Written by Dr. Tom Clark:
So from early discussions on design, what have I learned? In no particular order, learning lab exchanges bring three topics come to mind.
(1) “Subjective analysis” of “qualitative data.” A planning method with the objective of explaining “social reality” requires a shift of epic proportions in mental models. We explain social reality through common meaning “facts” rather than objective facts. In design, facts begin to emerge from situational awareness – what’s the real story. Reality becomes clear as we establish situational understanding – patterns that explain why things are this way. Based on classroom observations and discussions, our immediate inclination trends more to objective analysis aimed at deciding what to do about a situation rather than describing subjective pattern frames to explain a problem in context.
(2) “Distinguishing between understanding “what’s the problem” and stating “this is our problem.” There is a significant difference between explaining a problem and stating the problem. The logic that helps identify a problem involves comparing “tendencies of behavior” to “potentials” and a “desired state.” The difference between what is and what needs to be represents the problem. The logic of stating the problem involves transforming that difference into a statement of relationships. The problem statement explains conditions to establish for friendly success before an opponent establishes conditions for success. It took me a while to appreciate the difference between “understanding the problem” and “stating the problem.”
(3) The notion of narratives. While doctrine provides no definition, a narrative seems to be an explanation of how patterns came to be and how patterns work in concert to help or hinder establishing desired conditions. A narrative connects related events into an account that defines reality from a particular point of view. In communicating the meaning of environmental patterns, the narrative is a critical event. It seems to me that when doctrine addresses the notion of narrative purpose, development, and quality – there is a profound silence.
After reading articles and books as well as engaging in professional dialog, my conclusion is that doctrine is a good introduction to design. It seems that if we are to complete the design narrative, friends of design need to engage the storyline.
Do we need a CGSC forum for “friends of design” to consider stories, gossip, rumors, ideas, and ways to improve design instruction – to improve the design narrative?
9 Comments on "Friends of Design: A Perspective on Knowledge Development"
On 4/20/2010 @ 8:45:44 AM, Ken Long said:
Don’t face to face sessions defeat the purpose of collaboration, inclusion and expansion of the network of interested people? the book “Ambient Findability” describes the phenomenon of Good Things (knowledge artifacts, for example) being buried under the ountain of manure manufactured daily in the Information Age. face to face meetings feel fine, but but dont they run the risk of becoming echo chambers? how do the results reach out to the world to gather/maintain more interest from passers by?
On 1/25/2010 @ 9:20:23 AM, dre.abadie said:
Dr. Tom,
Great discussion thread!
Your discussion reminds me of thoughts discussed by Malcolm Gladwell in Chapter 4 of his book “Blink.” He discusses the challenges inherent to an “insight problem” versus those of a “logic problem.” Of course he delves deeper into how the brain works and why we think the way we do when confronted by these varying problems. I would be curious as to whether or not the observations he shares are similar to what you see in your students.
Hope all is well in the classroom-
v/r Dre’
MAJ Andre’ B. Abadie 54th Signal Battalion S3
On 12/15/2009 @ 12:11:02 PM, Anonymous said:
Believe the meeting Thursday for the Friends of “Friends of Design” will provide a much needed opportunity to look at how best to energize this great initiative. Very important to share meeting notes in this Blog forum to maintain SA for those unable to participate in a meeting.
On 12/11/2009 @ 3:51:21 PM, Dr. Tom Clark said:
Brian,
Thanks. After discussing the concept with several others, the trend now is toward face-to-face sessions. In some form, the highlights of discussions could be shared through a blog. Much remains to be sorted on just how to establish conditions that encourage meaningful discussion without becoming a BOGSAT. Any ideas?
On12/10/2009 @ 1:57:07 PM, Dr. Tom Clark said:
Alex,
Thanks for expanding the narrative concept. From listening to other SAMS faculty, the importance of masterning the skill of communicating through narratives will be a skill that distinguishes design practitioners. Stephen Denning recounts his days as the Knowledge Manager at the World Bank and describes a narrative as “an account of a set of events that are causally related.” He suggests that “narratives could be the missing sixth discipline.”
On 12/10/2009 @ 1:50:33 PM, Anonymous said:
DR Tom, This is a great idea! Will it be informal face to face meetings or an online discussion? r/ B
On 12/9/2009 @ 1:28:11 PM, Anonymous said:
Tom, I think this is a great idea. I believe there is great potential in better organizing the community of practice. I would only qualify my response by saying that practitioners opposed to but with an interest in design ought not to be excluded. If we have rigorous red-teaming from within the community, it will make our arguments stronger, clearer and more inclusive of alternative perspectives. On the subject of defining narrative, I am drawing on Ochs & Capps’ highly cited paper Narrating the Self (1996) to define narrative in the next version of the SAMS student text on design.
“[T]ales that tellers and listeners map onto tellings of personal experience… Narratives situate narrators, protagonists, and listener/readers at the nexus of morally organized, past, present, and possible experiences… A narrative of personal experience is far more than a chronological sequence of events. In his Poetics, Aristotle discerned that narratives have a thematically coherent beginning, middle, and end… Interweaving human conditions, conduct, beliefs, intentions, and emotions, it is the plot that turns a sequence of events into a story or a history… In contrast with paradigmatic thinking, which emphasizes formal categorization, narrative thinking emphasizes the structuring of events in terms of a human calculus of actions, thoughts, and feelings.”
I think this is consistent with your definition above, although you make the point of view of a narrative more explicit (this is something Ochs and Capps also do in other parts of their paper).
On 12/9/2009 @10:27:53 AM, Anonymous said:
This is a very good idea. We have long needed a forum to present and refine ideas about practicing design in a military context.
In addition to the topics posed above, the group could tackle some of the big unanswered questions about design. These include:
1. Relationship of design and battle command?
2. Relationship of design and the operations process?
3. When to use design? (As in, when do I “know” to use design?)
4. Range of acceptable terms and practices?
5. How much time is needed to do design?
What Professor Clark proposes would be very useful. I support the concept and would like to participate.
Mike Stewart
Michael D. Stewart
Assistant Professor
Design Course Author
School of Advanced Military Studies
On 12/8/2009 @ 3:06:37 PM, Anonymous said:
Do we need a CGSC forum for “friends of design” to consider stories, gossip, rumors, ideas, and ways to improve design instruction – to improve the design narrative? Yes. Re: Distinguishing. What is the problem should be derived from knowing, “The difference between what is and what needs to be.” In other words the problem is the obstacle that stands in the way of achieving the desired end state. It is a problem in the environment. The ,”this is our problem” is further distinguished from the environmental problem statement because “our problem” is more related to a mission or operational approach. It is the difference between how to fix and what is the problem.