The idea of a design methodology has definitely been an item of debate, from Christopher Alexander’s very strong refusal to the concept of a methodology, preferring to keep a “mystical” aspect to how buildings are made, to Rittle’s claim that a method is there to stay, but that it takes time to find its place in process. Rittle says that in the long run, it doesn’t matter how things came about, but it matter to reflect upon the process as an experiment whose outcome can be judged by how repeatable the process can be. So in essence, it seems that Rittle approach is mainly focused on how repeatable this process can be to use in designing similar end products or processes.
Rittle rejects the idea of a design process that is based off a sequence of activities that are meant to be carried out one after the other, or the idea that understanding the problem means that there’s a concept of a solution in mind (what he refers to as wicked problems). for Rittle, the formulation of the problem and conceiving a solution to that problem is the same thing, in which case he regards a solution to a wicked problem as a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error. He emphasizes the concept of discussion, setting up measures for performance and effectiveness, and involving the end users in the design process. for Rittle, the expert is not only the designer, he also includes the “player” as an actor, the end users who are best to describe and transcribe their needs, and evaluate the resulting process.
Buchanan’s four categories of design, symbolic and visual communication, material objects, activities and organized services, and complex systems and environments, are areas with which we can descend form the chaotic world of design into a more systematic structure of unity, a unity that was challenged by deconstructionist architecture and other postmodern experiments, which have recently included other fields of design, not only architecture.
Leave a Reply