Advertisement

Design as an Unstructured Problem: New Methods to Help Reduce Uncertainty—A Practitioner Perspective

  • Bruce GarveyEmail author
  • Peter Childs
Chapter

Abstract

At inception, much design activity is unstructured and as such is faced with an array of uncertainties. If not addressed early enough these uncertainties can gestate into undesirable outcomes which the design team will find difficult to redress at later stages in project—especially, where the project is constrained by resources (time, money, people). In order to militate against such circumstances occurring the design team has to understand both the nature of the problem facing it and the nature of the uncertainties contained within the problem space. These issues impact not just at the creative, early stage of the project but across the design spectrum. The chapter begins by identifying the main elements within this spectrum; creativity, innovation and the oft-neglected execution phase. Two core conditions that designers have to come to terms within this process, are then explored: how can problems be categorized and which of these variants is the most problematical? The second condition addresses the nature of uncertainty when applied to the more intractable end of the problem scale. In response to design situations governed by these two conditions, methods that support decision making and mitigate risk are introduced under the broad category of Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs). Within the gamut of methods available the authors then explore the particular value of two methods which operate best when faced with qualitative judgment rather that observed metrics; morphological analysis to help generate and identify viable possibilities followed by Multi-criteria Decision Analysis which can help position these possibilities in a hierarchy. Finally, an argument is posited that the design process or system has to take into account an understanding of the business model for the designed item as this can impact success or failure at the execution phase when the end product is introduced to the end user. Early consideration of the business model (in all its variety) can redress some of the inherent uncertainties during the overall design process.

Keywords

Business Model Problem Space Execution Phase Wicked Problem Unstructured Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). The art and science of mess management. Interfaces.Google Scholar
  2. Ayres, R. U. (1969). Technological forecasting and lon-range planning. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc..Google Scholar
  3. Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin‐off companies. Journal of Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555 (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  5. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Annual Review of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(12), 1881–1885 (OUP. Pergamon).Google Scholar
  6. Garvey, B., & Childs, P. N. (2013). Applying problem structuring methods to the design process for safety helmets. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Helmet Safety and Performance Safety Performance and Design, February 2013, London UK.Google Scholar
  7. Garvey, B., & Childs, P. N. (2013). Applying problem structuring methods to the design process for safety helmets. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Helmet Performance and Design, February 2013, London UK.Google Scholar
  8. Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2010). The other side of innovation: Solving the execution challenge. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grint, K. (1997). Fuzzy management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. John, H. (2007). Vanston P40 section 3 in “technology forecasting—an aid to effective technology management” Technology Futures Inc..Google Scholar
  11. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (2002). The Delphi method—techniques and applications. ISBN 0-201-04294-0.Google Scholar
  13. Majaro, S. (1988). The creative gap. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Nelson, R. R. (1974). Intellectualizing about the Moon-Ghetto metaphor. Policy Sciences 5, 375–414 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing).Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, Harold G., & Stolterman, Erik. (2012). The design way (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. O’Brien, F. (2010a). Supporting strategy: survey of UK OR/MS practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 900–920.Google Scholar
  17. O’Brien, F. (2010). Supporting strategy: Survey of UK OR/MS practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 900–920.Google Scholar
  18. Pidd, M. (1996). Tools for thinking (p. 40). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Posner, P. L. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting & Finance.Google Scholar
  21. Ritchey, T. (2005). Wicked problems—structuring social messes with morphological analysis. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  22. Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked problems and social messes. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company Inc.).Google Scholar
  24. Rosenhead, J. (1996). What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces, 26(6), 117–131 (INFORMS).Google Scholar
  25. Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (Eds). (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Russell, L., & Ackoff (1974) Redesigning the future. Ne wYork: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  27. Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, D. K., & Alexander, R. C. (1999). Fumbling the future—how xerox invented then ignored the first personal computer. Lincoln Nebraska: Excel.Google Scholar
  29. Stenfors, S., Tanner, L., Seppala, T., & Haapalinna, I. (2007). Executive views concerning decision support tools. European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 929–938.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strategy Foresight Partnership LLPLondonUK
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations