An Investigation of Design Methodology

Critical Analysis

In this text from 1967, the author describes the unique way designers solve problems. He emphasizes how analysis is subservient to synthesis, which he describes as “the activity of finding connections between the data made available by the analytical activity, making hypotheses and theories, and developing laws” (B-643). Analysis presupposes that there is a specific phenomenon to examine, while a designer pursuing synthesis “seeks purposeful and functional action through new and different combinations of phenomenon” (B-644).

Nadler’s focus is on engineering design, and he describes a ten-step process for design; however, he notes that the steps have emerged from designing management systems, and so the process is implicitly argued as one for considering non-tangible design outcomes as well. Curiously, the second step of the process recursively calls for design itself: “(2) Ideal system development. Several very high level and advanced systems (or products) are developed. One of them is selected to serve as a guide for developing a recommended solution. The selection involves a portion of scientific and analytic endeavor: the need roughly to predict the performance of the system. These ideal systems are actually designed-not just discussed in the abstract” (B-647). It’s unclear how these are designed; the purpose of them is to provoke a need for additional research as well as explorations of alternatives.

This second step could be better rationalized when viewed as the identification of an existing system, one to be redesigned rather than designed as a fresh starting point. This is representative of real practice, where it’s rare to create something from nothing, and it’s true in the context of strategy, where strategy always is evolving and operating on a continuum. This is the contribution of Nadler’s process, when viewed in terms of strategic change: that strategy, even when visioning, is a vision along a line of other activity and visions. In a sense, the starting point argued in this ten-step process is one that recognizes context of a problem, and if the intent is to design strategy, it requires understanding of the strategic inertia already in place.