Two weeks ago we got to work in class by groups to come up with some ideas or what our class could do for Sauder Open House on March 1st. We had only two hours and some constraints, so we had to be fast and efficient.
We began with observation of the situation: the shape and dimensions of the studio, the criteria we had been given… We went on with a brainstorming of each member of the group ideas, by putting post-its on the white board. Some of the ideas were “really cool”, some others less appropriate. We had to select the most feasible ones, think more deeply about their implementation, etc. At the end, we had to come up with a prototype of our major idea(s) for the Open House.
During this in-class activity, I think we have more or less followed Beckman & Barry’s innovation process model (observation, frameworks, imperatives, solutions) in the first stage of our work (mostly the brainstorming part), and we have added the prototyping, sharing and eventually implementation phases.
What’s more, the four of us didn’t work the same way, or begin with the same task. This reflects, I think, the different learning styles Beckman & Barry make reference to. I think I would spontaneously say that I fit best in a Converging/Assimilating style, but the Design Studio has helped me, over the past weeks, develop my Diverging and Accommodating sides.
The fact that we had two hours to do the Open House activity has, I think, slightly influenced our creative process. I think each person has its own design process, and that this process varies a little bit depending of the project, the situation.
Schon’s concept of Reflective Design and Reflection-in-Action really stood out to me, because I think my design process looks like a conversation with a certain situation. There is indeed, to me, what Schon calls a “language of designing” which implies verbal and non-verbal dimensions: writing, drawing, talking, asking questions (“what if…?”), etc.
So I think the first step in my design process is “Observation and Problem Definition”. I try to analyze the situation and gather information about it, and then identify or define a problem. This step can be difficult because the problem we may think is a problem might not be a real one, and the real problem might not be blindingly obvious. So I try to do as Quist, the architect, that is to say “imagine the experience of a person who would be following such a path”. In other words, try to imagine myself as the end-user, the consumer, and ensure that both the needs and expectations of the “client” are met.
The following step would be “Ask, Try, Do” concept. It first includes “what if” questions which lead to discovering results, and when one is satisfactory, I sketch, write, draw… prototype. Of course, all this process is ongoing in parallel with a constant back-talk that permits me to have insights and some interaction with my project. It is also a means to go back to certain points of the project and improve it. It is an ongoing effort to meet the customer/user needs and expectations.
I would add a final step to this process: Share and Inspire.
When I am satisfied enough to say the “Do” part is over, I can share my work and try to get feedback from people (the end-user, my friends, other groups, etc.). The last step enables all involved parties (when it’s not only me) to finally reap the benefits of their efforts, dedication and hard work. The project is deployed, and hopefully it will create the intended impression and inspire the target audience to a favorable response in conformity with the project’s purpose.
To conclude, I think it is important to highlight, as Schon does, how important experience can be in such a process, and how relevant it can be to “bring past experience to bear on a unique situation”. It is obvious that one has less difficulty handling a situation or a problem he has already faced before.
So with his/her experience, the reflective practitioner builds up a “repertoire of examples, images, understandings and actions” that permits him/her to see a unique situation as a similar one. He may then do in this situation as he did in the similar one.
Thus, all those past “reflection-in-action experiences”, along with the new ones, enrich the practitioner’s repertoire, and make him acquire the ability to face design problems more easily.
