UK Design Council: Flat Worlds and Flat Words

Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver

In the field of design I am of the opinion that the Pareto principle holds.  Eighty percent of “design” is simply “craft” and twenty percent of “design” is truly “creatif”.

I’ve spent the morning researching the UK Design Council as I consider the refinement of the Czerepak Framework.  One of their major research projects was to visit and study the design departments of eleven of the UK’s most successful companies and to generalize a design process based on their findings.  Personally, I consider their findings to be anti-climactic.  I have studied design since the early 1980s and I don’t see anything new or even optimal in the model the UK Design Council produces as a generalization.  I agree with a four part process, but I get the impression they are constrained by both flat world thinking and legalistic vocabulary to come up with a model that portrays design as a bipolar disorder cycle instead of an incrementally clearer focus on the desired outcome.

There is a way to win and a way to lose in any venture.  The UK Design Council’s research has not found a consistent way to win.

Links:

STL: The INTUIT Verb

stl02.jpg

Since I created the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor I have made several modifications to the language used. It has lead me to come up with what I call the Structured Thinking Language (STL). I am working on the syntax and will discuss this in later posts. The one term I want to draw attention to in this post is in the left column, the new verb “INTUIT”.

I have chosen the verb “INTUIT” first, because of Edward de Bono’s inspiring six thinking hats, second because I do not like the verb “develop”. To intuit is in part to provide the materials and know how to build the system based on the result of the REDUCE statement. The other part is consideration of the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, social customs and beliefs of the users to create affordances. The use of the term “affordance” is much broader than and includes Donald A. Norman’s usage in The Design of Everyday Things. In STL an “affordance” is synonymous to the Zachman Framework’s “focus”. A complete system is composed of motivational, spatial, formal, functional, personal and temporal affordances which are complete intuitively designed subsystems including the appropriate intuitive cues. I want to use a word that implies not only developing, but developing with the REDUCE result and the intuition of persons who interact with the system as primary considerations.