A short, grandiose theory of design

What I read

In this article, Doblin proposes several frameworks for thinking about various aspects of design, based on his experience in the design profession.

Doblin introduces the idea that design is both a process and an output, and begins by focusing on the process. A simple model of design process is the transition of an existing state that has “some fault that ought to be fixed” to “a more desirable state.” This occurs through both direct and indirect design. Direct design is akin to a craftsperson making a single object—the design is occurring during the making process. Indirect design is needed for more complex design projects; this occurs where the design is abstracted from the making, through sketches or diagrams. In indirect design, the working process becomes more complex; analysis, genesis, and synthesis occur between the problem and solution state.

Analysis is the process of identifying the relevant elements for designing something new. Genesis is the creation of new information—it is “coming into being.” Synthesis is described only by comparison; it is like a symphony performed by an expert as compared to a high school band.

Next, Doblin defines design as an output. This is separated into two qualities. The first is the juxtaposition of performance and appearance. Doblin describes that “the primary purpose of every product is to perform some task,” while appearance is used “to attract the customer.” A designer has an intended focus on these properties. In addition to performance and appearance, a design also falls into one of three levels of complexity: products, unisystems, and multisystems. A product is a “tangible object.” A unisystem is a set of products and people. A multisystem is a set of “competing unisystems”; the example is given of company brands competing against each other in a single industry.

Doblin then shows how the two elements (performance/appearance, and product/unisystem/multisystem) intersect into six types of design. He indicates the unique nature of all six types. Product performance is delivered by engineering. Product appearance is styling, either presented by a recognized expert or in a stylistic convention. Performance unisystems are described by example: airlines are collections of products focused on relationships and interactions. Appearance unisystems are also defined by example: the world’s fair, or Disneyland. Performance and appearance multisystems are differentiated by the need to set a “long-range corporate concept or position before anything can be designed.”

In the last part of the text, Doblin starts by briefly discussing types of designers; he indicates there are six types as specialists, and they are not interchangeable. He then describes that there is a need to match a method (or design approach) with a problem, noting several common problems he perceives. Design problems have gotten too complex for a design company to handle all types of projects, and when they try, they oversimplify the problems. Some companies treat large multisystem programs as unisystems, and fail to identify ways to compete in the broader context of the market. He also indicates that there is no strong methodology in place to handle these multisystem programs, and while some designers who are “exceptionally talented and unpressured” have made progress in these areas, there is no accepted approach; clients then get “a slick conventional recommendation that achieves only rough parity with competitors.”

Finally, he alludes to coming trends in design; he describes that “innocence, a lovely quality in a child, will be replaced by algorithm, an equally admirablequality in a professional.”

What I learned and what I think

I originally read this in 2008 or 2009, when I was investigating design synthesis and abductive reasoning. At that point, I was enamored with all things innovation. I remember learning about the different relationships between Jay Doblin and John Rheinfrank, Fitch, Kodak, and so-on; and the relationship between this form of thinking and systems design and service design.

Then, I found the paper formative, or at least I remember that; now, I find it pretty thin. It feels a little like the “designers aren’t very good at writing” phenomenon that I’ve seen over and over, where the ideas are sound but the presentation of them doesn’t do them justice.

The introduction of genesis into the process was and is new to me, and is something that didn’t seem to have staying power, as it’s dropped out of most design process conversations. The matrix of six types of design is probably the weakest part of this for me; while it represents what was probably happening in 1987 when this was written, there’s a pretty massive jump from a single product to a service or system, and then from a service or system to a competitive ecosystem. I wouldn’t take this literally, except he does: Doblin moves from Dieter Rams to NASA in one jump, and from NASA to a long-range competitive vision in the next.

The paper includes two diagrams that aren’t discussed or referenced at all (even in caption or footnote) which hold a bit more information, and would have added a little more usefulness to this. One indicates a level of detailed tasks that happen in analysis (list, matrix, and semilattice [what is this?]), genesis (schematic, mechanical drawing), and synthesis (models). The other describes a mix of methods, people, processes, and output that occur in the middle steps, and breaks the steps down into processes (information gathering, information structuring, planning, evaluating the plan, designing, evaluating the design, and implementing.)

I selected this to read because I need a break from creativity theory, and because I’m starting to feel that if definitions can be pulled out from some sort of universal view of creativity and used in the context of a profession (like design), it probably leads somewhere more valuable. I’m not sure that worked. It strikes me that process changed from meaning the steps in a process of making things (as shown here) to the weird IDEO/design thinking joke. I wonder if there are ways to pull that part of design history back into the current views of design. There’s a paper in there somewhere.