On Apr 25, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Uday Gajendar wrote: >> business thing is already breaking apart... But to me it's hard to >> miss the hosstility towards design, albeit couched in backhanded >> praise, in most of the canonical design thinking texts. > > Can you cite some specific authors, titles, and passages please? > It's a pretty broad statement begging misinterpretation. > (for me, "canonical design thinking texts" means Alexander's Pattern > Language, Simon's Sciences of the Artificial, Margolin/Buchanan's > Discovering Design, etc...and they're not "hostile" to design!)
You may think of those as "design thinking" in a general sense, but AFAIK they are not part of the "Design Thinking" canon. Design Thinking is a school of thought originated and championed in business schools and among management thinkers. It is explicitly not a design discipline, and design skills are not part of the body of knowledge. The word "design" is used as an analogy between the way designers (supposedly) think and how business managers should think in order to best cultivate a culture of innovation. As for citations, Google "Design Thinking" and start reading. You'll see praise for the way designers think, but little to no mention of the value of design itself, much less the value of designers. In omission alone, this is an insult. -Cf Christopher Fahey ____________________________ Behavior biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com me: http://www.graphpaper.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
