DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
DESIGN SEMINAR
HTML https://seminardesign.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5--------------------------------------------------
design big problem
DIR By: minming_jason
Date: January 9, 2015, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"#$%&'(
#Post#: 8--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: thebiguy
Date: January 9, 2015, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
gooooooooooooooooood
#Post#: 12--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: minming_jason
Date: January 10, 2015, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: thebiguy link ---
>
> gooooooooooooooooood
>
--- End Quote ---
I definitely agree with your comment, but I think there are to
much O between G and D.
#Post#: 13--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: minming_jason
Date: January 10, 2015, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1)
In my view,based on this article, I tend to believe that, from
the perspective of client-designer, problem is in the
client-designer is not a real problem, but no more than a need
which client resort. According to Whiting, he states that. "the
critical flaw in this relationship between designer and client
is seeing the 'problem' presented to designer as problems" (p.
555). Hence the 'problem' is a kind of perceived problem "which
has bee pre-defined from a particular field or limited
viewpoint" (p. 555). The reaction designers will give is just a
solution to meet clients' needs. If we have to define it, this
'problem' is a kind of "one -sided view of the problem" (p.
555). Based on above all, I think in client-designer
relationship, a designer is a problem-solver to meet client's
need. The 'problem' is not a real problem, but a a need demand
from client.
2）
Real problem, according to my understanding, There are two
points which I got in this article which Whiting has referred
to.
First of all, real problem is a central to all views and needs
of four main player in terms of a commercial or retail
perspective(p. 553). This way to view a problem can lead to "a
well rounded approach". However if some other view are nor
considered or heavily influenced by the needs and views of the
client, this situation can not be seen as a real problem (p.
554). If so, it may be a perceived problem. According to this
description, "The accurate identification of the central key
issue or real problem is in on sense the most critical decision
to make at the outset and yet is already defined and decided by
others" (P. 555). Based on this description, I infer that a real
problem may not have been defined by any area and others while a
perceived problem is a problem that has been defined. It may be
a different and opposing concept in terms of perceived problems
and real problem.
Additionally. real problem is, to some extent, a kind of utopian
reality. You can not reach this goal completely, as it is
impossible and unrealistic. However, if you use this way to
think, you can approach this goal. This is a kind of "an art of
compromise" (p. 561). I think the author frequently do some
comparison between two factors which can not be improved at the
same time. When one object improved, another one will be
compromised. Like compromising between "quality" and "quantity"
, "long-term"and "short term", "fashion" and "lifespan", "war
with nature" and "work with nature", "profit" and
"sustainability" etc., it seems be a kind of equation that
Y=A+B. For example, Y="function"+ "form", it has to happen that
Y="function"↑+ "form"↓or Y="function"↓+
"form"↑, in another words, it can be "function"(MAX)+
"form"↓, but it is hard or unrealistic to get a point that
Y="function"(MAX)+"form"(MAX). This outcome or goal is, somehow,
a kind of utopian reality and "not only a necessary need, but a
highly desirable or magical need" (p. 560). Hence, In my view,
this Y is a kind of real problem, which is needed to try our
best to infinitely approach a this goal or base on a goal that
"Y=A↑+B↑". Hence it is truth that "Design... means
choosing the least unsatisfactory trade-offs between many
desirable but incompatible goals. "(p.561)."In this way not only
are real problems identified, but the impact of solutions can
also be mapped and better utilized for future sustainability"
(p.561). "the role of the designer is to move forward, to
continually improve lifestyle, but of course the real problem is
that this should not be at the expense of our planet as it is
presently"(p. 561).
However it is hard to define. This is a reason why we need
"research designer", and "potential solution as scientific
research exercises and used for hypothesis-gathering models for
direction towards the real problem" (p. 557). And there is also
a reason why "Liedtke goes on to suggest that the scientific
method, with its emphasis on cycles of hypothesis-generating and
testing and the acquisition of new information to continually
one up new possibilities" (p. 557).
Only by doing this, can we "understand both the negative and
positive impact of what they do prior to market release"
(p.556).It can be said that we are supposed to use scientific
method to meet the real need or "highly desirable need".
3）
Triumph, they develop a quality product is central to their real
problem and focus on how to do a continuous improvement. And at
the same time, "the real problem for Triumph Motorcycles is to
determine how motorcycles can be viable form of transport in the
future". Nevertheless, by contrast, "Harley Davidson has a focus
purely on their brand rather than the quality of their
product(s)" and pay more emphasis on superficial cosmetic in
every sense to maintain their brand image in a short-term effort
to maxims profit to shareholders.
Compared with Harley Davidson Motorcycle, I tend to agree with
Triumph's strategy as a real central problem. Their practise
actually responds to my deduction which I mentioned above that
Y=A+B. They, indeed, want to get more profit, but considering
the possibility that if they do so, they will have some negative
impact in the future, so they do give a way to sustainability to
compromise the extremely maximum profit. As a result, in my
view, I think they are working with a real problem. Whilst,
Harley-Davidson Motorcycle, purely focusing on one aspect of
Y=A+B, so it is turned into that they are nothing but an
unnecessary luxury. This is just because they did
not take the sustainability into account, so they, by no means,
dealing with a real problem, more like they are meeting the
current needs of the third party purely, which is just a
perceived problem, "a partial perspective of a perceived
problem, symptom or artificial need".
Based on Whiting's analysis, I tend to agree with him. Focusing
on Short-term profit, indeed, is a unhealthy developmental
trend. To meet this need, indeed, is a one-side view problem,
ignoring other perspectives and factors. Under this direction, a
well rounded approach definitely can not be led to, which means
many negative impact will appear in the future. Whist, when a
firm through scientific research, hypothesis-gathering models
model to analysis the possible negative and positive outcome,
they can get more possible solution and "arrive at the optimum
solution" finally.
#Post#: 14--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: minming_jason
Date: January 10, 2015, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1.Client and designer are two of the four commercial key
players. Designer is regarded as the main player, which has
limited influence and is playing a role as a reactive service
industry to create a commercially feasible outcome based on the
needs of client and user (p. 553). In terms of the
client-designer relationship, a "problem" and a "need" are quite
different. When a problem is defined in different meaning, the
need is definitely not the same. Firstly, when a "problem" has
already defined and existed by client, it is a perceived problem
that is presented to a designer based on the needs of a client
(p. 553). Through this way, designer is not a problem solver but
an industry service in a specific need. Therefore, if the client
need is purely based on profit, designer is acting a role to
solve this perceived problem by using design as a tool to solve
it. For example, Harley Davidson Motorcycles, using design to
focus on cosmetics and brand image, designer helps client to
make a maximal profit in short-term (p. 557). Designer can
really help client to achieve client's need as solving a
perceived problem, but it is not regarded as a real problem in
long-term perspective, in another word, it is not a long-term
and sustainable development. Therefore, in this situation, the
problem is not a real problem, but a need.
Secondly, defining real problem that is quite utopian but
necessary, it is the sustainable way to help client or a
commercial venture long-term and continuous development (p.
558). In the client-designer relationship, designer is no longer
merely to cater to client's need, but use a more scientific
method and research to be more proactive rather than a reactive
service industry, since for a designer it is critical to
identify what is a real problem as a problem solver in a
scientific sense (p. 557).
In client-designer relationship, a perceived problem as one-side
view of problem is to meet short-term need as profit, while a
real problem as a more ontological understanding of problem is
to find a central point to many desirable but incompatible goals
by choosing the least unsatisfactory trade-offs (p. 555).
Therefore, in the relationship of client and designer, problem
sometimes is not a problem, which can be regarded as a specific
need. In another word, perceived problems and real problems both
are necessary in different situation and period. The former
considers client need in short-term perspective and caters well,
the latter, however, put more emphasis on long-term development
and sustainability.
2. Although Whiting doesn't give a direct definition to the real
problem, he does give the direction that "a need to make an
accurate diagnosis of the central problem" (p. 555) is a real
problem. Hence, a real problem is a central to viewpoints and
needs of four main players including client, user, and designer
and sustain from a "commercial and retail perspective" (p. 555).
However, before people get to the real problem, they will meet
perceived problems and wicked problems. In terms of perceived
problems, designer "is presented with a perceived problem by a
third party that has been pre-defined from their particular
field or limited viewpoint" (p. 555) as a service provider,
while "the designer is not really solving a problem, but
servicing a specific need" (p. 555). This problem can be seen as
"one-sided view of the problem" that is opposed to "a more
ontological understanding of problem solving" that can be seen
as an "accurate identification of central key issue or real
problem" (p 555). This can be seen as on of the definitions of a
real problem.
Secondly, "the real problem is an effort to drive economic
model" (p. 556) from "a comprehensive range of perspectives
including sustainability and ecodesign" (p. 555). Taking an
example in the article as specific demonstration, Triumph
Motorcycles, its real problem is to "determine how motorcycles
can be a viable form of transport in the future" (p. 556). This
company puts more emphasis on long-term development instead of
cater to short-term profit as a perceived problem that designer
given by client. Even if profit as one of the perceived problem
is necessary to a commercial venture, designer should balance
long-term development and short-term profit well since long-term
development is a more sustainable way to make profit.
Thirdly, real problem can be translated as to balance
incompatible goals by choosing the least unsatisfactory
trade-offs, which is utopian but need to be found and sought (p.
561). Whiting states that the real need of real problem is to
meet the harmonious synthesis of function and form in a
continuous progress (p.558). Fashion and usability, as the
visual appeal, can be seen as an incompatible combination that
is concluded as aesthetics are "key factors or perspectives to
seek the real problem" (p. 560), which play significant role in
consumer decision-making. Moreover, nature and profit, function
and form, are incompatible goals as well. If people or designer
can seek to the balance and center point to them, which can be
regarded as the real problem that need to be solved.
Therefore, a real problem needs to meet the real need, which can
be generated through a real situation. When designers works with
the real need to "pathfinding and using more scientific
experimental approach" that can free them from "the needs of
client or even market" so as to meet "the real needs of the
situation or circumstance"(p. 558), which generate real problem.
In terms of wicked problem, it has no definitive or solution as
well as has many potential solutions. The potential solutions
are "scientific research exercises and used for
hypothesis-gathering models" (p. 557) that are real solutions
can be used to solve real problems. Hence, we have to free
designer from reactive service industry to be proactive of using
scientific solution as the central of design thinking to begin
solve real problems (p. 555).
3. (1) Triumph Motorcycles defined its central problem through
focusing on keeping making continuous improvements that are
related to every single aspect of their range of product and
deep understanding of their long-term past, present and future
customer as well. Hence, the central to the real problem is
their need that to make and develop a quality product
continually. As for Triumph Motorcycles, the real problem is to
determine and design how their motorcycles can be a viable form
of transport, which can also be seen as the development of a
strong brand and increasing profits.
Although Harley Davidson Motorcycles has similar aspects with
Triumph Motorcycles including product and re-born brand, their
central problems are quite different. The central problem of
Harley Davidson is putting emphasis on maintaining brand image
to make short-term effort to maximize profits rather than
product quality.
(2) From my perspective, I tend to agree with Triumph
Motorcycles' definition of central problem in a long-term
development to make broader picture, while Harley Davidson
Motorcycles in terms of short-term situation it really can make
maximal profit. As a commercial venture, a need to profit is
inevitable since without profit an operation cannot prosper and
develop. These two companies define their real problem in
different situation and period. Firstly, as to Triumph
Motorcycles, its real problem puts more emphasis on long-term
development that can be translated to a sustainable problem that
based on economic model. The real problem this venture made is
appropriate under today's circumstance that including
sustainability and ecodesign. Triumph Motorcycles found the
central and balance point of profit and sustain.
As for Harley Davidson Motorcycles, it really made excellent
profit during the start of 21st century. Hence, from the
viewpoint of short-term way, the real problem is right and
proper. However, Harley Davidson Motorcycles simply focuses on
short-term profit and totally neglects quality, which is not a
real problem in terms of long-term development. Moreover, in
long-term perspective, the problem it made can be considered as
a perceived problem instead of a real one since this company put
whole emphasis on profit to cater to client's need, at the same
time, throws function away. Therefore, its real problem is no
longer suitable.
A commercial venture that aims to exist and survive even faced
with financial meltdown, it has to take long-term development
into consideration in order to define real problem.
(3) I partially agree with Whiting's analysis. On one hand, the
analysis that he made of Triumph Motorcycles I agree with. In
terms of Triumph Motorcycles, author cites the statement of
Triumph Motorcycles' owner, this company keeps making little but
continuous progression every year to make continuous
improvements, to demonstrate that the company's definition of
real problem is correct. Hence, he analyzes that the central of
real problem is the need that the company focus on quality and
long-term profit and brand effect rather than merely emphasis on
short-term and maximal profit and superficial appearance like
Harley Davidson Motorcycles.
On the other hand, Harley Davidson, author tends to illustrate
that the real problem of it is not accurate, which I partially
don't agree. Harley Davidson Motorcycles in terms of short-term
situation it really can make maximal profit, and profit is
really necessary to a commercial venture. However, when we take
this real problem in long-term perspective, it is no longer
completely accurate. Although profits, aesthetic like cosmetic
and brand image are significant elements to a company, it is
necessary to take quality and function into consideration at the
same time. Therefore, the balance of harmonious synthesis of
function and form is extremely important to long-term
development and prosper of a company.
Moreover, by using Tony Fry's stating to demonstrate that design
is powerful. Triumph Motorcycles uses design research as a way
to understand both the negative and positive impact of products
before market release, which can help them to improve and
rectify their product to be more qualified and able to cater to
market. Compared with Triumph Motorcycles, Harley Davidson tends
to choose design to focus on cosmetics of the products. In a
short-term, it can really attracts consumers to buy it, but
later when they figure out that regardless of the appearance and
brand image, there's no function aspect of the product, they
just walk away. Therefore, how to use design is really critical
and is also a way to define a real problem.
#Post#: 15--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: jingyunding
Date: January 11, 2015, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In 2008 the V&A launched a series of ThinkTanks on future-facing
issues related to contemporary design and museum spaces. Leading
designers and thinkers from across the UK and further afield are
being brought together to share their points of view, helping
the V&A to showcase, support and critically engage with creative
design.
The ThinkTanks series will help define the future of how we
collect, display and engage with designers and design practice.
Topics in the series include the changing role of the designer,
the evolving museum environment and architecture, the future
object and engaging global audiences.
#Post#: 16--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: jingyunding
Date: January 11, 2015, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
the image
#Post#: 17--------------------------------------------------
Re: design big problem
DIR By: minming_jason
Date: January 11, 2015, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jingyunding link ---
>
> the image
>
--- End Quote ---
It is nice.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1