Essay 2: Discovery: Timothy & Sunny

DESIGN THINKING

DESC9106 2009

Essay 2
(On Discovery)

Timothy Sun Kit YUEN ID: 308093615
Sunny Lim ID: 309170729

---

 

Discoveries

Jon Evans & Roisin Kelly

Schon, in The Reflective Practitioner, refers to “appreciation, action and re-appreciation” (p.132) and this style or process seems fitting to describe, at least broadly, the design and discovery process of both the planning and architectural design professions.

In approaching discovery as a process or experience we, the planner and architect, considered how discoveries can be made, applied, experienced or tested. Are there reasons to explore for discovery or does it happen accidently? What role can self discovery play in these professions? What methods of discovery are used? What are the sources of unexpected discoveries? How do we interpret and apply discoveries and what if it simply reveals what we already know?

We have discussed discovery from the perspective of each profession to consider the reasons to go exploring for discoveries, the methods of discovery, how discoveries are interpreted and applied, and the role played by unexpected discoveries.

Hanson (1967) dissects discovery via the philosophy of discovery to uncover its structure or composition. His opening comments quote PMS Blackett – “When a student asks me how to make discoveries, I tell him to send up a balloon with all cameras open and recording. Some new cosmic-ray particle, or even an astronomical object, may etch one of his photosensitive plates and he’ll get the Prize.” 

Reasons to Explore for Discovery

Design Architect:

Twice two equals four; ‘tis true

But too empty and too trite

What I look for is a clue

To some matters not so light

            Wilhelm Busch

 Architectural design is fundamentally a process of idea generation and decision making: form and function, space and material, structure and construction, site and environment all need to be explored, resulting in a continual process of discovery by the architect to generate ideas and form the theoretical basis of the project. It is not sufficient to simply regurgitate previous works of architecture, but one must build on the collective design knowledge and seek for theories which offer solutions to problems, through interesting and enlightened discovery.

Design cannot be considered as a hermetic process, with logical scientific procedures and attestable results, instead it is influenced by the ideas and actions of the architects, designers and engineers involved. Research and exploration provide the stimulus which leads to discovery and subsequently the creation of great buildings.

However the design parameters within which architects function are complex and require the utilisation and integration of economic, organisational and technological discoveries. If design were to be based on an absolute rational basis, it is likely that experiences of the past would be abandoned, leading to the imposition of solutions by dictatorial means in the name of a future social benefit. Acts of discovery in architecture continue the development of architecture as an art form and can result in something of lasting value to society, to be built in by future generations.

Strategic Planner: A strategic planner doesn’t so much explore to discover as explore to ensure. Ensure that a building is conserved, controls (such as design excellence triggers) can satisfy diverse application as well as achieve the intended outcome, ensure that the character of an area is retained (which is much harder to do than to say), ensure that local controls support broader strategies or ensure that “I”s are dotted and “T” crossed in terms of legislation.

There are a number of reasons to explore thoroughly as a strategic (or statutory) planner. The first and most personal is to ensure that you don’t look like an idiot. For example a report outlining an argument and making a recommendation about an issue can become a public document. It can be scrutinised by sections of the community (which can include very prominent stakeholders such as the Property Council or AHA), be debated by elected representatives in Local Government and debated by the media in State Government or with contentious issues such as pubs and bars. Omissions, assumptions, errors or ineffective interaction with other policies can make the report writer look very foolish.

A disappointing aspect of exploring in planning (in NSW anyway) is that you typically find tired old treasures. Many initiatives have been are shelved before they are considered (such as parcel format controls), originality is often moulded into conventional and familiar products (standardisation of  Warringah’s placed-based LEP) and innovation is, often, the result of the market accommodating regulation (ESD adaptations and small bar licensing). 

Methods of Discovery 

Design Architect: Good design requires a considered process of continual exploration and discovery, it can not arrive from nothing, but is the result of influences from varying sources. A germinating idea of a future building can come suddenly and unexpectedly. This idea influences and is subsequently influenced by the anticipation of the design development process.

Memory and recognition of previous built or unbuilt projects provide a basis for initial ideas and are a source of inspiration for further exploration and new potential discoveries. Precedents can be of ones own work, or the works of admired architects – in my case people such as Louis Kahn, Carlo Scarpa, Le Corbusier and Santiago Calatrava.

 The design process for a building is generally a series of problems, with the resolution of one problem leading to another. This cycle goes something like this:

Problem formulation – a problem is defined, which could be based on any number of issues, including social requirements, economic needs, technical aspects or visual and stylistic demands

Probing – the problem is explored in many dimensions and aspects to unlock clues and provide insight into the problem. It is often necessary to reframe the problem during this stage or reassess the frame of reference for the problem. The lifting of these constraints can facilitate alternative solutions to be formed, often suddenly and unexpectedly.

Trial Solutions – declarative and procedural knowledge is tested as tentative theories to the problem, informed by the results of the probing. Multiple solutions may be proposed and assessed. This is a speculative process, often rewarded by innovation and research.

Diagnosis – through self-critical analysis the solutions are tested and rejected, or further developed. The forms generated and conceptualised through diagrams are tested against and thus assisted by a rigorous understanding and context of the site, program and spatial quality.

New Theory – at the conclusion of these steps, a new theory is formulated and accepted, replacing the previous, which is perhaps a significant departure from the original or could simply be a small variation.

The above process loop is re-iterated until a solution survives the last set of tests, or as often happens – time and/or professional fees run out for further cycles to occur.

Strategic Planner: A common method of discovery in planning at all levels of government, as well as other professions it seems, is to look at what other authorities do, especially authorities that have achieved a certain outcome such as South Australia’s independent planning panels or Melbourne’s small bar success. A strategic planner will often look at other the policies of other authorities (local and international) as a starting point before moulding the issues to suit local circumstances or legislation, and this moulding can result in quite significant changes (depending on various things) so much so as to make the original method unworkable.

Other discovery efforts involve understanding what imposes barriers to an intended outcome, services or materials available on the market, consumer or business behaviour (as well as why it occurs), the result or flow-on consequences of all possible strategies, physical or historical legacies that dictate the current circumstances and whether the idea can be expressly stated in a policy (some things are the result of an implicit interaction of many factors). Supply and demand is an inevitable dictator in many planning issues and also requires understanding.

Interpreting and Applying Discovery 

Design Architect: A great deal of design discovery begins from a familiarity with a range of architectural precedent from which we choose certain aspects which become the basis for our design. New architectural projects and design discovery allows for the continuation of the development of this architectural language and contributes to fostering adventurous form-making and experimentation within a framework of a balanced view of the significance for architectural decision-making of traditional function, program and context. To do this it is necessary to recognise the sudden onset of a creative insight, which has eluded the process until that time.

Strategic Planner: The way new information is interpreted and applied can depend on what has been discovered, how much it alters current understanding or circumstances, how easy it is to substantiate (especially quantitatively) and who has to be convinced.

For example the City is currently trying to demonstrate the cumulative impact of late night hotels on alcohol related crime. Cumulative impact is a relatively new field in planning. It is denied by some parties and planning legislation generally ignores it. Changes to late night trading has potentially significant impacts for entertainment localities like Oxford Street and Kings Cross. Statistics from various sources are used to by all stakeholders to support or deny a suggestion. Stakeholders such as hotel owners and the AHA are impervious to information while police, people who live near late night hotels and drug and alcohol practitioners and academics can be generally supportive. This requires the discovery to be massaged and nurtured so it can be adapted to achieve a certain outcome without compromising the business objectives of stakeholders or the dynamism of entertainment precincts.   

Unexpected Discovery 

Design Architect: Spontaneous and unpredictable discoveries make architecture a unique and satisfying profession. It is more creative than a scientific and formal representation of a problem, but it is also more pragmatic than a purely artistic or figurative ideal.

New ideas are generated within the context of a specific design project, exploring architecture as the embodiment of a conceptual and imaginative process inherent in design thinking. Discoveries can be made within specific areas or within unique combinations of elements such as form, space, structure, material, site, environmental conditions, client briefings and the architects intentions and ideas.

In the contemporary construction industry, design occurs at an unprecedented speed due primarily to the tools available, communication opportunities and the expectations of the end users. 

Strategic Planner: Discovery in the exciting sense of the word is relatively uncommon in urban planning. Legislation changes, new strategic directions, an alternative statistical perspective, market behaviour or fluctuations, boundary changes, new infrastructure initiatives, political machinations or new case law can throw an entirely new light on an old issue however I suspect very few planners would categorise it as discovery. And on many occasions it has occurred in some form or fashion before.   

Likewise, planning does not commonly feature insights or “A-HA” moments. Understanding of issues is typically gained steadily and progressively rather than in a single moment. 

___________________________________________________

 Differences and similarities in how discoveries are sought, made and applied are both likely and evident, in perhaps all professions. 

Both planning and architecture could be viewed, broadly, as processes of idea generation and decision making with very different contributors and results. 

Like architecture, the parameters within which planning functions are quite complex, and include economic, organisational and technological factors as well as, in planning, demographic and political factors. And likewise, precedent or previous work seems to play a prominent role in both professions. Both professions have to acknowledge the discovery process as continual and relying on many and varied sources. Architecture, as a more artistic, creative and design-orientated process, has the wonderful prospect of inspirations coming suddenly and unexpectedly, and these personal, spontaneous discoveries can make architecture a satisfying profession. Great ideas in planning are relatively commonplace however discovery in the exciting sense of the word is simply not. Effective collaboration seems to be a crucial feature of both professions with separate but connected fields contributing, generating and developing good ideas. 

References

Davies, R.J. Talbot 1987 Experiencing ideas: identity, insight and the imago
Design Studies, Volume 8, Issue 1, January 1987, Pages 17-25

Hanson NR, 1967 An Anatomy of Discovery An Anatomy of Discovery The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 64, No. 11 (June 8 1967), p 321-352

Ladd, Kylie 2009 The unexpected idea Essentially Creative. Schultz, Julianne (Ed.) Griffith Review, No.23, Autumn 2009 p.101-110

Lloyd P, Scott P 1994 Discovering the design problem Design Studies, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 1994, Pages 125-140

Schon, D 1983 The Reflective Practitioner, Ashgate Publishing London

Discovering

by Peter Way & Pennueng Chemsripong

Discovering solutions to design problems is an enriching and satisfying experience for designers. It can mark the end of solid preparation, mental blocks, and frustrating situations caused by design issues. Discovery, commonly referred to as insight, has been defined as the moment in which someone moves from a state of not knowing, to a state of knowing how to solve a problem (Mayer, 1992). To gain insight is to understand something more fully, to move from a state of relative confusion to a state of comprehension (Dominowski & Dallob, 1995). Providing an explanation of this process is a central concern for all areas that involve the psychology of thinking. In this paper, we will discuss the theoretical background of the process of insight, outlining the dominant fields of thought and debate. This will be followed by some of our own personal experiences with moments of insight, shown from the perspectives of two individual fields of design – illustration and programming.

The research undertaken to understand and classify the nature of insight in the psychology of thinking has been gaining momentum since early 20^th century Gestalt philosophers posed questions about why people get clever ideas, make inventions and make discoveries (Luchins & Luchins, 1970). Insight is associated with the process of problem solving, in which a novel solution to a problem is realised. A distinction of problem solving can be made through routine and non-routine problems (Mayer, 1995). Routine problems are those that have a ready-made solution structure. One can imagine a long-division problem in mathematics in which a structured mathematical procedure already exists to formulate the solution. Non-routine problems are one’s which have not been previously solved and have no set solution structure. The routine and non-routine problems can be closely associated, respectively, with the reproductive and productive styles of thinking, explored in more depth below.