Dear all,
this is the paper my colleague Donato and I presented at the IASDR 2007 Conference in Hong Kong Polytechnic.
During the last thirty years the level of interest in Complexity Science has been constantly increasing. Combining the opportunity offered by the findings of the Complexity Science with the framework of the multi-disciplinary debate on the meaning and use of diagrams, we propose a design methodology to help designers support their interventions in complex environments. The structural features analysis of Complex Systems has been our key point to outline this methodology to offer designers a new mindfulness in the use of design tools. This methodology is based on five phases: analysing, representing, pinpointing, timing and telling. It provides a theoretical framework that incorporates many tools suggesting a different use of them with a special attention to improve the designer's consciousness of the system he is designing in. When design is addressing complexity, diagrams could become generative tools that can be used to produce metadata relevant to the design process.
here you can download the paper
and our presentation slides
Some other reflection about this topic could be found at Density design blog
gaia
design tools for complex systems
Dear Gaia,
thanks a lot for uploading this interesting paper! I had the opportunity to read it yesterday in the train.
I like the overall concept, but I think there are still some weaknesses. The text remains on a rather abstract level, and I wonder if it is possible to operationalize the methodology that you describe.
In the part on analyzing systems and on clusters I highly recommend you to refer to the concept of sensitivity modelling as described in Frederic Vester (2007) "The Art of Interconnected Thinking".
In the part on scenarios you somehow mix the highly normative approach from Manzini and the more explorative approach from Schwartz. In my view Manzini does not deal with uncertainty but tries to promote normative visions of desired futures.
Regarding diagrams you should refer to Christopher Alexander´s "Notes on the Synthesis of Form", where he first introduces the use of diagrams as a tool in the design process, which is to bridge the gap between analysis and synthesis.
And maybe you like Mikulecki´s "final" definition of complexity: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/ON%20COMPLEXITY.html
Well, don´t misunderstand my critique. I think the approach is promising, but needs lots of refinement.
Jonas
pushing forward design tools for complex systems
Dear professor Jonas,
I really appreciate your critiques and I find them very constructive. I myself see a lot of weaknesses in the iasdr07 paper after have gone further in my research about diagrams. I kind of look at it with tenderness as my first academic paper but – as probably every research – is an on going process of refining and learning that could highly benefit from suggestions and critiques as yours.
In example, I had a long discussion with my collegue Donato on the issue of representation of simple, complicated and complex system, and the idea is that the representation of a complex system is not more difficult to be made than one of a very complicated one, but that it is necessarily linked to the purpose of the representation itself. The disclosure of the purpose is a necessary condition for the representation itself. In other words the purpose has to be made explicit in order to achieve a successful representation. We are planning to ask the next year student to test this idea practically and we hope to publish a report of the result along with their graphic representation.
In the didactic activity the densitydesign group (a laboratory course in the final year of the Master Degree Course in Communication Design at the Politecnico di Milano) is working on the operational level of the methodology described. And learning from the 2007 experience that have push forward the initial IASDR methodology, the next year course will be profoundly adjusted especially on the scenario section.
I will very soon refer to the books you suggested me and trying to make the best from them, as I’m really gratified by this discussion and all comments and critique about this topic.
Gaia
diagrams
Dear Gaia,
I am very pleased to see your announcement of this paper. I think that the whole question of diagrams has been neglected (although Edward Tuft did a great job in the 90s).
I am reminded of something I believe Ludwig von Bertalanffy (father of General Systems Theory) about there being three levels of human thinking: words; diagrams; maths. I'm not sure I agree with the hierarchy he imposed, but I am sure that diagrams are a good way of thinking and of investigating.
I believe there is a sort of visual logic, too: diagrams which look the same are proposing analogies, although the analogies may be rather different to those we make verbally and formally. These sorts of analogies may matter a great deal to designers, however. In this sense, we MAY be able to provide a sort of visual logic that is specially helpful to designers. (I have written about this and could post the paper if it seemed of interest.)
So thank you for bringing this theme to the table: and while I agree with Jonas, I also note that his critique is "promising".
Ranulph
may we be able to provide a sort of visual logic?
Dear Ranulph,
I would appreciate very much if you post the paper you have written, I’m very interested in building a visual logic for designing and on keeping this discussion open and alive.
Thank you very much
Gaia