Over and over again I’m asked to define “design”, and in my daily practice I’m challenged on how we apply design in our processes at Wemind.
Recently I re-discovered a conversation on the topic over at Greg’s which reminded on earlier discussion I’ve had with several colleague where we in a kind of “battle” presented different perspectives. I Denmark, at the least, there is still a lot of designers who see them self as artists. And the common understanding is still that design is more about form than process.
If you’re interested in design-related discussions I strongly can recommend the Google Group “transforning transformation, please take a look here.
But before leaving - how to you explain design?
8 comments so far
I like the definition by David Armano best:
“My background is in design, and I like to think that at the core, design is about facilitation. We designers should stop talking and start designing conversations. We should convert from marketers and information architects to conversation architects. Information is a one-way street, conversation isn’t”.
There are probably thousands of explanations. I would define design as “a visualization of a business strategy”.
@Jens
I like this definition, it says a lot about what is required in a more complex world and I think your right, there is - for sure - an important role to play.
@David
Your right, there is a dozen good explanations - thank you for your contribution, nice one….
Dan Saffer quotes Richard Buchanan’s definition:
“Design is the human power to conceive, plan, and realize products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose.”
Buchanan puts “human” in this definition both on the user side and the designer side, and I think it’s good to remember the active role that the designer has. Designers are more than facilitators (at the same time I am very aware that we aren’t the only ones who are going to add value).
Klaus Krippendorff gave an excellent Keynote at the BIRD Design Research Symposium in Basel last weekend. He also said some interesting things about design, particularly his focus on stakeholder networks as a central element in designing today:
His opening statement was about designers “envisioning possible futures”. He then suggested that designs should be seen as proposals (I’m wondering if this is similar to the term “value proposition”, which live-work and several other service design studios in London use).
Designs are speech acts akin to invitations which enroll stakeholders, spell out what is to be done, engage the recipients’ resources, show meaningful possibilites, and invite recipients to commit to cooperation in the stakeholder networks.
/Brett
Well, allow me to cite John Heskett (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) and add some more complexity to the (at first sight only) quite easy question: “Design is to design a design to produce a design.”
I’ve been struggling with this one myself and i came up with this:
‘design is the creation of platforms for meaningful interaction’
Does that make sense to you?
Dear all
Thank you so much for your perspectives - your answers leaves me with the impression that “NO, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SINGLE DEFINITION” of design.
On a personal note I like the process-perspective the most.
If you still have a definition that you want to share, please do to - I collect them 
Hey.
We actually had a little session on all most this topic at our studio recently. Take a look at our blog:
http://integrateddesign.dk/blog/studio-news/design-is-session
and stay tuned for more on the subject.