Thoughts on ideas
This week’s lecture has got me thinking about the various ways in which thoughts and ideas are conveyed to other people, whether that be colleagues, clients, or consumers. Science plays a large part in my interest of design processes, and therefore I want to explore Bryan Lawson further – the quote “design had stepped into a genre of science” in this week’s lecture has intrigued me. I have gone on to read this book below which explores how a design process can be applicable in all specialisms of design, therefore suitable for all designers to follow. Bryan Lawson continues to try and understand how designers think, to explore how they might be better educated and to develop techniques to assist them in their task:
“It is more likely that design involves some skills which are so generic that we could reasonably say they apply to all forms of design practice, but it also seems likely that some skills are quite specific to certain types of design. It would also seem reasonable to suggest that the balance of skills required by each type of designer is different.”Bryan Lawson – How Designers Think
As each designer is different, and has different tactics, briefs, solutions etc. then there must be a thought process or thinking method that will apply to all. Fundamental basics must be considered in every project and the first model from the lecture I will look at explores this:
Discover: The first diamond helps people understand, rather than simply assume, what the problem is. It involves speaking to and spending time with people who are affected by the issues.
Define: The insight gathered from the discovery phase can help you to define the challenge in a different way.
Develop: The second diamond encourages people to give different answers to the clearly defined problem, seeking inspiration from elsewhere and co-designing with a range of different people.
Deliver: Delivery involves testing out different solutions at small-scale, rejecting those that will not work and improving the ones that will.
What do I think of the double diamond design process?
I think it’s effective to a certain extent, but I’m also aware that projects necessarily aren’t as straight forward as following a particular order in the design process. Therefore, users of this model may find themselves having to repeat steps i.e going to deliver a final outcome to a client and going back a step to redevelop the idea further if the client wants adjustments. But this works.
What I especially like about this method, is that the steps can be completed in any given order because as long as these essential steps have been considered, then the outcome will be a balanced, carefully considered outcome. The idea would still evolve to become suitable when following the double diamond method as there are the essential boxes being ticked – i.e. focusing around a problem, providing a solution to the problem and further analysing that idea.
Going back to what Susannah mentioned in this week’s lecture; that design process of today is less scientific. I partially agree with this, in the sense that the preparation of design methods are less science based, however we are a world that is full of data and we certainly rely on a huge amount of data to produce design. Science is everywhere; in the software we use, the technology we use and our lifestyles. Maybe we are just equally as scientific as our ancestors, but in a more disguised behind-the-scenes way… A more evolved, efficient way?