Motivation

This post is inspired by The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. I provide my intepretation of the core ideas presented in the article in this post.

Reasoning Patterns in Sciences

What (the thing) + How (Working Principle) = Result (Observed)

This equation will be used to describe the basic reasoning patterns in problem solving in the sciences.

What (the thing) + How (Working Principle) = ?

Deductive reasoning is used when the ‘What’ and the ‘How’ are known, and we can confidently predict the results.

Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Wikipedia

What (the thing) + ? = Result (Observed)

When we know the ‘What’ and we can observe its ‘Result’. We can use inductive reasoning to propose the ‘How’ (working principles governing the result) based on observations. This is the creative act of proposing a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested, measured by how well the result can be predicted.

Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is supported not with deductive certainty, but at best with some degree of probability. Wikipedia

Reasoning Patterns in Design

What (the thing) + How (Working Principle) = Value (Aspiration)

The act of design can be described with a slightly different equation shown above where instead of the result we have the value we aspire to achieve with the implementation of the design.

? + How (Working Principle) = Value (Aspiration)

In a conventional problem, abductive reasoning is employed where designers design a thing (‘What’) that operates with a known working principles and within certain scenarios to achieve the desired ‘Value’.

Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations. While inductive reasoning draws general conclusions that apply to many situations, abductive conclusions are confined to the particular observations in question. Wikipedia

? + ? = Value (Aspiration)

In an open complex problem both the ‘What’ and ‘How’ are unknown. The only known is the ‘Value’, what the design is supposed to achieve.

To resolve such an open and complex problem. Designers can work backwards from the only known aspect. By proposing different working principles that can facilitate the achievement of the ‘Value’. A designer is framing the design problem.

? + How (Working Principle)? = Value (Aspiration)
    <------------------------------------------->
                        Frame

With the framing, designer can then approach the problem conventionally. As a designer proposes new ‘What’ solutions, each solution can be tested by observing the ‘Value’ when the ‘What’ + ‘How’ is put together. If the ‘Value’ observed is desired, we can say the proposed solution is a successful solution.

What (the thing) + How (Working Principle) = Value (Aspiration)?

Applying the Framework

How can you apply this into your design process? I will use an example office design project to illustrate the application.

Conventional Office

In the design of a conventional office we assume a framing of the following:

How (Working Principle): People come to the office, have a designated seat/cubicle/room for them to carry out their work.
Value (Aspiration): People get their work done and delivers the result efficiently.

So you design a conventional office space as specified,

What (the thing) - office space with cubicles, office rooms and so on etc.

Post Covid Office

Post Covid, remote/hybrid offices are more common. We start to see a change in the ‘How’, the values still remain the same:

How (Working Principle): For a hybrid/remote office, no designated seats are required. People can work from home and only go to the office when necessary. Work can be done as long as you have access to a computer and internet.

In this case what needs to be design is no longer a conventional office. You will still need a space, but it might not be used for working. Rather the space might be for discussion, gatherings and presentations. This will totally change what needs to be designed.

What (the thing) - a space for gatherings and discussions. Hot desking for people who still wishes to come into office. Storage cabinets for workers as no one has any designated seats anymore.

Conclusion

The framework is able to describe the reasonings during design. By making the reasonings behind design explicit, it helps designers better understand their design process. I feel this demystify the design process. Thus allowing designers be more intentional about how they can improve their design skills, as they can more effectively communicate ther design process and receive feedback on how to improve it.

References

Dorst, K., 2011. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies 32, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Lawson, B., 2019. The Design Student’s Journey: Understanding How Designers Think. Routledge, Oxon, England.
Lawson, B., Dorst, K., 2009. Design Expertise. Routledge, Oxon, England.

Reasoning Patterns of Design