Designing a design model: Merging the C-K Theory and Frame Creation
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE
Hessel Dikkers
10669655
MASTER INFORMATION STUDIES
Information Systems
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
05-07-2019
1
stSupervisor
Em˝
oke Tak´
acs
Faculty of Science, UvA
2
ndSupervisor
Toon Abcouwer
Faculty of Science, UvA
Designing a design model: Merging the C-K Theory and Frame Creation
Hessel Dikkers
Em˝
oke Tak´
acs
Toon Abcouwer
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Science
Abstract
This exploratory research investigates the merging of two creativity techniques into a new design model. The increasing technological, societal and economic complexity of today’s world has led many companies into a state of crisis. Companies that are confronted with such a crisis, often turn to design to conquer the issues at hand. De-sign techniques are used to structure and improve creativity. One of the well-renounced techniques in the field of design is Design thinking. Literature shows that Design Think-ing lacks theoretical background and structure for its users. Therefore, in this paper, a new design framework is proposed combining two design techniques, the C-K theory and Frame Creation. The C-K theory is a well-structured design technique focused on ideation. Frame creation, on the other hand, is a technique mainly concentrated at re-formulating the problem situation. The model proposed in this research combines steps of Frame Creation with the C-K theory. The design techniques each focus on a different element of design and therefore complement each other. The model proposed in this research is evaluated in the form of a workshop. During the workshop, participants were guided through the steps of the model and worked on a real-life case study. Although this research is of exploratory nature, the workshop showed that participants were able to come up with creative solutions to the case study. Moreover, a foundation for future research has been created.
Keywords— Design thinking, C-K theory, Frame Creation
1
Introduction
Companies and organizations whether commercial or non-commercial face challenges like globaliza-tion and digitizaglobaliza-tion. These challenges can result in organizaglobaliza-tional problems that trigger a crisis within a company. Companies and organizations in a crisis are confronted with issues that require a different type of thinking. Nevertheless, one of the most basic instincts of many companies and organizations is to solve the problem faced with, by using methods that proved to work in the past. Study shows that companies can no longer presume that the success of the past will ensure viable solutions in the future (Fukuyama, 2011). When it becomes apparent that these so-called old methods don’t perform anymore, companies often choose to innovate. Innovations in these type of situations are more of a necessity than choice. Companies feel the need to broaden their repertoire of strategies to deal with open and dynamic problems, and design is one of the fields they turn to when looking for these new strategies (Stacey and Griffin, 2005).
One of the most prominent techniques in the field of design is called Design Thinking, which is used for both radical and incremental innovation. Design Thinking is not one singular method, the field consists of many different applications. Most of the Design Thinking models use similar concepts and steps in order to achieve innovation. A widely accepted model, is the Design Thinking model proposed by Tim Brown. The model consists of an inspiration phase, an ideation phase and finally an implementation phase. The literature on Design Thinking shows a lot of criticism. Most of the Design Thinking movement has a focus on the ability to generate solutions for a given
problem (Dorst, 2015). Moreover, the techniques can be ill-described and lack theoretic and academic background.
This paper proposes a combination of Framework Creation and the C-K Theory. The proposed model uses design phases in a precise and structured form. Frame creation explores themes and frames in order to find a broader set of problems. These newly formulated problem situations are fruitful avenues for the ideation step in the model. The C-K theory is a partly formalized creative approach where innovative ideas are encouraged. By combining both theories the knowledge collected from the Frame Creation process can be seen as the knowledge gathered from the environment. This knowledge is stored in the knowledge library, as described in the C-K Theory. Both design techniques complement each other. Frame Creation concentrates on the problem situation whereas the C-K theory is a clearly organized theory that is solely focused on generating new solutions.
The main goal of this paper is to investigate whether a model combining both design techniques is able to aid creative thinking. However, testing the creativity of a design process has its limitations. There can be no guarantee that a creative event will occur during a design process (Dorst and Cross, 2001). Furthermore, creative thinking is not something that can be turned on by using one framework. Creativity depends on several factors such as an open environment and creative individuals (Serrat, 2017). In this paper, the author doesn’t claim that the proposed model can be used for radical innovation in any domain or environment. The proposed model should aid creative thinking and address the deficiencies of other design techniques.
In order to evaluate the model, the following research question has to be answered:
How does a newly formalized design model combining the C-K theory and Frame Creation add value to the field of design?
The research question will be answered based on an evaluation in the form of a workshop. During the workshop, the participants will be guided through the steps of the model based on a case study. The goal of this workshop is to generate new innovative solutions with the help of the model proposed in this paper. Nevertheless, the data from the workshop will not solely be used to investigate whether the model sparks creativity. The workshop will also test the weaknesses and strengths of the model, and the templates created for the workshop. This research is of exploratory nature, and therefore no final conclusions can be drawn on the presented results. The findings will aid future research on the subject and provide a basis for the usage of the proposed model.
2
Literature Background
2.1
Adaptive Cycle
Before addressing the innovation process and the underlying design techniques used, it is essential to understand why companies innovate. Nowadays due to the rise of the digitized world, innovations can change the landscape in an instance. Technological innovation could be described as introducing a new device or method for application to commercial or practical objectives (Schiling, 2008). Com-panies need to keep up with the dynamic world of technological innovation. A company’s ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances has become increasingly vital for its survival. Innovation can be classified as either incremental or radical. Incremental innovation enables companies to maintain competitive within market segments that are already mature. Radical innovations enable companies to conquer newly emerged markets or change the landscape of a market (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Radical innovation is of huge importance in building a competitive advantage and can sig-nificantly contribute to a firms growth and profitability (Veryzer Jr, 1998). Especially in the field of IT, there is a certain level of uncertainty which leads to growing tension between traditional use of technology and a strategy based on renewing and innovation (Abcouwer et al., 2015).
Uncertainty and unpredictability cause companies to go through cycles of organisational be-haviour. These dynamic and complex cycles show resemblance with the way complex ecosystems behave. Ecosystems and organizations both go through adaptive cycles which can be seen as a mul-tilayered complex adaptive system (CAS). A model known for describing organisational behaviour
based on adaptive cycles is called the adaptive cycle of resilience. The model describes four quadrants of organisational behaviour:
1. The first quadrant of the adaptive cycle is called equilibrium. During an equilibrium a com-pany pursuits efficiency and improvement on an already established market. The mindset of top-level management during the equilibrium phase is to solve problems with techniques that proved to work in the past. The equilibrium phase can be described as a period of certainty, where management has confidence in the present and the past.
2. The second quadrant in the adaptive cycle is called crisis. In the crisis quadrant, an organi-zation is aware that change is a necessity. The tools used in the past to solve problems do no longer suffice. There is a level of uncertainty, the company is unsure about the present and the future.
3. In the third quadrant, new combinations, the company is still unsure what direction it is actually heading. However, during a search for new combinations the company came up with several combinations on which the organization can build further upon. In this quadrant, the company is exploring what combinations to choose in order to innovate.
4. The last quadrant describes the entrepreneurship phase. During this phase, an organization knows what it wants, but is still unsure what the end product will be. A company is fully focused on standardizing the new way of business and there is a level of confidence about the future.
Figure 1: Adaptive Cycle of Resilience
Figure 1 shows the Adaptive Cycle of Resilience. The axes of the model are a representation of what a company wants and what a company can do. Want is a presentation of what strategy or direction a company wants to take in order to achieve its goals. Can on the other hand describes the ability of a company to actually converge into the chosen direction. Innovation can be a necessity because of existing working methods and insights that are no longer sufficient within a changing environment or market (Abcouwer et al., 2015). The quadrants crisis and new combinations are most associated with the field of design. The crisis quadrant is described as a complex and chaotic state where top-level management has to make room for experiments and an environment that accepts
failure (Snowden and Boone, 2007). While this state is often described as one where a company has no clear direction, it is also a state that provides opportunity. These new opportunities are based on the fact that companies and organizations must create new approaches in order to move forward. A companies’ ability to reach new combinations often requires different thinking, this is where design techniques can become helpful.
2.2
New type of problems
In the previous section, it was mentioned that companies that find themselves in the equilibrium quadrant can be confronted with challenges and problems that eventually results in a crisis within the company. Literature shows several definitions and characteristics of these type problems. According to Rittel, these problems are called wicked problems. Wicked problems are “a class of system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are clients and decision makers with many conflicting values, and where the ramifications of the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Rittel and Webber, 1974). Another definition of these problems is by making the distinction between ill-defined and well-defined problems. Well-defined problems are clear and precise, problems that humans face on a daily basis. Ill-defined problems, on the other hand, are problems that are non-routine and ill-structured (Jonassen, 1997). Research indicates that around 90% of the problems accounted for within an organization are ill-defined problems (Lyles and Mitroff, 1980). Dorst describes the characteristics of these problems as open, complex, dynamic and networked. An open problem is a problem where there is no clear system border. A complex problem is a problem consisting of several components and elements. These connections may themselves be interdependent, creating a system where one small local decision can lead to lots of repercussions and chain effects in other seemingly unrelated areas (Dorst, 2015). A dynamic problem describes a problem that changes over time. Both the environment and the elements can change rapidly, this is mostly associated with the rise of the digitized world. A problem is networked if several problems can influence each other. Different domains and organizations can influence the state of the problem a company is facing. It is crucial to acknowledge that these new type of problems require a different approach. An opportunity-driven approach such as several design techniques can help to address these type of problems (Conklin, 2001).
2.3
Design Thinking
Design thinking is the process of applying design principles to a wider set of problems by multidis-ciplinary teams (Brown and Katz, 2011). As stated before there are a variety of models that can be classified as Design Thinking models. One of the more recognized models is the Design Thinking model proposed by Tim Brown. Brown is the CEO of IDEO, an established Design firm. The model consists of 3 phases: inspiration, ideation and implementation. It is described as a human-centred design technique with a focus on the user. Over the years Design Thinking showed practical value in some domains. Nevertheless, Design Thinking has faced critique which can be found back in the literature regarding the subject. An actual definition of Design Thinking differs per method and can be hard to grasp. The notions of Design Thinking approaches are rather broad and subject to various interpretations (Hatchuel, Appendix B). It is hard to grasp what design is and what thinking is, let alone Design Thinking (Rylander, 2009). Some Design Thinkers claim that Design Thinking is an ethnographic study. Yet, the techniques used show no to little reflection of social science studies. Design Thinking fails to reference social, theoretical and political context into the design, which is argued to be essential to the design process (Kimbell, 2011). There has been some critique stating that Design Thinking is a combination of several creativity techniques that attempt to make design accessible for managers, often without any theoretical framework (Johansson-Sk¨oldberg et al., 2013). These techniques are combined into a creativity tool kit. However, these creativity tool kits are often filled with vague and abstract concepts which are useless for designers (Almendra and Christiaans, 2012). Furthermore, the lack of academic and theoretic background has led to reluctance among scholars to research Design Thinking (Jahnke, 2013). Although there is a clear lack of theoretical and academic background research on Design Thinking, it has shown to be of practical value. Yet,
Design Thinking is hard to translate from the domain of Design to other domains (Dorst, 2015). This can be partly attributed to the lack of structure and the ill-defined steps in Design Thinking models.
2.4
Frame Creation
“The design thinking movement, which focuses on the ability of designers to generate solutions, might be leading us astray. If we want to learn from expert designers, we need to follow their example and shift our attention to the study of problem-related knowledge, skills, and strategies.”
(Dorst, 2015)
Frame Creation is a theory proposed by Kees Dorst in his book ”Frame innovation, 2015”. Dorst reasons that “design professions stand for quite specific and deliberate ways of reasoning, and that design practices can interfere with organisations on different levels, requiring the application of different kinds, levels and layers of design practice” (Dorst, 2011). Dorst further elaborates that specific elements of Design Thinking could really benefit organizations in their development process. However, in order to use those elements, there needs to be a clear articulation of these design practices. One of these proposed elements is investigating themes and frames in the broader problem situation, which is used in the Frame Creation method. Frame Creation attempts to create a shift in the perception of a designer. The notion of frames, however, was first mentioned by Donald Sch¨on. Sch¨on came up with the idea of reflection-in-action, which stated that in a reflective conversation with the situation, designers work by naming the relevant factors in the situation, framing a problem, making moves toward a solution, and evaluating those moves (Sch¨on, 1938). Another definition of framing was later mentioned by Hekkert & van Dijk, stating that the way problems are presented come from a frame that the problem owner has about the problem (Hekkert and Van Dijk, 2011).
Frame Creation deliberately attempts to shift away from the initial perception of the problem. By creating a novel problem situation, designers will be able to solve this new problem situation in the broader context of the problem (Dorst, 2015). The richer and more complex the context, the more chance that fruitful avenues will be created to move forward towards possible solutions. When establishing these newly found themes in the context of one’s organization, the new themes can be framed and can actually become part of that organisation’s field. Frame creation ideally would lead to organizations having the ability to design these themes and create new frames that can be used for business purposes. The importance of exploring the problem space is often stretched in Design Thinking, however, an exact framework as described by Dorst is not implemented in the phases of Design Thinking. The Frame Creation process consists of nine steps, which are described below:
1. Archaeology: The first step in the Frame Creation process is the archaeology phase. In this phase, a designer delves deeper into the problem space. The designer has to look into the past, what stakeholders were involved and what actions were taken. Furthermore, research should be looking into what the potential paths of action were.
2. Paradox: In the paradox phase, the designer establishes why the problem is so hard to solve. Can we find the characteristics open, dynamic, networked and complex? Moreover, the paradox is established, what are the conflicting and opposing forces in the problem situation. A paradox describes why it is so hard to move on from the problem. After this phase, we store the paradox which enables the designer to broaden the problem situation.
3. Context: The context of the problem describes the stakeholders directly influencing or im-pacted by the problem. Besides these stakeholders, there is also an exploration of the stake-holders that are necessary in order to solve the problem.
4. Field: The field phase describes a list of potential stakeholders. This list consists of potential stakeholders and anyone who is connected to the problem or solution space in some way or point in time. When mapping these players, the focus is on their interests, values and influence
on the problem. By mapping the field, designers enable themselves to create deeper patterns and values for the stakeholders. Writing down all the users and stakeholders, enables the discovery of new stakeholders.
5. Themes: The next phase is an analysis of the underlying phenomenons that can be estab-lished based on the stakeholders and the potential stakeholders. A theme describes human values such as needs, a motivation or an experience. Themes that arise between stakeholders and potential stakeholders is a field that these players have in common.
6. Frames: In the themes phase, several themes arose from the investigation of players and potential players. These themes are the basis for new frames, a so-called new problem situation that enables designers to converge to different solutions. Frames describe one or several themes and therefore capture underlying phenomena of the problem situation. This phase is the so-called ideation phase. Besides altering the problem definition, it is also the phase where designers come up with new ideas. Dorst describes the creation of frames as a creative leap. 7. Futures: After several frames are created, the frames are readjusted based on how realistic
and viable the frames are. The designer has several frames, which enables the designer to not get too attached to one single frame.
8. Transformation: Some frames might be great ideas, however, if the implementation requires drastic transformations for the problem owner or the environment, the implementation is impossible. In this phase, frames are removed that are not feasible.
9. Integration: The last phase of the model investigates whether the frames fit in the context of the whole environment. This phase ends with a business plan on how to integrate the frames into the organization.
2.5
C-K Theory
The C-K theory is a theory in the field of design that focuses on formalizing a creative design process. The model has a mathematical structured approach to design. Hatchuel first introduced the C-K theory in 2003 and attempted to solve two issues in the domain of design. Firstly, the C-K theory should offer a more precise definition of what design is. Secondly, the theory should combine structure and creative thinking in such a manner that it does not obstruct creative innovations (Hatchuel and Weil, 2003). Hatchuel argued that the combination of structure and creativity had not been introduced in the domain of design before. Figure 2.5 shows the C-K theory in a visualized model. The C-K theory makes use of a concept space C and a knowledge space K. In the concept space, all propositions are undecidable whereas in the knowledge space all propositions have a logical meaning. The concept space is the area where the creative artist can use new ideas to expand on existing knowledge. The knowledge space K is a library of existing knowledge. This existing knowledge is provided by the engineer, who is an expert in the field and has knowledge of the problem situation at hand. The model focuses on developing an initial concept into a decidable proposition in the K space. The first concept is the first idea that springs to mind. The first concept is further expanded, and based on creative thoughts and knowledge from the K space, one or more final concepts are proposed. A final concept is a decidable proposition which can be seen as the solution to a problem.
Within the model several actions can be taken by both the artist and the knowledge engineer, this is called the dual expansion of propositions in the C and the K-space. These dual expansions are performed through the formal operators K>C (Disjunction), C>C (Concept Exploration), C>K (Conjunction) and K>K (Knowledge Exploration). A disjunction occurs when the initial concept is proposed by using knowledge from the K-space. Exploration of concepts is performed by par-titioning concepts and exploring possible avenues. Knowledge exploration happens when concept exploration requires new knowledge to investigate possibilities. Lastly, a conjunction is the result of a final concept that is accepted as new knowledge. The C-K theory differs from most design techniques in the sense that the process of a designer is logically structured. This logical structure enables designers to evaluate the design process. The expansions in the concept space C lead to new
ideas, whereas expansions in the knowledge space K lead to validity for the ideas which are useful for implementation (Hatchuel and Weil, 2009).
Figure 2: C-K model
2.5.1 C-K-E Theory
In 2004, Kazakci and Tsoukias suggested the introduction of a new space the environment E. The thought of introducing the environment comes from a study performed by Gero, which states that the notion of situatedness is an important factor in design (Gero and Kannengiesser, 2004). Kazakci and Tsoukias implemented this notion in the C-K theory with the application of an E space. The E space takes into account the environment a designer is situated in (Kazakci and Tsoukias, 2004). Introducing the environment is based on the principle of situatedness, a standpoint in cognitive sciences. Situatedness illustrates that an agent cannot operate or think independently of its environment (Clancey, 1997). External representations and the interpretations of a designer are essential for the design process (Suwa et al., 2000). Designers and the representations of design are external entities to the object to be designed (Choulier et al., 2010). These external entities should be represented, allowing the designer to acquire knowledge in the first place. Furthermore, the experiences and the surroundings of a designer shape the designer’s thoughts, thus cannot be taken for granted.
The suggestions made by Kazakci and Tsoukias were based on the development of electronic design assistants. However, the environment E was seen by the author as an interesting notion that should be investigated further. Therefore, the author decided to interview both Hatchuel of the C-K Theory and Kazakci of the C-K-E theory. During an e-mail interview with A. Hatchuel of the C-K theory (see Appendix B), Hatchuel neglected the need for an E space, saying that the paper by Kazakci was based on design assistants. “Logically there is no value added to say that space K is made of several different sources”. However, later on, Hatchuel stated “Indeed if you use C-K theory, the theory itself will force you to describe heterogeneous pockets or sources of K”. These heterogeneous sources of K are the environment that forms the knowledge represented in the K-space. Hatchuel did not neglect the fact that a designer indeed operates in an environment, but saw no added value in the extension of the C-K theory.
The following e-mail interview with Kazakci gave some interesting insights (Appendix A). During this e-mail exchange, Kazakci stated that this paper was not solely written for the purpose of design assistants and that the environment should be included independently of the usage of the C-K theory. “The environment E is necessary in order to explore, discover and connect concepts”. Hatchuel’s comment that the environment E was introduced only for the use of electronic design assistants was refuted by Kazakci. Although Kazakci and Hatchuel have a different view on the inclusion of the environment E, both agree on its existence. As shown by the literature a designer’s environment can shape the decisions made during the design process. Modelling and taking into account the environment is essential in order to structure a design process.
2.6
Literature overview
This section shortly addresses all the main findings from the literature research. Companies and organizations innovate when confronted with problems that lead them into a crisis. These type of problems are classified as open, dynamic, complex and networked. Due to the rise of the digitized world, problems that have these characteristics are becoming more common. When these problems lead a company into a crisis, innovation is a necessity. A crisis is described as a complex and chaotic state, however, it is also a state that provides an opportunity for innovation. Design is a field that can help to structure and find solutions for these ill-defined problems. One of the more recognized models in the field of design is called Design Thinking. The literature research on Design Thinking showed that the Design Thinking models often lack theoretical background. Furthermore, these models are focused on the ability to converge towards solutions.
Two design techniques that address deficiencies of Design Thinking are Frame Creation and the C-K theory. Frame Creation is a theory that focuses on the ability to shift the designers’ attention to the problem space, which enables designers to solve problems in the broader context. The C-K theory is a formalized design theory that structures the design process. The two theories complement each other in the sense that Frame Creation is problem-oriented whereas the C-K theory solely focuses on the ideation process of design. During interviews with two French designers, the introduction of the environment E in the C-K theory was discussed. The introduction of E was found to be beneficial to the C-K theory since it enables designers to explore, discover and connect concepts.
3
The model
Based on the literature on the C-K theory and the interviews conducted it became apparent that the inclusion of the environment E in the C-K theory would benefit designers. Still, there are question marks regarding the C-K theory. For instance, how does one start with the first concept? Does the first concept impact the design process, and if so are there guidelines to the selection of the first concept? In the e-mail conversation, Hatchuel stated that “the answer is in the definition of the concept: a concept is a desirable unknown and an undecidable proposition in K0. You may be wrong about what you desire...yet even if its the case you can evolve during the design process”. The fact that your concept evolves during the design process might be true in some cases, it is hard to infer that this is always the case. Design is not always good design, and therefore it is hard to argue that concepts always will evolve during the design process (Dorst, 2015). A study by Le Masson and Magnussen showed an interesting application on the C-K theory. The research interpreted the most interesting and surprising ideas of users as first concepts. Subsequently, these concepts were expanded with the help of experts (Le Masson and Magnusson, 2002). This application on the C-K theory was the inspiration for the notion that first concepts can be formed in advance of the ideation process. Design is not solely a process of ideation, design requires both developing and refining the formulation of the problem and the creation of ideas (Dorst and Cross, 2001).
Section 2.4 showed that Frame Creation focuses on the problem situation and problem definition in advance of the actual ideation. Although the process of design is not linear, the formulation of the problem is the first step in the model. Combining both theories would increase the usability of the design techniques. The C-K theory starts the process of ideation at the start of the model. There is
Figure 3: New Model
no exploration of the environment and the problem situation. Frame Creation clearly researches the problem and looks at the context and the field of a problem. The usage of the C-K Theory would benefit Frame Creation since the ideation phase of the model is called a creative leap. The C-K theory structures this ideation in a beneficial manner for designers. These complementary characteristics of both models led to the in this research proposed model. Figure 3 shows a visualization of the model. The model uses the first six steps of the Frame Creation theory in order to investigate the environment the designer is operating in. These steps are archaeology, paradox, context, field, themes and frames. The newly phrased problem situation in the phase frames is used as input for the root concepts, which are presented in the model as squares. The background research performed in the earlier steps of the frame creation process (archaeology, field & context) is used as knowledge and stored in the K-space.
The environment is now taken into account and the research of the environment is clearly structured. Furthermore, the first concepts that will be written down in the Concept space C, now come from clear research in the environment E. Instead of evolving concepts during the process, which arguably still happens, the newly added knowledge makes the creation of new concepts less of a creative leap. The newly formed problem definitions offer fruitful avenues for the generation of new concepts. These concepts can be expanded and researched as in the C-K theory so that eventually concepts might lead to new innovative solutions. In the last step, the concepts will be checked based on feasibility and viability to ensure that the most appropriate concepts will lead to new knowledge. As stated before the model makes use of the first six steps of the frame creation model and an adjusted C-K-E model. A more detailed description of the proposed model can be found in Appendix C.
4
Experimental phase
In order to evaluate the model presented in section 3, a workshop was organized. This section elaborates on the method used to evaluate the model. The first part of this section describes the composition of the group of participants. The second part describes the templates and the experimental procedure of the workshop.
4.1
Participants
In total 18 individuals participated in the workshop. The participants were split up in groups of three or four. In total there were five groups participating in the workshop. Each group consisted of individuals with a different background, with jobs ranging from consultant, military police to Design Thinker. The case used for this workshop was one regarding loneliness among the elderly. The participants received a document with the case study a week in advance of the actual workshop. Due to time constraints, the workshop took around three hours.
4.2
Procedure
The location of the workshop was in a closed room at the University of Amsterdam. As an intro-duction to the workshop, a brief presentation regarding design was given. The participants were introduced to the C-K theory and Frame Creation. The presentation was given by the author, who besides presenting also functioned as the instructor during the workshop. Subsequently, the actual model was presented to the participants and shortly discussed to clarify the purpose of the workshop. Afterwards, the case study was briefly discussed. The workshop consisted of several participants working out steps according to the presented model. Due to the limited time available for the workshop, the model had to be simplified. The archaeology phase of the model normally requires research which takes a couple of months. Due to time constraints, this step was presented in the form of a case study. The case study contained information on the subject and the participants received this one week in advance of the workshop. The paradox phase was adjusted as a result of the type of problem described in the case study. The usage of the paradox phase depends on the type of problem. There are two types of problem cases that can be used for an innovation workshop: ”old” problems and ”opportunity” problems. Old problems require an approach where the designer looks into the actions taken in the past. These past actions describe the problem and can help to formulate the paradox. Opportunity problems, on the other hand, demand a different method. Defining the paradox is complicated for this type of problem, since there are no clear past actions, or the problem scope is too substantial. Opportunity problems are often big societal issues where it is hard to establish what actions were taken in the past. In the case of opportunity problems, the paradox phase is often too complicated and can, therefore, be left out. The case presented in the workshop contained an opportunity problem and therefore the paradox phase was excluded from the workshop.
The actual workshop started with Context & Field steps, which were visualized by the use of two templates. The first template was a stakeholder map. The participants were instructed to write down at least 8 stakeholders. The second template was one were the participants had to fill in the stakeholders used for the previous exercise and write down the motivations and experiences of these stakeholders related to the problem. The next step of the workshop was the creation of themes. For this exercise, the participants used the values written down on the previous template. These values had to be clustered on a blank canvas. The clustered values formed groups and each group had to be given a name, which represented a theme. A theme describes underlying phenomena among stakeholders based on their values. The following step was the reformulation of the problem definition and ideation. The reformulation of the problem definition was performed based on the themes found in the previous phase. The ideation, creating new solutions, was a phase where the participants had to find solutions for the newly created problem situations. The last step of the workshop was the step of feasibility and viability. The participants were instructed to rank their solutions based on feasibility and viability. The participants had to write a research plan for their
ideal solution. The templates used for the workshop can be found in Appendix D. This section also includes a template for the Paradox phase, which was not used for this workshop.
The creation of these templates was done by the author with the help of the book: Designing the Common Good by Kees Dorst. The templates are used as data for the results. Voice recorders were used to monitor the conversations within one of the groups. At the end of the workshop, the groups had to present their best idea and a small discussion took place to gather the opinions of the participants. The conversation of one group, the presentation of the best solutions and the final discussion are all transcribed and used as data for this research.
5
Results
This section is divided into three subsections. The first section will discuss the templates filled in by the participants, and the difference in templates among groups. The second section describes the results from the data gathered via audio recording. In the last section, the author who functioned as the instructor of the workshop will elaborate on his findings.
5.1
Data from templates
During the active part of the workshop, the participants were instructed to fill in the templates. Each step of the workshop has a corresponding template. The data of the templates can be found in Appendix E. In total there were five groups participating in the workshop, resulting in data of five templates per step.
1. Stakeholders: The first template, the stakeholder map, was filled in with relative ease. All groups managed to fill in the minimum of four stakeholders inside the circle and four stakeholders outside the circle. Quality wise there was a difference among groups, still, all groups were able to fill in stakeholders related to the problem. There was one group that had difficulty reaching the minimum amount of stakeholders. The data of the templates show that the groups consisting of four group members were able to write down more stakeholders, giving them more options in the following step.
2. Values stakeholders: For the following step, a template regarding values of the stakeholders was given to the participants. On the template, the participants had to write down a minimum of three so-called ”human” values per stakeholder, for at least six stakeholders. These human values correspond to the experiences and values of the stakeholders involved. All groups managed to fill in the values related to their stakeholders of choice. However, there were again differences among the group. Especially the groups with 4 group members were able to fill in more values and more stakeholders. Moreover, the larger groups managed to write down values of better quality in comparison to the smaller groups.
3. Themes: For the next step, the participants were instructed to cluster values. The values written down in the previous phase were clustered on a blank canvas. All groups were able to cluster values, and give a name to each cluster. The groups with the larger amount of stake-holders and values were able to make more clusters or clusters of more substance. The more values a cluster contains, the more relationships between stakeholders the cluster describes. All groups managed to do this step without any trouble.
4. Ideation: The creation of new solutions was performed with the help of the ideation template. This template consists of two steps: the reformulation of the problem definition and the ideation. The reformulation of the problem was done by rephrasing the problem in the boxes on top of the template. The ideation, the new solutions, are written down in the circles on the rest of the template. One group wrote down the themes discovered from the last phase as the new problem definition. Another group was able to write down only one new problem definition. Two groups were able to formulate three new problem definitions. The group that had one new problem definition was able to come up with only one solution during the
ideation. Whereas groups with more problem definitions were able to come up with several new solutions.
5. Feasibility & Viability: The template for this step has two sections. On the upper part of the template, participants were instructed to rate their solutions from best to worst. On the bottom part of the template, participants had to write down a research plan for their best idea. Since all groups filled in at most three solutions on the previous template, this exercise was relatively simple for the groups. All groups were able to rank their ideas. However, two groups weren’t able to write down the research plan for the feasibility and viability.
Overall, all templates were filled in fairly well by the groups. The ideation template stood out since participants had the most trouble with this step. There was a clear distinction between the smaller and bigger groups quantity wise. The bigger groups were eventually able to come up with more solutions in the ideation step.
5.2
Audio data
During the workshop, a voice recorder was present to record several conversations. In total there are three transcripts which can be found as appendices: the conversations of group 1, the presentation of the best solution per group and the final discussion. The transcript of the conversation of group 1 can be found in appendix F. Although most of the conversation could be transcribed, there some parts missing due to the background noise. Group 1 was a group consisting of four group members, and overall the group performed well. The group had trouble with the ideation phase, in the transcript it can be found that there was some confusion in the group during this step. One of the group members stated that it was difficult for him to understand what the meaning of this step and template was. Especially formulating a new problem definition was something the group struggled with. Nevertheless, this group was able to come up with several solutions and write a feasibility and viability research plan. Among the participants, there was a clear division of tasks. One of the participants was the discussion leader, whereas another participant wrote down all the ideas. The other two participants were coming up with new ideas. The clear structure of the group led to good results.
The transcript regarding the best solutions can be found in appendix G. Each group had to present their best idea, and briefly describe what themes caused this idea. Some of the ideas presented were solutions from other domains applied to the case study. Group one, for instance, took an existing idea and adjusted it in such a way that the solution was suitable for the elderly. There were some radically new ideas which showed that creative thinking took place during the workshop.
At the end of the workshop, the participants were asked to reflect on the workshop as a whole. The transcript of this discussion can be found in appendix H. One of the remarks was about the limited time and the many steps that had to be taken. Although the model was somewhat simplified due to the restricted amount of time, the participants still had to do several steps in order to evaluate the model. For some participants, this felt a bit like a pressure cooker at times. Furthermore, there were also individuals stating that they would have preferred to receive more additional information in advance, allowing them to prepare more thoroughly for the case study. Another point of critique was the ideation step. According to some participants, the explanation and the template used for this step were too vague. Frame creation is a method to change the problem definition and this part should be enlarged according to one of the participants. The theory behind the model was for some people too much to comprehend in three hours, yet for others, it was fairly easy to grasp the steps of the model. Overall the workshop was perceived well by most participants. The participants pointed out that the reformulation of the problem definition was new to them. One of the participants with a Design Thinking background would have liked to see more of the C-K theory.
5.3
Perspective of instructor
During the workshop, the author had the role of the instructor. The instructor gave a presentation and guided the participants through all the steps of the workshop. At the end of the meeting, the instructor guided the final discussion. In this section, the perspective of the author regarding the workshop is described.
The archaeology & Paradox phase was performed in front of the class. The instructor noticed that the participants had trouble understanding why these phases were not performed by themselves. After some further explanation, the participants were able to grasp the meaning of these phases, although there was still confusion concerning the paradox phase. The next step was the start of the active part of the workshop. The participants were instructed to fill in the first template, the stakeholder map. During this step, there weren’t many questions and most groups seemed to grasp the meaning of the exercise. There was, however, a clear distinction between the groups with three participants and the groups with four participants. The larger groups had less effort with coming up with a larger amount of stakeholders. The following template was the template with the values of the stakeholders. Some participants had issues with the term ”human values”, yet after some examples, all the groups were able to perform this exercise. The next step, the themes template, was the exercise that was performed with the most ease. Participants were able to cluster the values and name the clusters. The following step, the ideation template, was the ideation phase of the workshop. The groups struggled with both the problem reformulation and the creation of new solutions. After the instructor gave instructions regarding this step, there were still lots of questions. In the end, after answering some of the questions most groups were able to perform the exercise. There was one group that was not able to perform the exercise and used the themes for the problem reformulation. The last template regarding the feasibility and viability was clear for all participants.
In the end, the workshop was perceived good by the participants, although the ideation phase raised a lot of questions. After explaining the ideation template there were several questions and participants were somewhat confused. Both the template and the explanation were too abstract for the participants. The participants simply weren’t able to grasp the idea behind the template. During the discussion at the end, this issue was repeated by several participants The template and the explanation of the ideation phase have to be refined if a new workshop were to be organized.
6
Discussion
Based on the results presented in section 5, several implications can be made. First of all the templates and the steps taken during the workshop. The stakeholder template was perceived well by the participants, the groups were able to perform this step with ease. The next phase regarding the values of the participants was more difficult for the groups. Eventually all groups were able to perform the step successfully, however, there were participants that had trouble understanding this step of the model. This step would benefit from a more detailed description of the template. The template itself functioned appropriately. The following step, clustering and finding themes, was a step that all of the participants were able to perform without any struggle. The subsequent phase, the step of ideation, was the step leading to confusion among the participants. Both the explanation of the instructor and the template were unclear for most of the participants. The instructor clearly noticed the confusion among the participants and the number of questions regarding this step. The last phase, feasibility & viability, was done by the participants without much trouble, and the template was found easy to comprehend. During the discussion, it was again several times pointed out that the only step participants really struggled with was the ideation template. In the end, the only template that should be modified is the ideation template. Based on the feedback given during the workshop, a new template has been created which can be found in appendix I. The template is now divided into two templates. One of the comments of participants was that the reformulation of the problem should be the focus of the template since this is essential to frame creation. Therefore, the first of the two new templates focuses on the reformulation of the problem. The themes are written down on this template. This was done because the participants struggled to see the connection between the problem definitions and themes. Subsequently, the themes are
connected to the newly constructed problem situations. The second template is used solely for the purpose of ideation. On top, the participants have to fill in the new problem definition. In the middle of the template, the participants have to fill in the concepts that should be investigated. And on the bottom of the template the final concept, the end solution. It should be noted that the paradox template was not tested in the workshop and should be evaluated before being used in a future workshop.
During the discussion, it became apparent that some of the participants thought the amount of work to be done in such a short time span was too much. Therefore it is suggested that for future workshops, the duration of the workshop should be at least four hours. Another point of attention is that groups consisting of at least four members performed better in comparison to the smaller groups The groups with more team members were able to come up with both quantitatively and qualitatively better solutions for the case. This finding insinuates that the minimum amount of participants in one group should be four. Looking at the overall performance of the model, it is apparent that during the workshop participants were able to come up with several creative solutions. The majority of the groups were able to generate at least two innovative ideas. Some participants noticed that they were able to generate solutions that they wouldn’t have thought of before the workshop. Due to the exploratory nature of the research, there can be no decisive conclusion made concerning the creativity the model invokes. Nevertheless, this study showed that the model does have some form of influence on creativity. Furthermore, this study made a foundation regarding the newly proposed model. A literature background, a theoretical framework, clear and precise steps were created that can be used for further research on the topic. The results and the templates created, enable researchers to organize workshops in the future.
7
Limitations & Future work
Although the research created a foundation for future work on the model, the research does have some limitations. First of all, the steps taken in the workshop did not take into account all the steps described earlier in this paper. The archaeology step was completed in advance of the workshop. Typically, when organizing an innovation workshop, the participants should perform several months of background research. Moreover, for future research on the model, experts on the subject of the case study should be used as participants of a workshop. For this workshop, participants with different backgrounds were used to test the model on creativity. The knowledge experts bring to the workshop would probably lead to solutions of higher substance. Furthermore, their domain knowledge increases the chance of feasible and viable solutions.
Another step excluded from the workshop was the paradox phase. This choice was based on the fact that the subject of the case study used for the workshop did not allow the inclusion of the paradox phase. As stated before, the case study contained an ”opportunity problem”, which complicates the paradox phase significantly. The reduced usage of the C-K theory in the workshop was another limitation. The choice of simplifying the model was due to the limited amount of time and the complexity of the C-K theory. Most of the participants had no to little prior experience with design. The model was thus simplified so that all participants were able to comprehend the steps of the workshop. Nevertheless, most of the steps of the model were performed in the workshop which led to clear results. In a future workshop, all steps should be tested and worked out by participants. The foundation for such a workshop is created in this paper and should aid future researchers for the organization of such a workshop. An obvious limitation of this research is the fact that only one workshop was conducted to evaluate the model. In order to evaluate the model and the impact the model has on creativity, a wider range of case studies should be performed. Furthermore, future research should test how well the model transfers creativity to different domains. Often different domains require dissimilar approaches of design. To test this, workshops can be organized with domain-specific cases and experts in those domains.
8
Conclusion
This research introduced a new design model constructed of two existing design techniques. The literature on Design Thinking showed that a clear and precise model with a corresponding theoretical background is lacking. The lack of theoretical background has resulted in little academic research into Design Thinking. Therefore in this study, a new model is proposed based on the shortcomings of Design Thinking. The following research question was formulated: How does a newly formalized design model combining the C-K theory and Frame Creation add value to the field of design? Literature research was performed on the subject, the strengths and weaknesses of both models were taken into account and a new model was proposed. In order to answer the research question, a workshop was organized. In total 18 individuals participated in this workshop, where they were instructed to use the model on a real-life case. For each step in the workshop, a template was created, visualizing the steps of the model. The participants were split up into five groups and had to fill in all the templates.
The research question can be answered based on the outcome of the workshop. All groups were able to come up with innovative solutions for the problem addressed in the case study. The proposed model focuses on both the problem space and the solution space. The clear structure of the model combined with the theoretical background helped the participants of the workshop to go through the steps. The design model introduced in this paper adds value in the field of design due to its clear and precise structure. Moreover, it has a clear link to theory and academic studies on the field of design.
Even though the workshop showed that the model helped individuals to come up with creative solutions, this research is of exploratory nature. No conclusive remarks can be given whether the model helps to innovate radically. The workshop showed room for improvement, several recommen-dations were made based on the feedback and data gathered. This research has some limitations which should be taken into account. Further research should focus on evaluating the model based on more workshops. Moreover, the model should be tested in different domains, as design doesn’t always translate from one domain to the other. Although no conclusive remarks regarding the creativity of the model can be given, this research created a foundation for future work.
References
Abcouwer, T., Smit, B., et al. (2015). Business it alignment: A never-ending story. Technical report, Working paper UvA. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Almendra, R. and Christiaans, H. (2012). Design thinking- the emperor’s new suit. Design Principles and Practices - an International Journal, Annual Review - volume 6:97–108.
Brown, T. and Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of product innovation management, 28(3):381–383.
Choulier, D., Coatanea, E., and Forest, J. (2010). The engineering design ck theory: contributions and limits. In ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Com-puters and Information in Engineering Conference, pages 83–92. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge university press.
Conklin, J. (2001). Wicked problems and social complexity. CogNexus Institute, page 11. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of design thinkingand its application. Design studies, 32(6):521–532. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design studies, 22(5):425–437.
Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gero, J. S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design studies, 25(4):373–391.
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to ck theory. In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2009). Ck design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in engi-neering design, 19(4):181.
Hekkert, P. and Van Dijk, M. (2011). ViP-Vision in design: A guidebook for innovators. BIS publishers.
Jahnke, M. (2013). Meaning in the Making: Introducing a hermeneutic perspective on the contribu-tion of design practice to innovacontribu-tion.
Johansson-Sk¨oldberg, U., Woodilla, J., and C¸ etinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and innovation management, 22(2):121–146.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and iii-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational technology research and development, 45(1):65–94. Kazakci, A. and Tsoukias, A. (2004). Extending the ck design theory to provide theoretical
back-ground for personal design assistants. In DS 32: Proceedings of DESIGN 2004, the 8th Interna-tional Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Le Masson, P. and Magnusson, P. (2002). Towards an understanding of user contribution to the de-sign of mobile telecommunication services. In 9th International Product Development Conference. Lyles, M. A. and Mitroff, I. I. (1980). Organizational problem formulation: An empirical study.
Administrative Science Quarterly, pages 102–119.
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. M. (1974). Wicked problems. Man-made Futures, 26(1):272–280. Rylander, A. (2009). Design thinking as knowledge work: Epistemological foundations and practical
implications. Design Management Journal, 4(1):7–19.
Schiling, M. A. (2008). Strategic management of technological innovation. Sch¨on, D. (1938). The reflective practitioner. New York, 1083.
Serrat, O. (2017). Harnessing creativity and innovation in the workplace. In Knowledge Solutions, pages 903–910. Springer.
Snowden, D. J. and Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard business review, 85(11):68.
Stacey, R. D. and Griffin, D. (2005). A complexity perspective on researching organizations: Taking experience seriously. Taylor & Francis.
Suwa, M., Gero, J., and Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and s-invention of design re-quirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design studies, 21(6):539–567.
Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4):8–29.
Veryzer Jr, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management: AN INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 15(4):304–321.
A
Interview Kazakci
E-mail conversation with Dr. Kazakci
Question 1: In your paper you state the following: The C-K design theory must take into ac-count the situated nature of the designer...it is impossible to neglect the environment without making impossible the acquisition of any knowledge: where do come from the first knowledge items? This paper is about design assistants, however, do you think an environment should be included in the C-K theory anyway?
Yes
Follow-up question 1: Because the above-named reasons are also applicable to situations with-out the use of design tools.
True, hence, yes
Question 2. Can the environment of a designer be seen as a problem space?
No. Problem spaces do not exist in nature, it’s the designer’s hallmark to build them. Question 3: Does one first needs to explore the environment in order to start thinking about concepts to explore and build upon?
That is mostly true, the E does not hand you concepts or problems, you need to explore, discover pieces, and connect them.
Question 4: If you include the environment in the C-K theory, how does it help to improve the first concept (the first item)?
Without E, there is no K, without K, there is no C or C0 thus, you need E to build meaningful C0s.
Question 5: Have you done any follow-up research regarding the C-K-E theory?
All my subsequent research is related to these ideas, I have just not expressed sev-eral fundamental ideas using the same terminology.
B
Interview Hatchuel
Question 1: What is your view on the Design Thinking theory proposed by for example Tim Brown and Stanford University? Since this completely differs from the C-K Theory and claims to work for anybody no matter how creative a person is.
From our point of view there is no ”design thinking” theory . Design thinking is an approach that has some practical value, however all papers on design thinking recognize that the notions of this approach are rather broad and subject to various interpretations. At least it is clear that design thinking authors never claim any scien-tific project. This is their perfect right and it should be respected. C-K theory has a well defined scientific purpose : explain the specific and unique form of reasoning that makes design distinguishable from any other form of reasoning . This is an ambitious project but at this stage we have obtained a large number of findings and attracted interest from researchers from several disciplines. Hence, you may rather ask how C-K theory analyzes ”design thinking” ? The exercise is quite easy. ”Emphatize” means broadly creating some beliefs,emotions and statements that can been seen as a first K0 ; ”Define” and ”ideate” are unclear and confusing notions : ”define” is self contradic-tory as it is impossible to define an object that does not exist yet ! ”ideate” means anything : a proposition, an image, a symbol, ...It becomes completely clear to say that these words are appropriate namings for ” Concepts”, concepts expansion, partition etc...”Prototype and test” seem clear but any design specialists knows that there are logical traps in this expression.. Finally, how one can prove that design thinking is ”creative” ? it is impossible ! whereas it is totally provable that C-K theory is a model of creative reasoning is . It is a easily deducible from the axioms and conditions of the theory. Not mentioning creative impacts proved in industrial contexts. Design thinking as a practical tool can have good impacts when used by talented people, it cannot be used as a scientific theory that can be mobilized to build scientific investigations and experimentations like C-K theory that is now used by creativity researchers.
Question 2: In the paper ”A new approach of innovative design” you wrote the following: To offer a clear and precise definition of design: this definition should be independent of any domain and professional tradition. It should give to design theory the same level of rigour and modelling that we find in decision theory or programming theory. This means that design theory should have robust theoretical roots linked to well-recognized issues in logic.
Why is it important that we have theoretical roots linked to well-recognized issues in logic? Does this improve creativity?
The answer is definitely yes ! For proofs in industry, try google research ! We can even claim that C-K theory is the first theory that gives a model of creative reasoning that can be taught to students even in small schools (there is a video in YouTube about experiments in small classes , where 10-11 years children are introduced to simplified C-K principles , it is in french but images are easy to understand ). You may also reflect on why Mathematics is one of the most ...creative disciplines! The deep reason for that is the following : it is easier to go out the box when you are accurate enough to understand what are your own boxes !! In C-K theory, the more you describe what you know in K the more you can form concepts that precisely are not in K ! Another way to think about it is : the more interpretations of one word are known to you, the more you can build a new interpretations that avoids old ones ...See also our chapter in recent collective book on creativity at Springer edited by Darbellay and Lubart. Question 3: Some other Design Theories such as Frame Creation (By K. Dorst) state that in order to even think about solutions we first have to come up with what the problem is. Especially in the more digitized world problems become more complex, open and dynamic. A clear formulation of the
problem is important for such design theories. In order to do so, a designer should first explore the problem space before he/she can think about exploring solutions. Although the C-K theory neither has a problem nor solutions space, does it take into account the way we should frame problems before we can start with ideas about what the solution is? Although the C-K theory neither has a problem nor solutions space, does it take into account the way we should frame problems before we can start with ideas about what the solution is?
Again, the more you study C-K theory the more you will depart from a language that is two poorly metaphorical. I highly appreciate Dorst and he has written nice things on my paper on Simon ( it is about why design is not problem solving that you may read in journal of management and governance 2003). However, the notion of ”frame” is too broad and has no operational value. C-K theory has developed a special language because it was the only way to reach universality and scientific value. And the good surprise is that we can teach C-K theory to designers (in Art schools) or to engineers , with such background they can begin to understand each other and both use C-K theory in different contexts.
Question 4: I read the article of Kazakci and Tsoukias and it stated the following: It is impos-sible to neglect the environment without making imposimpos-sible the acquisition of any knowledge: where do come from the first knowledge items? If we assume they had been obtained as a result of a first design process, we also have to admit that a semantic dis junction had been operated to initiate the process. But, the terms of the first concept thus formulated must be known in the knowledge space! However, nothing is known at that time, since the knowledge space K does not exist yet! How to progress then? We see that there is no way to advance but to introduce a third space (the environment) that will allow the acquisition of the first knowledge items.
Although this paper is one concerning design aiding tools it did raise the question about the envi-ronment within the C-K theory. Why is the envienvi-ronment not included in the C-K model?
You have given the answer you ask for ! the paper is about design assistants which distinguish between K that is already stored and sources of K (called the environment). But logically there is no value added to say that space K is made of several different sources : C-Ki-E is still C-K* if K is seen as ”Ki and E”. Indeed if you use C-K theory , the theory itself will force you to describe heterogeneous pockets or sources of K. Question 5: How do you ensure that you extract the right information from the environment? (There is a lot of ways to obtain information and a lot of information) And how do you ensure that your K-space contains the right information?
You should ask yourself what type of theory could answer such questions ? If you were sure you would live in a deterministic world and in such world there is no design! Sorry design theory is not a way to reduce unknowns but to take advantage of it. Question 6:How do you know that your first concept in the concept space is one that is going to lead to something, or is it just trial and error?
The answer is in the definition of the ”concept” : a concept is a desirable unknown and an undecidable proposition in K0. You may be wrong about what you desire...yet even if its the case you can evolve during the design process. ”Trial and error” is again some sort of ”proverbial” formula without any scientific clarity and meaning. You can try and learn when you look for a nice flower in the forest, but you do not design the flower ! So try to understand what it means to try and learn when you design you will find a completely specific process (please read my paper on Simon that clarifies why design is not dynamic problem solving).
C
Steps proposed model
1. Archaeology: The first step of the model is the archaeology phase. In this phase, a de-signer delves deeper into the problem situation. The dede-signer has to look into the past, what stakeholders were involved and what actions were taken. Furthermore, research should be conducted into what the potential paths of action were. This phase can be described as a thorough investigation into the past.
2. Paradox: In the paradox phase, the designer establishes why the problem is so hard to solve. Can we find the characteristics open, dynamic, networked and complex? The paradox is established, based on the conflicting and opposing forces in the problem situation. A paradox describes why it is so hard to move on from the problem. After this phase, we store the paradox which enables shifting the perception towards other problem situations.
3. Context: The context of the problem describes the stakeholders directly influenced or im-pacted by the problem. Besides these stakeholders, there is also an exploration of the stake-holders that are necessary in order to solve the problem.
4. Field: The field phase describes a list of potential stakeholders. This list consists of potential stakeholders and anyone who is connected to the problem or solution space in some way or point in time. When mapping all of these players we will focus on their interests, their values and their influence on the problem. By writing down all the users and stakeholders, new stakeholders may arise.
5. Themes: The next phase is an analysis of the underlying phenomenons that can be estab-lished based on the stakeholders and the potential stakeholders. A theme describes human values such as a need, a motivation or an experience. A themes that arises between stake-holders and potential stakestake-holders is a field that these players have in common.
6. Ideation: This step starts with the formulation of new problem situations based on the themes from the previous step. The steps archaeology, context and field will be added to the knowledge library K. From here the designer can start thinking about the concepts (in the C-space) that correlate with the added knowledge in the K-space. Several concepts arise that require more in-depth research in order to become a concept that can lead to a potential solution. This research is done by comparing by either the knowledge that is in the K-space or through a further investigation in the environment.
7. Feasibility & Viability: In this step, the concepts are tested on feasibility and viability. By testing these characteristics of a concept we seek assurance that the concepts we came up with can be used in the environment they have to be adopted in. A concept may be great, however, if the concept requires too many adjustments in the environment it is very unlikely that it can be adopted. Therefore we rank solutions based on their feasibility and viability, and produce a business plan for the implementation of the ”ideal” solution.
D
Templates
E
Data of templates
Group 1 Stakeholders: Who is involved? Healthy elderly Partner Elderly Kids Family Friends Neighborhood Care provider Living environment Who could be involved? SportHobby
Volunteer organizations Employer
Employment agency
Companies (Health sector, education, IT) Church
Education
Online grocery service Political party Social Media Mobility sector Community services Local government Values of stakeholders:
Kids: Knowing how it used to be, staying in touch, family archaeology. Living environment: Unity, participation, helping each other.
Care provider: Wanting to take care, Commercial, Flexible workforce, applying appropriate care. Elderly: Health, relationships, meeting other elderly.
Social Media: Reaching more people, sharing stories, digital worldwide friendships.
Online grocery service: Satisfied when you can mean something for people, money, network. Companies: Knowledge and experience, capacity, earning money.
Mobility sector: As employer for elderly, earning money, income/employment opportunities. Themes:
Social inner circle Health
Labor Finance Outer circle
