A “Theory of Designing”

Toward a “Theory of Designing”

Process vs. Product: Understanding Designing and Design
There is a definite distinction made between the theory of designing and design. In the context of this writing, it essentially comes down to process. Designing is the process involved in developing the final product or result, which is the Design. This involves the merging of mechanical, psychological, and intellectual aspects of the various stages and actions involved with the process of designing, all with a direction toward the final goal, again, that being the product or the design.

The Anatomy of the Theory of Designing
The Theory of Designing can be expressed as a whole with four sequential parts and a link that brings one back to the beginning. The four primary processes can be seen as ordered steps in a design process which concludes with a cyclical return (however it is possible to find aspects of each in another).

The four primary stages can be seen as intuitive, thinking, feeling, and sensate, or at least from a psychological point of view. However, these stages can also be seen from other perspectives and in other contexts as well. Intellectual aspects of the same can be interpreted as intention, analysis, synthesis, and production while the mechanics of the process can be seen to inform, conclude, decide, and execute. Clearly, in any of the aspects discussed, there is potential to interject and interpret, but as for clarity of concept, the Theory of Designing does distill a myriad of potentialities to a concise and cohesive form (see diagram). This return, or the final stage of the process, has been described as the validation process.

The Antithetic of the Design Process
One interesting aspect of the Theory of Designing, and I’m sure one to which many designers can relate, is the antithetic nature of the design process. Based, in part, on the Myers-Briggs Type theory, the suggestion is that the design process can also be broken into two halves: the introvert and the extrovert. The intuitive and thinking processes are considered introvert characteristics while the feeling and sensate processes are extrovert. While every individual will have some characteristics of each, finding the ideal balance is the goal (though possibly unconscious) of every designer. This psychologically dualist nature of the design process lends credence to the opinion of some that designing is underrated, as it could be argued that unique interactions are involved that might illicit unique solutions.

Myers-Briggs Typology and the Psychology of the Design Process
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was developed in the 1940’s when Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs expanded on Carl Jung’s earlier model of vocational planning. At the time they developed their indicator as a tool for effectively and appropriately finding work for women during the war effort. In Designer Types, an article for Critique Magazine, Gary Hartzler applied the MBTI to designers. To summarise, every individual is either introvert or extrovert, intuitive or sensate, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving.

Here the difficulties of the design process become glaringly apparent. One can only be an introvert or an extrovert, so how does one resolve the introvert and extrovert halves of the process? One can only be thinking or feeling, not both, but stage two in the design process is thinking while stage three is feeling! Finally, according to the MBTI, everyone is broken down into separate and different types, one sensing and the other intuitive. But according to the Theory of Designing the very first task is intuitive while the final task is sensate! Clearly this presents a conundrum for every designer because none of us can ever truly be, at least psychologically speaking, the most appropriate individual for a design project; thankfully we can rest assured that the same applies to everyone so we are not soon to be ousted from our positions by the layman.

The Strength of the Designer
While the designer does typically have certain distinct differences from the rest of society (statistically, designers were found to be far more intuitive and feeling than society as a whole, and far less sensate and judging), with respect to the Theory of Designing, the designer must be the more than anything else, able to adapt. The ability to adapt and to learn effective techniques for overcoming areas where they might fall short will be the key to a successful designer. The strength of the designer lies in his or her ability to overcome their shortcomings and emphasize their assets, and with a greater awareness of the Theory of Designing and of ones self, this is more easily attainable.

Conclusion
The Theory of Designing may not be discursive, but within its scope it very effectively expresses analytical concepts within the application of designing that is often not considered, let alone examined. In a field of study that typically focuses on the creative and the mechanical, it is highly beneficial to develop a context from which to explore the structural ideas of designing, and the Theory of Designing definitely does that.
[This Theory of Designing is based on a lecture by Tom Becher of the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design in Vancouver, Canada]