Archives For May 2010

forming versus coding

May 28, 2010 — 6 Comments

binarycode

Having been trained as an Industrial Designer I have always seen design as a form giving process. Communications designers might see it differently, but I think of manipulating and organizing materials, physical or virtual, when I design anything. I have been wondering recently whether this is an outmoded paradigm.

As designers get asked to tackle systems problems such as behavior change we discover that the final form of the system is unknowable. It is too complex to be able to define every element or predict every outcome. So should we use form making as the central process to design systems which have unpredictable forms?

Just last week I sat through a fabulous talk by author, futurist and investor Juan Enriquez. He described the impact life sciences might have on business and society. In particular the topic of synthetic biology got me thinking about how design might be changing. The scientists can now create synthetic cells. Indeed one of Juan’s more famous collaborators Craig Venter made an important announcement about this just a few days later. They will soon be designing new synthetic organisms that can perform all kinds of unique tasks and as scary as this might be it has big implications for design. Instead of forming the material of the organism, in the way that a horticulturalist might create a new hybrid plant, the scientists use code. They literally recode the DNA to create new cells with new behaviors.

Assuming no major ecological disasters, it will not be long before the technology is developed enough to get out of the hands of scientists and into the hands of designers. We will be coding behavior, not forming it.

Is this how we should think of all design in the future? Using the code of 1′s and 0′s or A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s to design complex behaviors that evolve and are emergent rather than fixed and determined. Or perhaps this is a false distinction. Perhaps design has always broken complex systems down into small parts and formed individual components (products, services, buildings, applications) that come together to create system level behaviors. Perhaps it is the interplay between forming and coding that will be key to design.

How will designers learn the skills of  coding so as to participate in the design of future systems?

how about networks?

May 27, 2010 — 3 Comments

Christakis

As a follow up to my last (and rather old) post I wanted to say something about networks as organizations and their aesthetics. I am most of the way through reading Connected, a brilliant book on the science of social networks by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler. Among the many insights is that we will be able to intentionally manage social networks as we understand more deeply how they operate. Given the power of networks to achieve many things I think it likely that many more organizations will seek to design themselves as networks.

There is much to admire about the aesthetics of networks including their emergent behavior, their resilience and their ability to evolve to be more fit over time. These are things that classically designed organizations have struggled with. Does this make networks beautiful? I certainly find the social network maps of the Framingham heart study, that the authors use to illustrate contagious behavior, quite beautiful.