![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.darrenumney.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Screen-Shot-2015-12-22-at-14.17.35-e1450799538124.png\")
\nJones, J.C. & Thorney, D.G. (editors) (1963) Conference of design methods. Papers presented at the Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design. Architecture and Communications, London, September 1962, Oxford: Pergamon Press<\/em><\/p>\n
An example of a\u00a0kind of designing of the design process is quite clearly found in a paper given by Ken Norris (1963) at the Imperial College conference. \u00a0Norris cites\u00a0the morphological method of Fritz Zwicky (1951) to demonstrate “the application of engineering first principles to take a fresh look at some old problems and to establish a novel approach to new ones.” Zwicky’s method was originally published in the Journal of American Rocket Society which suggests that, at the time, a morphological approach to design was something approaching rocket science, a notion underlined\u00a0by the reputation of\u00a0Norris’ engineering company who designed rocket powered cars.<\/p>\n
Here then, at one of the earliest design conferences, is a world renowned engineer explaining his approach to design and how what he calls\u00a0the “normal process of designing”,\u00a0shown here in his Fig 1 (Norris, 1962:118),<\/p>\n
![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/www.darrenumney.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Screen-Shot-2015-12-22-at-15.07.58.png\")
<\/p>\n
might be enhanced by adopting a\u00a0methodical approach to the design process that is intended to support\u00a0a “very conscious way of carrying [it] out” (Norris, 1962:118). His \u00a0revised model of the process explicitly recognises a number of additional steps\u00a0through which the design engineer will\u00a0pass to reach an acceptable solution that\u00a0answers all the questions posed by the problem, shown below in his Figure 30\u00a0(Norris, 1962:139).<\/p>\n
![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/www.darrenumney.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Screen-Shot-2015-12-22-at-14.24.59.png\")
<\/p>\n
This model is a single example from any number. Nigel\u00a0Cross has\u00a0some more (1989) which he divides into descriptive ones, that show how design is seen to be done, and prescriptive ones, that show how design\u00a0should be done better. Cross includes a model from 1985 by French (Cross, 1989:21), a 1984 model by Archer (ibid:25), a 1984 model by Pahl and Beitz (ibid:27), VDI2221 (ibid:28) and March (ibid:30). Out of this long and growing pedigree Norris is notable for three\u00a0reasons.<\/p>\n
Firstly, Norris provides the two simple representations of before<\/em> and after <\/em>that allow a simple comparison of his own designs on design. The detail of these differences is not so important. Intervening years have produced many refinements as seen\u00a0already by those outlined by Cross above (at almost exactly\u00a0the mid-point between 1962 and 2016) and can are\u00a0further developed, for example, in the pages of most issues of Design Studies<\/em>, the\u00a0Journal of the Design Research Society<\/a>. But if we just take Norris’ two diagrams at face value we can isolate\u00a0the changes he has introduced. These are two main interventions: the extension of the original\u00a0specification stage to provide for the generation of more candidate solutions – Norris hopes for “all possible solutions” at this stage; and the extension into a\u00a0more detailed specification stage that allows for those all of those solutions to reviewed as the most acceptable one is identified.\u00a0The model turns a simple linear design narrative into one\u00a0that creates a number of divergent propositions\u00a0that\u00a0converge onto a\u00a0final solution. This model remains current, for example in the Design Council’s ‘double diamond<\/a>‘ design process model.<\/p>\n Secondly, the model is also notable for being\u00a0the clearest visual example in the proceedings of the landmark 1962 conference on design methods. This makes it a de facto<\/em> landmark model of the design process. It should be\u00a0noted however that at the same conference Christopher Alexander described his method of designing\u00a0\u00a0an Indian village in an early report of his Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Alexander, 1964) and various other speakers were proposing design methods as ways of approaching town planning, education, group communication and, via the connection between design and creativity, the fine art practice\u00a0of a young Howard Hodgkin. Despite this the conference is generally considered to be the point at which design\u00a0got scientific (Cross, 2001).<\/p>\n Thirdly is the status of the speaker. Here is an engineer who designed a car that had already\u00a0set seven world speed records and whose driver was awarded the CBE in recognition of these achievements. At the time of the conference Norris was in the middle of developing Bluebird Proteus CN7<\/em>, \u00a0a contender for the land speed record, that he used as an example in the paper referred to.\u00a0Does this kind of material, and this kind of speaker, make it onto conference schedules any more?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n References<\/strong> Cross, N., (2001) Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science.\u00a0Design Issues<\/i>, 17(3), pp.49\u201355.<\/p>\n Norris, K., (1963)\u00a0The Morphological Approach to Engineering Design,\u00a0Conference of design methods,\u00a0<\/em>Oxford:Pergamon<\/p>\n Zwicky, F., (1951) Tasks we face. Journal of American\u00a0Rocket Society,<\/em>\u00a084 (March 1951)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The design process has been described, modelled and designed quite a bit since one of the landmarks in the history of design studies,\u00a0the 1962 conference at Imperial College on design methods. Jones, J.C. & Thorney, D.G. (editors) (1963) Conference of design methods. Papers presented at the Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=295"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":307,"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295\/revisions\/307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/darrenumney.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"doublediamond\"](\"http:\/\/www.darrenumney.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/doublediamond.jpg\")
Norris’\u00a0final amendment is to the\u00a0list of what kind of questions the design process\u00a0can answer. To the “report” of the original\u00a0model he adds a number\u00a0of additional projects that include\u00a0“drawings” and “prototypes” to\u00a0suggest an iterative approach to design\u00a0and an “etc.” that might\u00a0mean the model could be applied to anything.<\/p>\n
\nAlexander, C., (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form<\/em>, London:Harvard<\/p>\n