When we begin a design inquiry by framing the question, we are already at one of the key aspects of design. In a very critical manner, the production of a problem/question already determines to a very real extent all of the answers that are possible. This might be hard to see at first but as one carefully unpacks the questions and problems that one is posing it becomes quite clear. Pynchon says it this way: “If they get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”

In short, the key to good design is NOT (simply) solving problems or following some mantra/answer (”Less is More”), but in producing A PROBLEM WORTH HAVING. Here is a very simple example of this (from Edward DeBono):

How would you put these two shapes together?

Like this right?

Now let us add another shape:

This?

Now one more shape:

This?

So far so good. Now a final shape:

Well? It does not fit.

Unless we go back to the beginning like this:

and then we can get that final shape into our pattern:

We can see that we made a series of basic assumptions at the beginning:

1. We did not ask about how many possible ways there are to solve this problem. We made the common error: one problem = one answer. But here we can now see that there is at least two distinct manners in which to approach this question. We need to remember MULTIPLICITY (HETEROGENEOUS).

2. We can see that our first move (which is in essence how we posed the question) led to our final move.

3. There is much more to say about this example. But the key for now is to simply recognize how we shape a question such that only certain forms of answers show up and how this can get us in trouble. Thus the importance of carefully considering the development of the question.

Some Basic Thoughts on Problems

All problems/questions rely on an unspoken set of background assumptions which produce a terrain in which the question can operate. These backgrounds are always in tension with other possible neighboring backgrounds. A good example of this is the movie “The Great Train Robbery”. At the trial, after the robber has been found guilty the judge asks him “why did you rob the train?” and he says, to much laughter in the court, “because that is where the money was”. This was not the type of answer the judge was assuming.  The judge was assuming a moral logic to his question and the robber answered from a non-moral pragmatic logic. Thus as we begin to specify a problem we need to carefully articulate and examine the series of background assumptions that make both the question and its answers possible. And we need to examine the neighboring possible manners of framing the question.

Let us quickly look at another example closer to this project: the logic of “sustainability”. When we ask a question based in this logic we are imagining that nature has a certain shape : it is something that is “in balance”, exists in a continuous stable state, we, as humans have moved it from this state — and we have to return to this position of balance… These are all deeply problematic assumptions (see “Resilience”). We can see that problems need a contrast space — a space of these extra-propositional logics (here balance, sustainability etc. makes up one contrast space and dynamics are part of an alternative one). And that every problem is actually part of neighborhood of alternative contrast spaces (Resilience vs Sustainability).

The next key thing to note — the goal of a good question is not finding out right or wrong. This might come at first as a surprise — of course we are interested in the truth — that is why we ask questions and pose problems! But when we think about it rarely do we work this way — we want something more that just the truth — we want to discover but what is true AND what is interesting, remarkable, useful or necessary etc. One can give many correct answers to a question but most will be irrelevant or misleading. For example if we are asked why we eat unsustainably harvested fish — we can give many correct answers — from being in a rush that evening to having no other options. These are correct answers but do not get to the key issues (again our extra-propositional logics) and what is interesting. Just to be brief — here are some pointers on how we can begin to develop such questions:

1. Problems specify themselves through iteration — repeated experimentation. Perhaps our first question is simple — it leads to a test and an outcome with new insights which leads to reframing the question etc. This means something key: problems require experiments — they are not solvable without engagement — they are not solvable purely in our heads — they involve making interventions in the world. There needs to be a back and forth between question posing + experiment designing + intervention + observing conclusions + revising question…. (Temporal + Emergence)
2. Problems are Scalar. As with the above example of shopping for fish — as we shift levels from the singular personal event to see larger and smaller forces we can begin to see what is happening. Problems are multi-scalar
3. Problems are Nested. Again drawing on our example — many issues are part of this question: question of labor practices, cultural practices, religion, forms of economy, personal history. Note: being nested does not mean that moving out to the largest scale will give us the FINAL ANSWER — there is no singular final answer to such open and dynamic systems
4. Problems are Multi-modal. As they say: there are many ways to skin a cat…
5. Problems are Heterogeneous. This is where we began — In dealing with problems in open dynamic systems (eg the real world) Occam’s Razor is of limited use (Occam’s Razor: when all things are equal, the simplest explaination is the best). Also it is a reminder not to conflate the different nested parts of our questions…

Design is the production of problems worth having. Multi-scaled, Nested, Multi-modal, Heterogeneous, Temporal and Emergent. Making and thinking in a linked fashion.