Design Age - Part 2

In Part 1 of this series we identified one of the core issues with design in today's consumer-centric client as one that is complex, if not wicked.(1) Additionally that there is likely a high probability of failure for the first solutions and there is no right or wrong solution, hence there is a high probability of unintended consequences unforeseen by anyone.

In this installment of the series we are going to compare the differences in problem solution outcomes between traditional single mind approach vs. a collaborative mind approach. We begin with the premise that

• Solutions are found by progressive possible solutions, not simple linear decision-making

 This premise is based on the idea that linear solutions of the traditional Scientific Age are able to handle a limited set of variables where the Design Age uses a parallel solution method of many minds approaching a problem's solution from varied points of view.

Let's look at a graph of the traditional Scientific Age solution method.

From the left to right the colored area under the graph line represents the unknown values. The solution is solved in a linear progressive manner eliminating each unknown with a scientific hypothesis which is tested with a controlled set of data. As more and more information about modality, reaction and effect are discovered a solution is gradually revealed in a stepped form as the graph shows until a final solution is arrived at when all the variables are accounted for.

When we look at the emerging Design Age solution method we see a different kind of graphic representation of the solution.

Here we see a jagged line of resolution which suggests every time a near solution is derived more unknowns are revealed and a new solution is sought. It is a progressive revelation of possibilities until at some point a solution which is 'good enough' is proposed. We may have used a scientific method of testing and proof through data, but not necessarily. In some cases the data may have been approximations or even outright guesses. but in the end some kind of resolution was accepted by the solution team through consensus.

A second premise deals with the time constraints of more complex and wicked problems. time estimates for difficult problems always seem to be difficult for project managers. The time to deliver acceptable solutions always seems to be more than what was anticipated. therefore the second premise is:

• Time required for more complex problems grows exponentially.

The next graph shows the complexity curve of time required to solve more difficult problems. Notice the curve is not linear but the expression of some coefficient of difficulty that indicates an exponential curve.

This curve is a depiction of  the "no stopping rule" Horst Rittel mentions as part of the definition of a wicked problem. Not recognizing a wicked problem often makes a project manager look bad since for every solution that looks like a resolution, more unknowns become evident and more time is required to find new solutions which account for the newly revealed variables. Stated in other terms an infinity of time is needed to arrive at the complete 'right' solution. It is diabolical and close to insanity to continue to apply Scientific Age solutions to this increasingly difficult problem type. Horst Rittel suggested that for a single, traditional  problem solver insanity must surely be immanent and sure. 

The final premise we will look at in this article states:

• Resources grow more scarce as complexity and time are increased.

 This time we have two curves. One represents resource availability and the other the time needed to study the problem and arrive at a solution. Notice as we move from left to right the complexity of the problem increases from 'Simple' to 'Wicked'.

The first line representing Resources Availability is reduced from Simple to Wicked for the single reason that knowledgeable and experienced solution providers become more scarce as the complexity of the problem increases.

The second line represents the possible solutions are further constrained due to expansion of facts available for consideration and the lack of time and resources to evaluate an ever-expanding set of available data. Multiple solutions are possible and the lack of consensus between the solution team further constrains the time to an acceptable solution.

At this point if you think all is lost you are close to the mark for the simple reason that most of us are steeped in the belief of the infallible nature of the Scientific Method, yet we see here a case for it's fallibility when facing an unknown set of variables and an ever-increasing set of interrelated complexities. Designers truly have a difficult transition to deal with. We are taught to think in a da vincian method of scientific proof, yet no substantial proof seems to exist as more and more interrelated, previously unaccounted for data appear with each successive solution.

Horst Rittel suggested that a group of interested stakeholders approach the problem knowing that a single fully thought out solution is not probable, rather they were to reach some solution based on a set of documented assumptions and data to arrive at a position of consensus as to what action would be taken. The group was also to be made aware that there would be unintended consequences for their decisions and action taken, but that was part of the price of consensus and a 'best solution' result.

For some, this is a bitter pill of realization to take, but if you look closely and honestly at wicked problems  you find this is their nature and the solutions are of the 'good enough' variety, not perfection tested to the nth degree.

In the next article we will take a further look at the Traditional vs. Emerging problem solving methods. Pitting the singular master solver against the collective mind of collaboration. Until then remember "Collaboration is the glue of success."

Continue to Part 3


(1) "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning", Rittel, Policy Sciences, 4:2 (73:June) p. 155.

Design Age - Part 3

In this installment of the series on the Design Age I'm going to describe further the Traditional and Emerging problem solving methods. The previous parts one and two I dealt with the definition of the issue surrounding the new Design Age and the issues of solution complexity and scarcity of resources to deal with these seemingly insurmountable problems. These are truly the "wicked" problems of our day.

For some of you reading this have probably thought 'why deal with this issue at all?' Just look around at any of the forum posts on any of the general design centered or AEC centered forums and you will see a host of questions clustered around several large topics such as Integrated Product Design or Building Information Modeling (BIM) and how to use this new class of software and process as it applies to design, construction and building maintenance. How does the supply chain become involved and a host of other issues? These questions have been bandied back and forth for over five or six years and no single answer seems to solve the issue. No single tool or process seems to completely define a singular solution. How can it when the problem is so large and has so many variables to work with?

This is not to say any one of the current partial solutions available as a process, methodology or software tool is wrong or is not effective, it is rather an issue of series of partial solutions as suggestions or viewpoints as to a method to address only a portion of the larger problem. For this reason, such a singularly large and complex problem cannot be solved by a singular problem solver. We hope and dream for such a solution, but the chances of it happening are just too small when we look at the interrelated variables connected to the problem.

Traditional Solvers, Those of the Scientific Method Persuasion
So let's look further on the basis of the two problem solving methods we have available to us today. One is the traditional singular subject matter expert using the scientific method. A master of the problem domain, with significant experience and practical knowledge across a wide area of issues. Even to the point of being a da vinci.

• Existing and well known paradigm is comfortable.
• Works well for technologically and data-driven solutions and methods

Best used when you have

• Controlled environment
• Controlled Scope
• Singularly understood goal
• Single language and meaning

A single person acts as the originator and choke-point for all solutions. This is the model of the lone designer, scientist in the lab and painter in the lonely room. Now don't get me wrong. For centuries this method has worked well for many of the problems we used it on. The Scientific Method has led us to some remarkable discoveries and bettered the lives of billions of people over the world. But this method intentionally limits the problem viewpoint to a controllable set of variables. Results are often partial and the best research scientists often admit in their findings that their results are only partial and at best, are only indications of a possible event or finding due to this artificial limiting of variables. When I see these disclaimers in research work I often think maybe their work needed a bit broader view and more input from other, often unlikely sources would have served them well. But this kind of scholarly work leaves no such opportunities if the traditional scientific method is to be followed.

Non-Traditional Solvers, Those of the 'Wicked' Persuasion
Enter the complex or "wicked"problem, where the  problem demands a network of designers and subject matter experts, often from a multitude of information domains. When a problem is posed to a group such as this, many times the supposed issue is only a symptom of a deeper issue not even realized in the original problem statement. Now there is an issue of redefining the problem through the lenses of the various information domains and the melding of multiple languages into a singular understanding. Often a new language idiom is defined so all the members can clearly communicate. Even the social dynamic of new alliances across differing information domains complicates the discussion of issues and possible solutions. This really gets messy for a while until some form of equilibrium is reached.

A whole new set of methods and techniques and skill sets are needed in this context. The soft 'people skills' now become as important, no more important than the technical knowledge and experience of each participant. For, if the group cannot put aside at least most of their egocentric universes nothing will be produced. A collective consensus is the goal here, not a democratic majority. Acceptance of the possibility of a predetermined outcome by consent, many times by only a plurality is the direction of the collective solution. Just as with the Scientific Method, there will be unintended consequences since not all variables surrounding the problem are accounted for. But this time there is an acceptance that those unknowns exist and will create some unknown result. And the realization that this is not the only answer possible, it is just an answer out of the millions or billions of possible answers, all with a different set of outcomes, some anticipated and others unanticipated.

It is a mess, but it is an informed mess. A mess of decisions made in light of the best information known at the time by a group of invested stakeholders. Stakeholders that are seeking the best answer they can find, given the filtering lenses of their experiences, information and resulting consensus. Horst Rittel said that this is almost an insane act to involve yourself in this process knowing there is no definitive solution and out of the infinite possible solutions your collective will pick one and it might not, in fact most likely will not, produce the result you intended.

Social planners, urban designers, transportation planners, even physicians and physicists all live with this set of paradoxical positions. Yet, if we are to move forward, some brave souls have to dive in, inform themselves, look at a problem from every possible viewpoint and then make a decision as to what they will do. Hoping that some of that what they anticipate to happen does happen, even new events which reveal new possibilities for better solutions.

The Meshing of A Mess
In the built environment domain and the narrow AEC/OOFM world, we have a seemingly unending set of variables from the domains of finance, physics, economics, spatial aesthetic, material sciences, biology, chemistry and even the human impact to name only a few, to consider. How do these mesh together? How to we find the important points of most impact and positive change? How do we resolve the questions of what values we hold most dear? Where do we find the most value? Even what is expressed as value when the constraints we have held in the past as defining boundaries are being wiped away on a daily basis?

These are the questions as professionals in this business we are called upon to answer. Up to this point I think the indictments against us as being the most inefficient and wasteful are the least of our worries. the damage we have done over the past five decades is largely from our own indecision, infighting and inaction. This has to change soon.

We know we are the largest contributors of waste in our economy and environment. We have demonstrated to be the most resistive to change of any other economic sector. To our credit we have recently begun to awake to these challenges. We don't have 10 or 20 years to solve these difficult issues. We need to be willing to open our eyes to new approaches to problem solving and beg, borrow and steal every possible tool at our disposal and combine those assets into a new solution engine that has not been seen before. I say put aside all our past preconceptions of how or why we did something and start with a clean slate and build a new way of improving our Built Environment. Why? Because we have some of the most difficult and yet impactfull problems to solve. The benefits are enormous while the risks are just as large. Not to act will only continue the same devastating results of the past.

So look beyond your traditional sphere of influence and business. Look to see what others are doing to make themselves more efficient and steal from them. Remake the idea to fit your needs and then do it all over again in ever broadening circles. The power of doubling will take effect and soon the influence of your original action will be the basis of a whole new wave of innovation and change, creating benefit for both the producer and the consumer in ways you never thought or intended.

On to Part 4, the last part for now.

Design Age: Six Characteristics of Modern Design

Design Age; Six Characteristics of Modern Design

I've been trying to describe the means and methods of failures in the larger design profession for a few years now. Every time I think I might have some of it defined, I find more to work on and less confident of a succinct set of reasons. The old "the more you know the more you don't know" paradox. If we look at software design is a veritable Eden of failure and and looks like a Gobi desert of success. The expectations of success for software design, delivery and maintenance are so low right now that anything that even looks or smells like it might be a partial success is hailed as a breakthrough. But compare metrics of completed, tested and proven work over time against any other domain and you see how horribly we fail as software designers. But I don't want to waste all my rocks on the lowly IT folks, there's plenty to go around in the physical product design professions as well, and don't forget the built environment folks who haven't had a serious  breakthrough in productivity since the Department of Commerce began tracking such stuff over 45 years ago. By the way software is in the non-farm sector, so that line would be better if it were taken out.

While I'm still looking for more definition around the failure of more and more design projects I have found six characteristics which I and others seem to find present more often than not. If you read my lead-off post about wicked problems I confess some of these characteristics define wicked problems, but more on that later.

Here are the Six.
1. Solutions are needed to further understand the problem.
2. There is no point defined before we begin that says we have solved the problem. Rittel called this the "no stopping rule."
3. Every problem is unique unto itself.
4. Hence, every solution is "one-off" not to be repeated again.
5. Solutions are not right or wrong.
6. There is no commonly understood alternative solution

So, for all you Type A control freaks out there (I'm one as well.) this is not good news. Just when you think you have an answer to a really difficult problem, there is someone out there ready and willing to punch really big, and I mean huge honking holes in your precious solution you've been working on for the past year. So what are the quintessential problem solvers to do? Horst Rittel thought it might be irrational to continue trying to solve problems of the more complex nature by individuals, since the iterative definition of solutions lead to more problems in an ever spiraling circle of failure.

Now there has to be some kind of way out of our dilemma and several folks over the past 25 years have suggested that first we quit trying to solve difficult problems as individuals. Get more people together, get more experience together, and then agree to ground rules that let you work together productively. One of the first, and rather off-putting to our democratic sensibilities, is that majority agreement does not always rule. Rather seek a plurality of consensus not agreement. I know it's a fine line we tread here, but it is a central tenant for making any progress with these difficult problems. Consensus is that dirty little secret lying in the closets of politicians. They rule by cajoling, deal-making and moving power around. That can lead to a form of consensus, but there are positive ways to reach the same thing. I'm not talking about forced compromise, but reaching an agreement to move forward, regardless of prior position or thought.

NOUN: consensus

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). 
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

You don't see anything about majority of opinion or position, just an agreement to move on. Often a plurality of agreement is as much as we can expect and need from a group of varied stakeholders with a likewise myriad base of experience. And just as important, is consensus can be changed at a later time without serious loss of face or power position, since after all it was just a consent of the group at a point in time, given the information at hand.

But design, isn't that a different thing? Isn't design something that has tangible outcomes and results we can measure success from? Sure it is, but we've been enduring bad design since the dawn of man. It's what trial and error is all about. And this gets back to the first common attribute, "it takes another problem solution to understand the direction toward a possible solution". Now the inferred element is that the earlier effort had some element of failure. Now I'm a proponent of failing fast and often, just to find out what does and does not work. I say better to get it out or the way instead of burying it and having to deal with the failure later, for I've found your sins will surely find you out, eventually. So consensus and being willing to fail are two partners that work well together, if we are all willing to take those mental positions.

Design is becoming more and more complex. Most of you all know that the simpler something looks the more is being done for you and the harder it is to make something that is really difficult look and feel simple. In our world of instant gratification, everyone has the expectation that something will be easy, simple and intuitive. If we can't figure it out without instructions, then it's too hard and we don't want to put in that much effort. We would rather have a tool that is easy to use as long as we can live with the results. Results don't have to be perfect, just acceptable. But on the other hand we really do wish for perfection and would like to have it if we could get it.

Take for instance the clothes washer that is connected to the internet and will call the manufacturer if the spin speed isn't fast enough, or if the fill cycle didn't work just right. Those are two functional elements in the washer that the manufacturer could trigger the washer to run a diagnostic routine to find potential reasons for their existence and potentially have some adjustment in the controls circuits to reestablish the proper set points so the fill cycle works correctly and the spin cycle gets the clothes spun to the correct dryness. If those solutions did not work they could send a warranty repair notice to the local repair company and send you a notice via sms messaging, email or phone call, or all three, that someone was going to come and check out your new washer.

The simple sensors, logic controllers and communication devices are the easy part of this scenario, it's the people part that is difficult, but you can see the problem is far more complex now than even five years ago when we simply bought a washer and used it until it demonstrated some kind of serious problem. We called the repairman on our own. Yet we see the design requirements are far more complex in today's world of possibilities. There is a direct correlation between the greater number of design requirements and the greater possibility of failure, yet we still expect the washer to be simple to operate, convenient to use and efficient in it's consumption of water and energy and the results of consistently clean clothes the results of our efforts.

In the above scenario not only were the mechanical, electrical and industrial designers expected to deliver a great product, but a new element of coordinating a customer service and warranty repair program were also part of the solution. Three very different kinds of organizations, but necessary for the design requirements of this washer. It is a wicked web we weave and one with many sticky points along the way to say the least. Today product manufacturers are expected to deliver not only on the technological side, but the soft side as well. It's not something manufacturers are well known for doing well. But that is the world consumers have been told is possible and that is what they are demanding with their purchasing power and their social media power.

Do pity the poor designer who has to figure out who and how these problems will be solved. Fortunately for some product manufacturers they have awakened to the possibility of an entire continuum of people to solve these problems is much better than a single person or team from a singular viewpoint. More on the other points later...... Continue to part two

Design Age - Part 4

After this installment I'm likely going to take a rest on the issues of complex design. If this is the first time you found the string, please go back and read the Introduction in Part 1 and the following installments in Part 2 and Part 3. They will give you the background needed to really understand the full impact of this most recent Part 4.

The Dilemma of the Crowd

or most problem solvers there is a paradigm we have been following for as long as we can remember. It's the trail of the lone discoverer. The 'me against nature, the world and all the other idiots who couldn't be bothered to figure this issue out' complex. But there is this strange phenomenon happening more and more often. The longer I spend time on this problem, the more and more angles and alleys it reveals. What I thought was going to be a simple solution to a problem I thought was clear, the more cloudy and tantelizingly obscure the issue becomes. I begin to talk to some close friends and colleagues about parts of the problem, not wanting to reveal everything at once, to get their take on the issue. Over time I reveal more and more of my discoveries and pretty soon, without my really understanding what is happening, I find they are talking about the same issue with their friends and I find out about this by accident. Now the idea is presented to me in a way I hadn't even considered and by asking a few question, I find out it's like the party game 'telephone.'
What I hear from this other person is only vaguely like my original idea, but it has some interestingly new twist of understanding I hadn't considered.

Chaos and Change are Brothers - Part 2

Recently a group of really bright folks, Dawn Naney, Clay Goser and Marcelo Azambuja posted a new document entitled "Accellerating the Adoption of Lean Thinking in the Construction Industry" which deals with the issue of adopting lean management theory within the construction industry. The following is part of the response I posted on the LinkedIn discussion group which Dawn posted. I thought after I wrote the response that it is just what I've been thinking about writing as Part 2 of this series, so here goes. I hope you enjoy the read. Of course you know Collaboration is the Glue for Success. If you haven't read Part 1 of this series then here's the link.

I would agree with the findings of the authors, but I contend there are a few of us in the business who have been talking about how to make the change stick and at the same time doing something about it. Up to this point we have been pretty quiet about it. (Yes gentle reader, I'll have much more to say here in this blog over the coming weeks.) The root issue revealed in the adoption curve that Gartner espouses, is the lack of efficient change management. When we stop