In this section I will present previous academic literature about the nature of design work, including a definition of design, an overview of the design process and design mindset, as well as the nature of design problems and solutions.
2.1.1 Definition
Design is a concept for which many scholars have tried to propose a definition. However, there is still no definition that is commonly agreed upon within the scientific community (Ralph and Wand, 2009). Instead, there are many ways of categorizing what design is and what it is not. Buchanan (2001) stated that one of the great strengths of design is that no single definition has been settled upon. This way, the academic field of design research can continue evolving, instead of becoming stale and rigid.
Buchanan (2001), however, still proposed his own formal definition of design. According to the author, design is “the human power of conceiving, planning, and making products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of their individual and collective purposes” (Buchanan, 2001, p. 9). In this definition, product does not necessarily mean a physical product. Instead, a product can also be for example a process, a concept, or a service.
Buchanan (2001) further elaborated on the nature of design. According to him, there are four orders of design. The first order focuses on symbols like words and images, while the second order focuses on tangible things. Common professions in these orders are graphic design, visual design, and industrial design. The third order of design focuses on
actions, like how humans interact with each other through the products being designed.
An example profession in this field is interaction design. The fourth order of design focuses on environments and systems, which influence the experience of humans. I assume that professions like service design or business design can be seen as professions within this order of design. This means, that the different design professions of the respondents in my study each fit into one of the four orders of design described by Buchanan (2001).
2.1.2 The design process and design mindset
One might intuitively think that various professions operating within the four orders of design are inherently different. However, Lawson (2006) stated that there are many similarities in the design process in different professions of design. Instead of seeing design as a specific field of work, the author argued that design instead is a way of thinking and approaching problems. Therefore, design should not be classified based on the end-product, but rather seen as a process and mindset through which solutions to complex problems are formed. This means that design can be seen as a generic activity with different end products.
Following the arguments by Lawson (2006), one can thus study design work in one profession, and assume that the conclusions are applicable also to other fields of design.
For this reason, I have in my study interviewed respondents from different professions of design, as I consider design to be a generic activity resulting in various outcomes, following a process and mindset with many similarities between different fields of design.
The findings by Poltrock et al. (2003) also support this premise. In their study, the authors found that design teams with different products, disciplinary backgrounds, and tools still had striking similarities in both the kinds of information they needed to solve their design problems as well as the methods they used for finding it. Michlewski (2008) also had a similar view to design work. According to the author, designers tend to have a certain mindset, or attitude, towards their work and how they tackle problems.
According to Michlewski (2008), designers approach a problem from many different perspectives and typically need to consider many internal and external requirements.
The design mindset embraces ambiguity and uncertainty, instead of following a pre-determined way of working and tackling challenges. In addition to coming up with ideas, Michlewski (2008) argues that designers often have to also manifest the ideas and
bringing them to life. This can, for example, be done through visualizations or prototypes. Finally, the author also states that the design mentality includes a human-centred mindset, that emphasizes empathy and an understanding of the people who are the target audience of the design project.
The concept of design thinking further shows that design can be seen as a mindset and approach for solving problems. According to Dorst (2011), design thinking is a concept that uses the design approach to solve problems in other fields, ranging from business and IT to education and medicine. The author argued that what distinguishes the design approach, is the abductive mindset tackling complex problems with limited information through framing and reframing the problem, in order to create suitable solutions.
The content of the design process and the design work can also be described in different ways. According to Cross and Cross (1995), the key elements in design are planning, information gathering, problem analysis and concept generation. Schön (2017) highlighted the importance of reflection in the design process, describing design as a reflective conversation. According to the author, constantly reflecting on the design problem and the work being done is crucial in order for the design practitioner to find the best way forward.
2.1.3 Design problems and solutions
According to Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002), design is a specific area of problem solving. However, in contrast to other problem-solving activities, the problems in design are often vague and ill-defined (Cross and Cross, 1995). Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) stated that by exploring the design task, and thereby widening the problem space, the complexity of the design problem increases. Designers thus generally work with very complex problems.
Due to the complex and ill-defined nature of design problems, a significant time of the designers’ work goes to exploring and understanding the problem being tackled (Cross and Cross, 1995). This statement is further supported by Valkenburg and Dorst (1998), who in their study of two design teams found that the team that first focused on exploring the design task outperformed the team that almost immediately started to look for a solution to it. With other words, the more time that was spent on defining and understanding the problem, the better the team managed to achieve a creative result.
Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) noted that also the solution space in design usually is quite large. This means that there is not only one single solution to the design problem, but instead there are many solutions, each with its own trade-off between advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, design offers many opportunities for creative thinking, while still placing several constraints that the designers must take into account. Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) argued that in order to reduce complexity, humans tend to strive for satisficing solutions instead of optimum solutions. This means that with a large solution space, designer rarely search for the optimal solution, but instead try to create a solution that solves the design problem well enough.
According to Dorst and Cross (2001), defining and framing the design problem is an essential aspect of creative design. This can be explained by the co-evolution of the problem and solution spaces. This co-evolution happens when developing a solution leads to redefining the problem, which in turn leads to a further refined solution, which leads to further redefining the problem, etc. The problem space and the solution space thus co-evolve together, with continuous interchange of information between the two spaces.
Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002) emphasized the importance of analysing possible solutions before they are accepted or rejected. There are two main reasons for this. First, there is a risk of prematurely rejecting good solutions that do not immediately fit the constraints of the design problem. Often, the problem can be redefined, or the solution modified in a way that makes it viable. Second, if a solution is accepted too quickly, it might prove to be problematic later. Due to the complex nature of design problems, there are often too many constraints for the designer to remember at once. Therefore, a crucial constrain might be forgotten. In this case, a considerable amount of time might be spent on developing a solution that in the end does not work for the design problem.
Creativity is often regarded as an important aspect of design, that can be found in every design project (Dorst and Cross, 2001). Good design often includes novel elements and new ideas, or at least new perspectives to tackle the problem being solved. Sometimes creativity can happen during a “creative leap”, a significant event where a significant creative insight is formed. In other cases, creativity can be seen in the gradual evolution of a unique solution to the design problem. While pursuing new ideas that rise up, practitioners of design might often deviate from planned activities in an opportunistic behaviour (Cross and Cross, 1995). This means that the design process does not always follow a pre-determined path. The creativity in design, however, does not only depend
on the understanding of the design problem, but also on other factors such as the design situation, the resources available and the designer’s own goals (Dorst and Cross, 2001).