Episode 2 - Co-evolution

Speaker 1 After my pockets, I'm Peter. I am Mika. And this is the second DTM podcast. This is basically the second part of an interview with case tossed. First part was on reflective practice. And if you haven't yet, listen to that. I'd recommend going back and listen to that. Before you listen to this one. This is a quite a short interview that we did on a subject called coevolution, but it's distinct from reflective practice. So we thought we'd have it as a separate podcast. What we're going to have is a about ten minute interview with case tossed carrying on from before and then another discussion about the, some of the things that he talks about and some of the theories that he mentions. So let's hear the interview. Speaker 2 been talking about reflective, practice and about framing. The last thing I wanted to talk about is the idea of coevolution of problem and solution. So there is a very well known Journal enough in our field design studies. And one of the most downloaded papers in that journal has been for many years, the paper you wrote together with Nigel cross, Speaker 1 About creativity in the design process and the coevolution of problem and solution. What does that mean? Go Speaker 2 evolution of problem and solution. Yes, so the history of them in that paper came out of the work, I'd done studying these expert designers and I sort of realized that what they're doing is really interesting. Let's say, in the classic problem, solving way of looking at design, you start with the design brief and then you do all of your design work. And You get to a solution and he you're finished, but if you look into those design processes, yes, you start with the design brief and you come to a solution but you realize that it's not quite the right solution and you actually need to go back and look at the problem slightly differently because you've hit it in and then you go and create another solution and you too. So the problem and the solution are both moving in design. Which is different from what often happens in engineering and Engineering people tend to work in a fairly rational problem solving fairly linear way. But in design the problem and solution are both in played, it can both change. I think that's a key aspect of what design can bring to other fields at the moment because we're in a lot of fields. We are very, very stuck. We're not solving our problems very well at all. And you can say well that means that we need to hire designers to make more solutions or you can say well we need to actually hire designers to help us through the possibilities. That are are also look back at the problem and see how that shifts and changes. So that's a key aspect of what designers do and then sort of studying it in detail your realize that. So an idea is not a new solution and idea. Is actually a kind of bridge, a link between a certain view of the problem and a solution because the design is very propositional you go, okay? If this is the problem, then that could be a good solution that doesn't work. Well. Okay, let's change how I look at the problem a little bit. Hey, wait a minute, there's a solution there yet. And that's the the feeling of sort of the other Adrenaline Rush that you get, when you have an idea, is this kind of feeling of click something clicks together. Clicks together is actually a view of the problem and a possible solution and the bridge between those is what we call an idea. That's the fit between the problem and the solution. Yeah, Speaker 1 one of the things I always find different difficult when it comes to Speaker 2 coevolution. I Speaker 1 recognize that in all the, you know, design projects, I've done. And I've studied as well. Is that coevolution makes planning so difficult because we tend to Speaker 2 plan a project as well. First we do Speaker 1 Our plot Problem, exploration. And then we create a problem definition. And then we start. Doing a brainstorm and generating ideas and then we Speaker 2 compare whatever we've designed to problem definition. Speaker 1 How do we work with that as Speaker 2 designers? The problem that design has is that it sort of it has to try and fit somehow within a world that thinks in a very linear way. Yeah, about problem solving about what projects are and but design what design actually brings is this kind of non-linearity. Yes Lord. Processes. It's the coevolution bit. So that's one of the reasons that often design departments in big firms with in R&D. Departments are very closed off so you can't enter and officially that is because we have to protect the idea and all the great ideas that I develop their in reality. It's also to protect those designers from interference by people from the organization itself. Because if people come in in a phase where you are still working with your propositions going, if this, it will look very strange to them. Why don't you guys solve this problem? Well, we're actually in the design process, which is completely different. So, there's a lot of misunderstanding around design and that's why I design tends to shut itself off a little bit or organize workshops organized set of, it's very hard for design. To work out there in the world sometimes it needs to be a little bit of a bubble. There's a great example years ago where there was actually the design of the new Dutch passport and designers were working on this. And they're trying to find new technologies that would make it harder to fake passports, and they were basically just going around with some technical experiments and graphic experiments to make it. Be hard to fake. The problem was that, it took them awhile to get somewhere and then one of the testing institute's leaked that the test had failed of the new passport. Well, it was actually one of I don't know how many tests they were doing to get to a good solution that became questions in Parliament and the minister had to show up in Parliament and defend why the project for the new passport was taking so long blah blah and it basically Wiped out all of the design freedom for the designers. So they basically had to go with the thing they had then which was still in development and start just producing that, because there was not acceptable to keep experimenting. And that was not a very good design for the new passport. So then the whole project has failed, and you think that's what happens with these kind of things. Also, I was a designer at Volvo before. And in Volvo day realize that okay. You've got the design Department which makes all these wonderful sketches and stuff and then you've got the production, which is the big machine and whatever, the design Department comes with comes up with and the people in production, always start redesigning that a little bit to make it easier to produce, which upsets the designers, because they see the quality of their design go down or what they see as the quality of their design and the production people are go. Well, we can't help it. We need to make this damn thing. And what you've sketched for us is just not going to Work. So the idea was that, okay? Let's avoid that because that's a big interface as a lot of time that's being lost in that space, maybe you do lose design quality in that space. So let's try and repair that by having people from production. Also involved in the early design phases because they've got all of these knowledge about what works and what doesn't work in production and they can then inject that into these early design phases that didn't quite work. Because in these early design phase you're going on, it could Like this. It could be like that. There's over always several possibilities and maybe this is cool and maybe below. Le and the people from production were basically just sitting there with the arms crossed going. What should I make? They weren't interested in sort of exploring things or in several Solutions or whatever they were just what do I need to make? Tell me what I need to make and I can tell you whether it's good or not. So that's a huge cultural difference between those. And that's within the same firm people that have sort of called, collaborated for a long time, but they're still there in completely different cultures. So, the idea of having a design space or giving design space to play around with, it could be like this, it could be like that, it's actually is quite important and some firms are very good in creating that design space. Other firms are really really bad at it and that means is that whatever you can do as a designer is very, very limited. You don't have much Freedom, then mmm. So what you're explaining Speaker 1 is basically that the way that Speaker 2 designers work through this, coevolution of Speaker 1 problem and solution. This, this kind of learning process is quite different from how people in other professions Speaker 2 work and that that sometime clashes Speaker 1 and in your work. Also, in my work where we apply design in kind of Speaker 2 the, the social field and also working with public sector, and social Speaker 1 sector organizations. Governments who also, Tend to work in those, those linear ways. Do we also, how do we deal with that? Is this creation of design space? Speaker 2 The best strategy to deal with that? All the one hand? Yes. On the other hand? No, because when you create a bubble where design sits, yeah, you also create an interface. Yeah. And that interface can be so hard to get through that. Whatever you create in your bubble is just not going to happen. Yeah, so you the more Transparent, you can be the better. It is what I often find is that what I try to do with people from non design disciplines that are going to be taking the ideas forward or that we're going to working with later on. I do invite them into these design processes, but we have this rule here, which is basically hats off. So you're not there as the representative for marketing, your just here, as somebody with ideas. Because as designing framing coevolution, it's not strange, it's just that in a lot of professions people have more or less, they get scared of it. And they've organized it out and they pretend to be much more linear and much more rational than they actually are. So creating a space, which has a good design culture in a way that is approachable for other people is really the way to go because you do need them to be involved. You also need their expertise. I mean it As for what was right in trying to get those people involved. It's just if you just get them in as they are, that doesn't work. So you have to explain to them very carefully. What you do mean a lot of what you what do these eyeliners do in practice is about teaching people things. It's about explaining things, it's about explaining about different ways of looking, so make it as transparent as you can, because that's where you're not going to create that awful. Face that you otherwise have to get around. Yeah, that's very clear. Which means that design problems become more complex. And the question is, does the traditional design way of working actually work? For these very complex problems and I think that's a real thing. We have to ask ourselves because you see that often very complex problems are now given to the engineers and they solve it in a technical way. But I think all these technical, all these complex problems. All for all, Have a human side so you would wish for designed to be able to engage with them. But there seems to be a bit of a ceiling in our way of working about the complexity that we can actually deal with. It can actually achieve on the other hand. If you look at some of the biggest creative processes that are happening at the moment, they're in animation. Oh yeah. If you look at sort of making a feature-length animated film, that's thousands of people in a creative process and They've done a really, really good job in organizing, creativity on that scale. It's even bigger than what I've seen in Volvo in the, in the car industry. But then we haven't even looked at that because you always have an animation, it's a bit of entertainment Ball, but with technology development in there, there's so much that is happening and it turns out they have a very layered way of working, so they've got different layers of architecture. Because the last thing you want is somebody to just sit behind a screen and start clicking and making a funny? Or something? Yeah, that doesn't work. So that's very, very sophisticated things that have already been developed up in practice that we just don't know about another thing that I find is that let's comes mostly from interviewing Architects. Is that these famous Architects, owners of these famous baked architecture, firms Norman Foster, Santiago calatrava, Frank gehry, those kind of people they have a very interesting role in those firms that that we haven't quite understood yet because the last thing that they should do is get directly involved in projects because when the big boss says something everybody else stops thinking, that's not a good plan. So they need to empower their people to do a kind of projects that fit within what the firm is doing and it's not management as you would learn an MBA, it is actually, it is about the content but they are kind of curators of knowledge in the firm and it turns out that got really Nursing practices to make that happen and they go across many different things, they go up to, let's say, what kind of pictures do you have on the wall in your design firm? Well those are basically the projects that you still want to think about because they signify something very important but they're also challenging. Why do you do exhibitions? Why do you do competitions? That's because that gives you a certain freedom to actually think more broadly. Lee than you could normally do within your projects, and they're very much made for the people of the firm themselves to keep challenging yourself. To keep developing up new ways of working new ways of thinking. So, that's a whole different level of Designing, to me, there's people are still designing but it's just they're designing the environment, in which their type of design can happen. And often what you see in design schools, the first thing you tell students is design happens in projects. And purchase go from a brief to a solution. What is layers to that? There's other layers of Designing, that sit around that. And if you look at design firms that I know in Holland. And in other places, there's some firms that are that I would say are quite weak because they are just projects, people running from Project to project and making money and having fun at cetera, Etc. But it doesn't seem to be a buildup of knowledge on top of that. That doesn't seem to be a sophistication of Of way of working Etc. So, they just keep doing what they do within their projects. They miss. What to me is a whole other level of design. That is also very, very important and that in the end gives a firm its profile. It gives its longevity and it gives its also intellectually interesting thing. Well, still a lot of work to do for us. Yep, thank you so much guys. That was very informative. Thank you. You're welcome. Speaker 1 Okay. So that was the part of the interview that I did with case, which was on coevolution of problem and solution. I think this is a really, really interesting and important topic for designers to understand effects. I think it's so important that I developed a course A couple of years ago on design for public servants and one of the subjects in the course I ended up calling coevolution of Golem and solution. Okay. Which the / public servants found a little bit difficult to understand. But I think one of the things that I find really interesting about this theory is that when we talk about experiments in design and prototypes, we often tend to think of these prototypes, as just testing a certain solution, so we can improve that solution. Well, if we use this Serie of coevolution of problem and solution, we see that actually this experiment. Or this prototype is not so much about the solution, but really about the connected problem or the way we frame the problem. So, often through these experiments, we learn a lot about the problem not just about the solution. Yeah, I think, in the interview case called the case says design is propositional. Yes. And I think what he means by that is that what designers are very good at is exploring problems through suggesting Solutions. Yes. So you suggested Ellucian in order to find out what you think the problem is. And I think that he went on to talk there about, but that's a very distinctive way of working and that doesn't fit easily with other people's ways of working, particularly what he described as linear ways of work in organizations to can organization is like to know when things are going to happen, they know, they want to know what the process is. That's what a design thinking brings its that the connection between a solution to the problem. I think a lot of people in other disciplines Yeah. Think that there are problems that need Solutions and I think there's a phrase which is and, you know, an engineer comes to a designer. And sort of says, well we can build any car that you want but we don't know which car to build. Yeah. Yeah. That's what the designer Rings. Is that idea that you can work on a problem, but in a kind of solution, Focus way the other. The other thing I quite liked in in in cases interview was this idea of what value designers bring. Yeah. It's sort of clear that other people think they bring this value but they don't really We understand how they get that value on how to invest in that value or even, you know, where to put the designs. So, there's an element of, you know, if an organization values design, it has to protect the design. Yes. And that creating that space or that bubble. That case, or this. Yeah. I think that's a real challenge. I think is to kind of actually account for what, designing is yes to other people. Yeah, I mean, it's quite paradoxical because on the one hand we saying like, oh, nobody understands us You know, and then on the other hand we saying, well, you know, we need to be protected. So, you know, just for those in this, you know what case cause design space. But then we essentially creating a bubble that only creates more distance between designers and other profession. So you know the question is, do we really need like a separate space because then the framing is almost like okay we have to teach people. That's literally what gay saying. We have to teach people what design is but I think it's also a bit problematic. Ematic because we're just thinking about our no one understands us. We just have to teach others. We're not really thinking about others at all. I think you know we should also maybe ask engine is or any other kind of professional working with how do you work and you know, how is what you are doing, different from what we are doing and what would you like to learn from us? So create more of a conversation rather than saying you know I just need to teach you how I am thinking. I think one of the things that When you when you think about acquiring experience of what expertise brings is that you you just have a natural repertoire of solutions to drawn so and you begin to recognize certain types of problem and I think that it's not just designers that do this but as people get more experienced in their day-to-day life forever professions that they choose they begin to recognize. Okay. This is a particular problem solution, maybe this. Yeah. This this is the right solution to go with so they naturally become as you acquire experience. You Yet become a bit more solution-focused and there was a very famous study actually, by someone called Jane Dark who I wrote this paper called the primary generator and she did a study of five or ten Architects experienced Architects and she took them to an architectural site and got them to talk about you know, how they would tackle the problem and and she sort of said very quickly they sort of see. Okay, the lights over here, the elevation is over here, they quickly mapped the problem landscape. And then they come up with a solution. Shouldn't he solution, you know, we should put this over here and that over here and that forms the basis of their solution. So they're very quickly thinking of a solution in order to tackle the problem. And yeah I'd like to add to that because I know Jane dark. So paper and the idea of the primary generator indeed. That's one of the drivers. Is this kind of this expertise like designers? They use these primary generators or some people call it principles based on all the the project they've done before they have this expertise, but they They also found that they use research. So you know in those studies people don't talk about all the research that designers nowadays, do they really do go out and explore and use their ethnography or context, mapping of whatever a techniques they use, they use solution driven design. So the provocative prototype, some of them, they use kind of what I call reflection Tools in their design process to really focus of all kinds of Maps that they use in their process. So does this kind of different ways in a design process that kind of different types of inputs that designers can use in that problem, framing process. And I think the expertise and the use of solutions are really quite quite key. Things are quite different from what other people might use in their practice. Yeah, no I think it was good. I think again that the interview covered a lot of things that will be familiar to a lot of people about, you know, struggling I'm with problems and thinking about Solutions and how they fit one with one another. Yeah. But as with the first podcast and as with the podcast to come, we write some show notes which give you the. All the references. The things that we talked about that we think might be of further interest to you. So if you go and have a look, if you want to follow up any of the ideas that we've been talking about, have a look at the show notes. Okay, that's that's it for the second podcast. Thanks very much Mica. Thanks Speedos. Very interesting.