Every scientific hypothesis is in need of a sound methodology.

Agreed! Dennis Mazur

We are at a difficult time. There are great dangers created by recent use of terminology. Those who do research into the ways that designers do what they do are making ever more progress. We now understand a huge amount about this topic. However in particular we are aware that design processes as actually practised professional by designers are high individualistic, complex and sophisticated. We have ideified many of the things that can’t and often do occur during design. However we are now sure that there is no such thing as the design method. The 1960s approach to this area was to lay down methods that it was assumed would enable designers to work better. We do not take that approach today. If you want to see some descriptions of the many things designers do than my latest book, mean for students and teachers The Design Student’s Journey May offer a good starting point.

however we also have a new tendency to think of design as a form of research. I have also advanced the argument that design can sometimes but not always be seen as a way of contributing to research. This idea is however full of dangerous assumptions. My review listed here on Design Research in Architecture summarises some of the difficulties and dangers here.

Now we have a third strand of people wanting to use what they call design thinking in areas like business. But this approach grossly oversimplifies design thinking as we now understand it and is extremely misleading when used as if it was something based on recent design research.

be careful!

Dear Dr. Tungnung,

If I understood the essence of your question ("Why do we need research and design strategy or process?") correctly, then I think I have a simple answer to you. Actually, what we need are design and research methodologies. They advise us on proper and effective strategies based on their underpinning theories. They also advise us on the processes (procedures and activities), as well as on the methods, the instrumentation, and the criteria. Eventually, methodologies systematize research and design. In other words, they reduce the dependence on the hypothetical, intuitive, heuristic, incomplete, and intangible elements, but also make it possible to benefit from everything that these can offer for the benefit of research and design. One more issue: Setting up research always needs activities that belong to the domain of design, and design typically benefits from the knowledge and means produced by research.

Best regards,

I.H.

Well it just shows how valuable Imri’s answer is. It n er occurred to me that this was what you meant !

Thanks Imre Horvath for sharing your insightful ideas and knowledge. What I notice especially amongst students and beginners is that they often, always, and inevitably shift from the systematic methodologies to chaos and muddle stages, somewhere in uncharted territories between problems to solutions.

You are absolutely right in pointing out the fact that its highly individualistic especially amongst designers. Scientific researches, I suspect, are also sometimes chaotic but maybe more in line with some design research processes. Design practitioners, especially architects, may often rely more on the visceral intuitive methods rather than the rational methods and processes. That said, it also explains why architecture has made little or no (r)evolution since the days of Gropius, Le Corbusier, Mies, etc. It's one of its strength as well as weakness.

I actually like the book Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future by Jones, and I read some of the papers by Nigel Cross. I will definitely check out some of yours in future.

Dear Dr. Tungnung,

Thank you for initiating this interesting discussion. Well done.

First of all, let me say, I very much resonate with you insightful argumentation.

Second, I would like to add something, which will not change but a bit articulate my (our) reasoning. Namely, if we consider the whole of the industrial product design processes, the beginning and the end are very often vaguely defined. With regards to the supporting methodologies, the consequence of this is that the nature of the methodologies need to adapt (or be adapted) to his. This fact explains why do we have weaker methodologies for handling the fuzzy front-end (think of ideation) and the fuzzy tail-end (think of circulation) of design processes. The mainstream processes/activities can be covered with strong methodologies. The reason can be formulated perhaps this way: wherever creative (synthesis orientated ) human intelligence (visioning, abstraction, reasoning, awareness, etc.) isneeded, systematization is held back by the lack of know-how knowledge and path-finding approaches, and the danger of creativity limitation and fixation. Design is a decision intensive process. We are better off where analytic (combinatorial and evaluative) tasks are at stake. Computers made it crystal clear for the concerned researchers.

Best regards,

I.H.

Dear Dr. Tungnung,

What does design mean to you?

Best regards.

Hi Dr. Torres, design and research of all cognate disciplines of design. Some of my arguments would be inclined towards architecture, urbanism, interiors, products, etc. But, from a larger perspective, I would love to hear how the theory and methods/ process in "design and research" could possibly be applied in the "design of everything" including lifestyle itself. Hope this doesn't sound ambiguous. If I were to select only one option between Empiricists and Rationalist thinking in our approach to how the future can be best shape, I might choose Rationalist thinking, a little utopian perhaps. Nevertheless, Rationalist designs, viz-a-viz, Corbusier et all produced exemplary buildings around the world.

Dear Dr. Tungnung,

maybe not all about design methodology can be used to support the "design of everithing", because some research items are focused on specific applications (for example "Design for Additive Manufacturing"). However, especially if you consider contributions focused on the fuzzy front end of the design process, and especially on problem solving activities, my point of view is that a systematic approach can be helpful in many different contexts. Personally, I found many similarities between everyday problems and design problems: understand the problem - propose solutions to the problem - evaluate the feasibility of the solutions in order to accept or discard them, also by considering the complex interrelationships between main problems and the sub-problems coming from the proposed solutions.

However, this is the point of view of a mechanical engineer doing desing and design research. Honestly, I do not think that my point of view could be shared by an artist or even by an industrial designer. But, this is based only on my personal experience, which is strongly based on my ethnological context. Indeed, while in Italy there is a quite clear distinction between Engineers and Industrial designers (which however can vary across the same nation), maybe in other contexts this distinction is less evident?

Why do we need research "on" design strategy or process? Simply, To generate knowledge from DESIGN activities (RtD)! ...and it depends on your interpretation from knowledge!

and about intuitive methods, love this way more, personaly I believe they are better suited compared to academic ones in practice...because sticking to some design tools provide such a pattern that would lead to "design fixation"... need to example?!

Dear Khuplianlam Tungnung

"OR": NO, NOT "OR". You (in-reality; alone) should be "constructing" nothing. THE SUBJECT GIVES THE SCIENTIST ALL SHE/HE NEEDS.

I guess I should apologize for becoming beyond frank with dualists (but I can't help it; it is so damned easy; and, I think it may be amongst what you need most -- so it is not just a "mean streak" on my part, rather see it as tough love).

Dr. Azam Nemati Chermahini , the problem with intuitive methods is that it is often contradictory to the belief in the rational approaches to "design as a process." Various examples have shown the possible use of both the rational and intuitive methods, viz-a-viz, Christopher Jones. This thing called "intuitive" is one of the strength and weakness of design disciplines, especially in solving "wicked problems" that are more or less base on argumentative process and intuitive methods.

The big question is: can we ever do away with satisficing through intuitive methods? If we can't, the best strategy and method that exists could be: intuitive + rational methods. Its like Design is a hybrid activity of science, arts, and mathematics. We can't really do away with any of the components, I suspect! Thanks for your insightful thoughts.

If I may add, the general perception is that Design is about creativeness and often thought to be a matter for gifted individuals and that 'Methods and Strategies' or 'ordinary person' and collaborative efforts cannot be really creative. Some theorists, such as Jones suggests that is a "myth, but a difficult one to disprove." On the other hand, there's another paradigm of design thinking which suggests that design needs to change from 'planning product' to 'planning process' of its life cycle, a shared imaginative living, end-in-itself rather than designing a mere artifact or product, or a goal-seeking effort. These paradigm shifts from the idea of 'progress' towards a goal, a product, or the architectural artifact to the idea of 'process' from the inception to manufacturing of a product or building endeavor encompasses our current 21st era's technological innovation and design evolution. These same veins of design thinking have been advocated by various design science proponents and theorists. While durability and utility may fit into the process and strategies, the big question lies with the aesthetics factor. Just a thought!

While rational and systematic methods and process best 'FIT' well established designs and manufacturing processes, intuitive approaches or strategies could be essential in the 'design of things' that are novel and new. Linear strategies may be better in cases of rational and systematic methods and process. But, adaptive and seemingly random methods may needed in case of novel searches and researches.

My experience is that both combinatorial and heuristic discovery/unearthing of novel design ideas/concepts can be more successful when supported by systematic methodologies. (For example, what everyone knows in the practice: morphological matrix, or TRIZ, for the former, and brain storming, or natural analogies, for the latter.) It is another question how much and well the repertoire of creative combinatorial and heuristic methods is known, taught and used in the practice

Design is more future oriented, whereas research is more past oriented. Nevertheless, there's no certain border between them. Both help us in decision making at the present.

Both require their own strategies and process.

A robust design process always relies on robust research background. A robust research process, however, does not necessarily require a design -as we know it in architectural design, urban design, industrial design, etc.- background unless it aims addressing those design-centered areas. Nevertheless, every research also requires its own design as we know it as "Research Design" which involves design but typically not dealing with dimensions of geometry, space, aesthetics or creativity.

"research is more past oriented" ... What reasons can you bring for this assertion?

Dear Dr. Shahabian,

Yes, I agree with you that setting up research projects (and conceptualization, detailing and planning research designs) do have design flavor. Notwithstanding, various manifestations of design (e.g. phenomenon, process, methodology, knowledge, prototypes, artefacts, etc.) can also be used in a research process (one or more research cycles) as enablers of data aggregation, theory forming, and generating evidences. These kinds of enablers may allow design researchers to get to data and intelligence that cannot be accessed/obtained otherwise, and may simultaneously serve as evolving research means that can be (re)used in subsequent research cycles. In one of my early papers, I suggested to refer to this mathodological approach as 'design inclusive research'.

Kind regards,

Imre Horvath

Azam Nemati Chermahini " Design is more future oriented, whereas research is more past oriented. ..."

There might be exceptions, but generally speaking, for instance, when you design a building or a car, that building or car don't exist in the reality yet. So, you design something that will come to existence in the future. Research requires data to process, and data comes from the past. It may belong to thousands of years ago. It may belong to one millisecond ago. Anyhow, the source of data is in the past even for the research projects that try to forecast the future.

So, amongst many other reasons, the nature of design: a hybrid activity that predicts the future and makes a leap of faith to respond to imagine or predicted future situations base on the past or present data, process and strategy are clearly beneficial, and often necessary to research design. This is a very compelling argument!

I agree with @ Imre Horvath

Following

Agree with Imre Horvath.

If you have an idea, you have to design a strategy in order to research for the target.

Following

Agree with Imre Horvath.

To innovative new technologies for creating better theory.

In short, in my mind, a clear and appropriate choice of design methodology which utilized = effective process for comprehensive result. Besides that, we can easily inject some improvisation because we know in which phase we should inject that thing so could improve the design result. Effective and efficient. And plus, so we can teach it to other people, such as our student. That's what i think of why we need to learn systematic methodology for research or design and its development.

Nice

Nice contributions from other responders. I learned from them. Thank you.

Interesting topic. Following

Hi Dear Khuplianlam

The process of developing a new product includes activities and decisions that range from the idea generation to the product entering the market. For most companies that want to be innovative and generally work on new product development, the starting point is to create or revise a new product development process. So far, different models have been proposed for the new product development process. The introduced models make it possible to identify problems at each stage. The main motivation of researchers in presenting different approaches and models is mainly to improve items such as time control, cost, quality, performance and in general to improve the output of the new product to gain and take advantage of the opportunities ahead. One of the most important frameworks for new product development activities is provided by Hamilton (1982), which includes the seven stages of strategy, production, idea screening, business analysis, development, testing, and commercialization. Product development is the process by which a new product or service is marketed. The success of this process can be measured by defining indicators that indicate the degree of success or failure. The term new product development is used both for products that are generally new in the world and for applying minimal improvements and changes to existing products. Today, the life of the product market is declining and it is predicted that the product development rate will double every five years. As a result, new products that meet the needs and wants of customers and go beyond them are a key factor in maintaining and improving competitive advantage.

Design and strategy thinking has many benefits for architects who decide to save themselves the burden of unnecessary college education. This kind of thinking will guide the architect and his small company. But that is not all. Design thinking helps you move forward day by day. Understanding the design thinking discourse can even help the architect advise the client to decide on the future! Have you ever wondered why architects have not been able to do this to date?

Using design thinking can help architects break the cycle of crisis response, simple design, step-by-step, linear processes, and sequential tasks. Instead, you will be provided with completely innovative solutions based on tools such as empathy and experimentation. That way, instead of relying solely on historical data and instinctively, you will make decisions based on what your customers really want.