The state of being uncertain... not able to be relied on; not known or definite.
This suggests uncertainty is a human state or emotion, a reaction to situations that are or appear to be unknown or unclear; the ambiguous. This definition of uncertainty has implied negative connotations—the natural response to uncertainty is to employ a course of action with the purpose of resolving the uncertain state; to seek the truth. In the natural sciences, where the objective is to understand the world as it is, this makes good sense. Through scientific enquiry we discover truths about our natural world. We are able to develop an understanding of how the world is.
But what if our purpose is to develop strategies, ideas and thinking towards that which does not yet exist? How should uncertainty be approached and what can this then tell us about the unique nature of designerly ways of knowing? Before addressing these questions it is worth spending a few moments to consider the slippery subject of what it is to design.
It has been well documented in previous attempts to define 'design' that the word immediately throws up challenges in coming to a consensus of its use and meaning. Ironically, the meaning of design remains uncertain! This is not the time or the place to engage in a discussion of the various semantic meanings of the word. However, for the purposes of our discussion of uncertainty in design activity, we will refer to the word design as a verb; as in to design—we are referring to the activity of designing. We can also say that the act of designing has, at its core, a requirement to adapt an existing system, process or object in a new way or to describe a new system, process or object. The designer is a futurist—they must explore, develop and present concepts and ideas towards that which may be, but does not yet exist.
So engagement in an activity of design is characterised by the exploration of the yet to be. As a result of this, design activity involves engagement with not only the unknown, as in the pursuit of knowledge in the sciences, but that which cannot be known because it does not yet exist. It is because design activity involves an exploration of the yet to be that design is unique in its relationship with uncertainty.
Related to this uniqueness, design problems may be described as ill-defined or wicked, where the solution to the problem or outcome is unknown or unclear at the start of the process. There may be more than one 'correct' solution to any given design problem. The designer's role is to explore alternatives, finally coming to the specification of a best or optimal solution. A primary concern of design activity is to explore the ill-defined design problem through the generation of solution ideas or conjectures (for more on this see Nigel Cross's influential book: Designerly Ways of Knowing). These solution conjectures may take the form of sketches, illustrations and drawings, models and prototypes of various kinds and levels of fidelity. It is through the process and activity of using what I am calling here designerly tools (the process of sketching, of constructing a digital model for example) that the problem is defined and thinking towards solution ideas develops.
Now, of course, the nature or character of the tool-in-hand will have implications for the kinds of design embodiments made and so the role of uncertainty in an activity of design. For example, the representation of design ideas through hand-sketching may afford a particular kind of design embodiment, a more divergent exploration of design ideas which communicate intent as less committed supporting an engagement with uncertainty. In contrast, the use of digital modelling tools such as Solidworks may influence the character of the design embodiment, the nature of design activity and the role uncertainty plays within it. This is because of the command-based nature of the tool and the resulting affordances and limitations to the embodiment and communication of design intent as 3D digital models.
There exists a healthy discourse related to the affordances and limitations of various designerly tools, both here at Core77 and within academic and professional journals. What seems absent in much of what is written about design activity, however, is the influence of the tool user. That is, the designer's own idiosyncratic approach to design activity, the use of designerly tools and the implications this has for the nature of the activity and the kinds of tools employed to support it. Within this the designer's own levels of experience seems significant for the ways in which designerly tools are chosen and employed and the role uncertainty plays in the act of designing.
An important influence on the designer's approach to design activity and tool use is their experience of practice. This, of course, seems intuitive in that one's experience of an activity will define the way the activity is performed as knowledge and skills are honed and developed. What we are particularly interested in here is the ways in which design experience influences the practitioner's approach to and engagement with uncertainty during an act of designing.
In a previous post here at Core77, I spoke about the ways students of design tended towards those tools that may facilitate and support a more convergent design activity. Since the publication of the article I've got on to thinking about the student's engagement with uncertainty. From my research and own observations, I've started to develop the position that design students are less inclined to engage in situations of uncertainty when using design tools compared to more experienced practitioners. Students take an approach that is more suited to activities where the purpose and objective of the activity is known. This is unsurprising as it is the engagement with known problems that dominates the student's education; finding and using the facts or the known truths to answer the question. Students have had few opportunities to engage and use uncertainty as an approach to dealing with the ill-defined problems that characterise design activity.
As the inexperienced design student encounters uncertainty in the act of designing, they feel lost and disorientated. They wish, somewhat intuitively, to define a solution quickly. They may tend to rush hastily down a single track, not knowing or being aware that they are moving towards a situation where they 'know what they're doing' at the expense of the insight and innovation engagement with uncertainty can bring.
It is in these situations that the seductive certainty of those designerly tools that support design definition and convergence can be most restricting.
In contrast, the well-heeled design practitioner understands the use of uncertainty and ambiguity as it relates to design practice. Uncertainty is used to explore possibility and, through this exploration, provides opportunities for discussion, iteration and design thinking. Indeed, uncertainty becomes an important element of the activity, promoting a discourse around the development of design ideas, both with other stakeholders and the designer's own self in the exploration of one's own design thinking.
Uncertainty has a unique place in the activity of design. The designer's ability to deploy it has implications for the activity and outcome. For this reason, students of design need to be introduced to the principle of uncertainty and the unique ways it is employed by the designer in the pursuit of the yet to be. They will then be better placed to take a more informed and holistic approach to the use of the various design tools available to the contemporary designer. Less experienced designers need then to be provided with opportunities to consider their own reaction to and engagement with uncertainty and the implications this has for their use of designerly tools, design activity and design thinking. Understanding the unique ways in which uncertainty is engaged and employed during an activity of design will bring us closer to defining what it is to be an expert in designerly ways of acting and knowing.
More from Dr. James Self:
» CAD vs. Sketching, Why Ask?
» To Design Is to Understand Uncertainty
» Tools of Design Representation & Conceptual Design Practices
-
oFavorite This
-
Q6Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Bould Design
BOULD DESIGN is a strategic partner for bringing highly functional, beautiful and successful product...
-
Doris DevDoris Dev is a New York and Hong Kong-based product development agency with a proven track record of...
-
aruliden
Aruliden is a global design agency born in 2006. We are a collection of people who care deeply about...
-
Ammunition
Founded in 2007, Ammunition is led by partners Robert Brunner and Matt Rolandson. Our work is create...
-
Agncy Design
Using design as a tool to reduce structural inequity. We work with teams and leaders to make the equ...
-
Acorn Product Development
Acorn Product Development is based in Silicon Valley with design centers in Boston, Denver, Los Ange...
-
219 Design
219 Design is an interdisciplinary product engineering firm based in Silicon Valley. Our team of mec...
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
The move from uncertainty to certainty, the unknown to the known, and the attendant fear of failure or success probably has more to do with the personality of the designer than the process.
Great conceptual leaps can be enabled by mechanical application of forced association, regardless of the timidity of the student.
Whether the process is organized or chaotic, design thinking suggests that all of the steps must be visited at least once to produce a wholistic outcome and the deeper our understanding of the issues, the more satisfying the result. The element of the unknown is what enables the possibility of surprise and delight and the satisfaction of the proverbial "Ah Ha!" moment. (A fully constrained equation produces the fewest results.)
At the end of the day, we are engaging in an effort to create and organize ourselves and our environment and discover the hard and soft boundaries within which we operate. In that regard, the transition from ignorance to knowledge, and from fear to confidence, can be a very invigorating experience - one that presents endless opportunities at the start, and hopefully at least one satisfying result.
As a design student, I'd also suggest that part of the reason students don't embrace uncertainty is that we are still breaking out of the conditioning of school education, which leads us in a linear process from our question towards a single right answer (or one which is close or not close to that correct answer).
As you say, breaking out of this is all about confidence. It is comforting to progress forward, but often more beneficial to hit a wall and have to backtrack, and counter-intuitive to see that backtracking as progress! I guess that is what experience as a designer provides - the knowledge that you will reach a solution, even if you are currently not holding on to something solid.
In response to producttank - A agree that the problem should not be ill-defined, but the solution needs to be ill-defined for a period for innovation to happen. Otherwise you search for grounding in past solutions. Eg - Problem: Two sheets of paper need to be held together. For a brief moment you are without a solution, and without confidence that a solution is possible at all! The instict is to think of a stapler, giving you security in the possibility of a solution, but staying in that place of uncertainty allows for innovation. In business there are similar problems, but less often are people required to come up with a solution which is new and unique.
However, this does open up the subject of whether design is pure, formulaic problem solving, or something less rigid...
@ James Quote: "It is the ways in which designers go about 'eliminating' uncertainty given levels of expertise that interests me."
This is actually a pretty interesting study. I'm intrigued to know the results to a study of this importance and your constraints that define it.
Great thing about this article is that it inspired me upon a most recent and ongoing attempt to pursue and develop a solution to a design problem!
I have found in my years of teaching design students as well as my own experience that it is because of the lack of confidence created by "learning new tools" that reticence is created towards taking a risk in solving the design problem.
Humans have difficulty multitasking to the level necessary to learn and do at the same time. Compound this known variable with other cultural variables, and you end up understanding why the west takes risks very differently than those from eastern cultures.
Because of observations similar to those stated in the article, I have found it necessary to devise methods to "trick" students into developing high risk concepts that their skills sets do not currently support. In fact it is because they are taking risks with the design solution they have chosen, they will develop further their skill at using design tools as professionals do. Thus, they decrease their levels of uncertainty at taking on future projects with higher levels of risk.
I use the word 'ill-defined' to differentiate problems in other activities (not design activity) which are better defined: A well defined problem with a clear objective or goal. Example: How to open a jammed door? The problem is known - the jam. The solution is known - to have the door open. The activity is engaged with the goal of opening the door in mind - Clear. In the sciences problems are often more 'well defined' because they are problems that look at the world as it is now. design, on the other hand, deals with the yet to be.
The designer is continually questioning if they've chosen the 'best' design solution before a client presentation because that solution can still be right or wrong. This is because an ill-defined design problem can provide room for subjective interpretation of the solution. The buisness can not predict how many sales will come in the next quarter - but the problem of increasing sales is know. They increased or did not. if they did, problem solved. If not, we still have a problem. The designer's role is to explore often vague requirements to help move towards a state of knowingness in terms of problem and solution. It is the ways in which designers go about 'eliminating' uncertainty given levels of expertise that interests me.
You state: 'A primary concern of design activity is to explore the ill-defined design problem through the generation of solution ideas or conjectures'
The primary concern of design activity is to define the design problem through a firm brief and research before embarking on the generation of solution ideas, mitigating the risk of failure.
Design problems are not as you state ill defined, it is the design solution that has yet to be discovered. The solution as stated is variable, but this is why a brief is created as the driver. The state of being uncertain is the reason for research, to better understand the problem, courting uncertainty will not lead to better/stronger design solutions.
You state: 'It is because design activity involves an exploration of the yet to be that design is unique in its relationship with uncertainty.'
Design in this aspect is not unique, as all businesses/areas have the same issues, the business that cannot predict how many sales will come in the next quarter, the scientist who has a theory but has yet to prove it. Design activity just like all businesses never involves engagement with the unknown, because everything is a progression of the known. A designer when designing is drawing on his past experiences, what he has seen, learnt etc, there is always a progression. Humans could not have jumped straight to designing the car. They first had to invent the wheel, cart, carriage, steam engine…. All design is an improvement upon what has come previously.
I spend my time trying to eliminate uncertainty, I continually question if I have chosen the best design solutions for the brief and when certain I have, I present them to the client.
May be I'm missing something, so it would have been far more useful if you had described how in a teaching environment you would educate students about how or when to use uncertainty or showed via example, projects where uncertainty had been clearly used to lead to a better outcome.