Far Beyond Dualisms in Methodology

- An Integrative Design Research Medium "MAPS"1

Wolfgang Jonas, University of Kassel, Germany

Rosan Chow, Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, University of Arts Berlin, Germany
Katharina Bredies, Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, University of Arts Berlin,
Germany
Kathrin Vent, University of Kassel, Germany

Abstract
Design research is an academic issue and increasingly a success factor for industrial,
organizational and social innovation. Efficient methodical support is crucial. The fierce
rejection of 1st generation design methods in the early 1970s resulted in the
postmodernist attitude of "no methods", and subsequently in the strong adoption of
scientific ways of thinking for design research. The situation regarding methodology
has been characterized by unproductive dualisms such as scientific vs. designerly
methods, normative vs. descriptive methods, research vs. design. The potential of the
early (1st generation) methods is neglected and the practical usefulness of design
research is impeded. The suggestion for 2nd generation methods, conceived as
discursive instruments, as discussed by Rittel and others has hardly been taken up in
design. The development of MAPS is aimed at the support of practice-oriented design,
innovation and research processes. The long-term aim is the development of an
integrated knowledge and communication platform for research through design. MAPS
is based upon the idea of a productive reconciliation of the strong dualisms between
"scientific" and "designerly" modes of inquiry and supports the emerging concept of
design thinking. The paper reports on the ongoing research and development process
from MAPS1.0 towards MAPS2.0 and beyond.

Keywords
research through design, methodology, MAPS, integrative design research medium

INTRODUCTION
Background and context
Design Research is both an academic issue and increasingly an essential success
factor for industrial, organizational and social innovation. Design and innovation in
these contexts are characterized by complexity on the problem side and contingency
on the solution side. The fierce rejection of 1st generation design methods in the early
1970s resulted in the postmodernist attitude of "no methods", and subsequently, after
more than a decade, in the strong adoption of scientific paradigms and methods for

1
"MAPS" stands for Matching Analysis Projection Synthesis and is available at
[Link] The title refers to Chow&Jonas (2008).
design research. The potential of the early (1st generation) methods is neglected and
the practical usefulness of design research is impeded as a result of the strong
scientific bias. Besides, suggestions for 2nd generation methods as discussed by Rittel
(1972) and others have hardly been taken up in design. The current methodological
dualisms fail to address these issues as a whole. There is no doubt that design and
innovation projects today are increasingly knowledge-intensive and research-based.
Nevertheless uncritical adoption of scientific methods and ways of thinking is showing
strains. Certain sub-problems in design research projects need proper scientific ways
of inquiry, but we suggest that the scientific approach alone is not sufficient.
The request for accelerated and systematic innovation suggests a need and an
opportunity to adopt design as the generic process model of innovation. The emerging
paradigm of "research through design" (Jonas 2007) provides a methodological and
epistemological model for bridging the gap and creating the relation between
"problems" and "solutions", that means for problem definition (dealing with complexity),
solution generation (dealing with contingency) and project formation (dealing with the
process that generates new facts and artefacts = forms). It also holds promise to end
the dualisms by integrating both. Resolving the dualisms is a must if design research is
to proceed to fulfil its potential and to meet its ambitious claims:

"black" Or "white"  And ("the beauty of grey")

scientific designerly the flexible design process structures both scientific and designerly
methods methods methods to allow the integration of heterogeneous scientific
contributions
"proper" research research through design, conceived as mentioned above, is proper and
research through rigorous design-specific research
design
pre- post- both modes of reflection are complementary and proceed in a circular
rationalization rationalization relation
descriptive normative both methodological concepts are necessarily complementary in
methods methods designing
nd
1st order 2nd order a 2 order cybernetic view integrates both perspectives and resolves
methods methods the apparent contradiction
control conversation the character of the process depends entirely on the observers´
interpretation of the situation, conversation seems to be the more
effective approach
tool medium the character of the instrument depends on the users´ interpretation of
the process, medium seems to be a more productive concept
rigourous undisciplined rigour in the trans-discipline of design is fairly complex and still barely
understood; the hypothesis is that in trans-disciplinary endeavours such
as design one has to be rigorously undisciplined in order to be relevant
research design essentially, research is a special mode of design, in practice there is a
continuous transfer zone between the two, we have to re-discover "the
beauty of grey"

Table 1: Overcoming dualisms in design research (Chow&Jonas 2008).

The challenge now is to operationalize these theoretical concepts of design thinking

without destroying or suppressing the intuitive qualities of the design process by the
rational approach, but to enhance them and to make them more explicit and
communicable.
Questions, hypotheses and assumptions
The research questions are (a) theoretical: how to integrate design methods and
scientific methods under a designerly paradigm of knowledge creation?, and (b)
methodological: how to make them operable in a way which creates added value for
designers and design researchers? The project is based upon the following
assumptions:
a) Research THROUGH design is the appropriate paradigm of knowledge generation
in design and mode-2 science today. (Glanville 1980, Knorr-Cetina 1981, Latour 1991,
Nowotny [Link]. 2001, Rheinberger 2001, Jonas 2007, Findeli 2008a,b).
b) There is more continuity in methodology than normally assumed. From a 2nd order
cybernetic perspective, which accounts for the necessary and inevitable involvement of
the designer / researcher in the process, it is possible to integrate the early (1st
generation) methods as well as scientific methods into a more continuous and
consistent concept of 2nd order design methodology, see fig. 1. Findeli (2006) identifies
the same modes, albeit in a different terminology:
• AS: "Premier type : modèle de la théorie minimale",
• ABOUT: "Deuxième type: la théorie comme cadre interprétatif",
• FOR: "Troisième type: le design comme science appliquée",
• THROUGH: "Quatrième type: le design comme théorie située et pratique éclairée".

Observer position Outside the design system Inside the design system
Observer looking 1st order cybernetics 2nd order cybernetics
research FOR design research THROUGH design
outwards

research ABOUT design research AS (?) design

(inaccessible)

inwards

Fig. 1: The concepts of research FOR / THROUGH / ABOUT design – as related to the
cybernetic concept of observer positions with respect to the design system (where
design activities take place, see Glanville 1997).

We hypothesize that in order to operationalize research through design, the instrument,

which we name MAPS must provide the following functions and characteristics:
• MAPS is an instrument FOR design ( normative, improving the process, aiming at
pre-rationalization),
• MAPS is based upon assumptions that are results of research ABOUT design (
descriptive, building on post-rationalization of existing processes / models),
• MAPS is aiming at the support of research THROUGH design ( conversational, an
interplay of different observer positions, pre- and post-rationalization).
• MAPS gives space for research AS design ( generative, the necessarily
inaccessible component of every abductive process). This is the epistemological core.
RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGN – AN EMERGING PARADIGM
Designerly ways of thinking
Findeli (2008a,b) provides a brief epistemological clarification of the much-quoted
"designerly way of thinking in design". He contends that it can contribute to research in
general by delivering valid and trustworthy knowledge about a part of the world
considered as its specific field of knowledge. The scope or field of design research,
according to Findeli, is general human ecology. It is the stance or epistemological bent
of design research, which makes the difference: it is normative, diagnostic, prescriptive
and not primarily analytical / descriptive as in the sciences. Design has a projective
stance, the world is seen as a project, not an object of inquiry. And this feature is not a
deficit at all (Findeli (2008b):
"Recent developments in human and social sciences have dealt extensively with the
issue of objectivity as a possible and desirable horizon in research. The interpretive or
hermeneutic turn has shown that objectivity is not a relevant and fruitful criterion for
research in those disciplines, and that rigorous inquiry is nevertheless possible without
diving into extreme relativism or scepticism. On the other hand, the pragmatist
epistemological tradition - where the engagement of the researcher is also required -
may also be invoked to propose a robust epistemological framework for design
research, not to mention action research (renamed "project-grounded research" in
design research) as one of its incarnation in methodological applications.
… definition:
Design research is a systematic search for and acquisition of knowledge related to
general human ecology considered from a designerly way of thinking, i.e. project-
oriented, perspective."
Elsewhere, this is usually called research through design (RTD).

3-stage models - APS

There is a myriad of design process models, as the collection from Dubberly (2004)
testifies. We do not want to provide just another model but to suggest an integration.
Beside this messy pluralism – if we take a more general and slightly fuzzy view – we
realize that hybrid and integrative models are emerging that acknowledge the "beauty
of grey" between "mere design" and "proper research" and argue explicitly for a
specific epistemological status of design research. There is a striking triadic pattern
showing up: a genuine design-specific structure, albeit still in diverse terminologies, of
the research process emerging in various "sciences of the artificial" (disciplines dealing
with the teleological / purposive transfer of an existing state into a preferred one), such
as design (Jones 1970, Archer 1981, Nelson and Stolterman 2003, Jonas 2007),
management (Weick 1969, Simon 1969, 1977), HCI (Fallman 2008).
author Phases / macro steps / components of design (research)
Jones 1970 divergence transformation convergence
Archer 1981 science design arts
Simon 1977 / Weick 1969 intelligence design choice
Nelson&Stolterman 2003 the true the ideal the real
Jonas 2007 Analysis Projection Synthesis
Fallman 2008 Design Studies Design Exploration Design Practice

Table 2: Triadic concepts / domains of knowing in design research indicating a generic

model of the designerly research process (see also Chow 2009).
The so-called APS-approach (Hugentobler, Jonas and Rahe 2004, Jonas 2007) (APS
stands for ANALYSIS PROJECTION SYNTHESIS) has been elaborated and
developed into an operational tool (Jonas&Chow 2008). The underlying theoretical
model consists of the hypercyclic combination of three domains of knowing ("the true",
"the ideal", "the real", Nelson&Stolterman 2003) - the macro-level, and 4 steps of the
basic learning cycle (research, analysis, synthesis, realization, Kolb 1984) - the micro-
level. The claim is that APS represents the generic structure of a design research
process in the paradigm of research through design.

APS and further …

Three generic design process models from Simon / Weick (1977 / 1969),
Nelson&Stolterman (2003) and Jonas (2007) provide the basis for the further
deveolpment of our theory. They are different but compatible and can be synthesized in
a productive manner. Jonas´ operational "macro phases" of the design process
(Analysis, Projection, Synthesis) are related to Nelson&Stolterman´s epistemological
"domains of knowing" (the true, the ideal, the real). Simon&Weick´s generic steps of
the management process (Intelligence, Design, Choice) are integrated, because
Boland (2004) has demonstrated that it makes sense and provides further insight to
consider the 3 macro steps of the design research process (which we call A, P, S from
now on) in arbitrary sequence. So it is essential to mention that the 3 macro steps of
the design research process are arranged not in a linear but in a circular sequence,
allowing any possible punctuation of the process:
1. intelligence – design – choice (APS): Herbert Simon´s rational man
economic theory,
2. design – choice – intelligence (PSA): the "what have I done?" manager,
3. choice – intelligence – design (SAP): the existential introvert,
4. intelligence – choice – design (ASP): the chronically disappointed manager – "if
I had only…",
5. design – intelligence – choice (PAS): Karl Weick´s sensemaking manager,
6. choice – design – intelligence (SPA): the existential hero.
According to Boland, from the six possible combinations of punctuations it is most
reasonable to put Choice (SYNTHESIS) to the last moment. Therefore the sequence 1
- APS and the sequence 5 - PAS are the only desirable ones.
"NARRATIVE 1. INTELLIGENCE – DESIGN – CHOICE
The sequence of intelligence – design – choice is Simon´s own punctuation in which
intelligence recognizes a need for intervention, design makes alternatives available for
consideration, and choice selects the best (satisficing) one. This is the classic view of
rational man who is intentionally goal seeking and uses intelligence and forethought to
guide organizational action. Our literature is full of examples showing that this model
does not represent how humans actually behave. Simon "saves" this model for
economists by posing that individuals are boundedly rational and do not seek best or
optimal solutions as a strong economic model might suggest, but rather search for
solutions until one that is "good enough" is found – the boundedly rational person
therefore satisfices. This image of a satificing human, as attractive as it may be, has an
undesirable consequence that follows from its temporal dynamic. In light of Simon´s
own recognition of the importance of problem representation, we see that this
punctuation of managing is easily trapped by the common wisdom of those in a
problematic situation – its sequence begins with a pre-understanding of the situation
that can promote a myopic circularity in which the way we happen to be thinking about
things becomes institutionalized in the representation and definition of the world we
face. My intuition is that this way of punctuating management action leads to a finer
and finer attention to problem representations that grow increasingly irrelevant to the
human condition. Welfare policy, education policy, transportation policy, and most
public policy issues seem to fall prey to the traps of this form of punctuation."
"NARRATIVE 5. DESIGN – INTELLIGENCE – CHOICE
Here, we have design as the shaping of things while engaged with others in the flow of
action, and the producing of outcomes that are surprising to even the individual herself.
Interaction with others generates equivocal enactment that is then subject to a
sensemaking process. During sensemaking, intelligence is applied to order those
elements of the raw action in ways that make the situation meaningful, aesthetically
pleasing, and morally acceptable. This intelligence is followed by a choice of which
meanings and sensemaking structures to carry forward into future enactments. This is
a cybernetic system modeled after an evolutionary process, much like Weick´s
sensemaking model with its pattern of variation, selection, and retention. Here, goals (if
they are ever explicitly considered at all) are only understood retrospectively, and the
raw, surprising enactments of design are the primary driving force of organizing.
Weick´s many years of research on the sensemaking model of organizing shows how
powerful this view of punctuating action is for understanding organizing behaviors both
successful and unsuccessful. It is, in a sense, the antidote to the rational man model of
the first narrative, grounded in a phenomenological appreciation of human action."
The distinction refers also to Lawson´s (1980) notion of scientists being more "problem-
oriented" (analyzing the problem so that the solution can be derived from that) in
contrast to designers being more "solution-oriented" working and thinking (generating
tentative solutions until the best one emerges).
We can derive archetypical processes from the above considerations. The APS model
places intelligence and goal-driven problem-solving as the driving activities (Simon
1977). Design research departing from a more or less known context, aiming at …
solutions. The PAS model places design as the driving activity (Weick 1969). Design
research departing from a highly unclear context, aiming at … innovations. Eliminating
the doubles, we arrive at nine archetypical processes:

1 A P S APS a "complete" design research process Intelligence and goal

driven problem-solving
2 A P AP a concept / futures studies process (without as the driving and
synthesis/realization) leading activities in the
3 A S AS a "normal" design process (without proper projection) design research process
with / without Synthesis
4 P A S PAS a "complete" design innovation process Design projection as the
driving and leading
5 P A PA an exploration process (without synthesis/realization) activity in the innovation /
6 P S PS a "risky", "speculative" trial&error process (without exploration / research
analytical grounding) process with / without
Synthesis
7 A A an analytic research process (inquiry into "the true") disciplinary, domain-
specific research or
8 P P a projective futures studies process (inquiry into "the ideal") practice
9 S S a synthetic realization process (inquiry into "the real")

Table 3: Nine archetypical design and design research processes.

By the way: Based upon these considerations it seems possible to describe the model
of RTD as closely related to mode-2 science Nowotny [Link]. characterize mode-2
science through primacy of the application context, transdisciplinary working situations,
institutional heterogeneity (project-orientation), social accountability and new practices
and criteria of quality control. In a mode-2 perspective there is a growing convergence
of the design- and the research process; a shift from understanding to changing. We
argue that it is the PROJECTION phase which integrates science and design and thus
establishes the model of mode-2 science. This has to be elaborated elsewhere in more
detail.
ANALYSIS PROJECTION SYNTHESIS
Design
Design Research ( equals mode-2 science)
Scientific Research (mode-1 science)

Table 4: PROJECTION links Design & Science and establishes the model of mode-2
science.

CONCEPT OF MAPS

Distinctions of MAPS
MAPS is aimed to dissolve the toolbox' apparent rigidity and its conditioning and to
provide a flexible, discursive and productive knowledge-supported medium. In the light
of user experience with MAPS1.0 and against the background of deeper research into
management processes (Boland 2004) and user-centered design research processes
(Chow 2005) we realize the need to make the model more open and flexible. MAPS is
designed to assist design researchers to specify / categorize (problem) situations, to
match process patterns to the specified situation (and specify the role of design
research), to select methods / tools related to the process, and to capture and retrieve
design knowledge. Furthermore the new tool will assist the user in analyzing existing
projects and processes (post-rationalization) as well as in configurating own processes
(pre-rationalization). This contributes to the development of a knowledge base on
design research processes. We consider four different functions / conditions of use:
• ‘HELP’: when experienced design researcher needs to locate quickly references on
design research process, methods, tools.
• ‘INSTRUCT’: when design researcher needs step-by-step instruction on design
research process, methods and tools.
• ‘PROMOTE’: when design researcher needs to explain the value and process of
design research to partners and clients quickly.
• ‘COLLABORATE’: when design researcher needs to work closely with partners and
clients.
Quick
reference

Promote Help
External Internal

Collaborate Instruct

In-Depth
Instruction

Fig. 2: MAPS provides four different functions.

The wider MAPS system
MAPS is aiming at the support of practice-oriented design, innovation and research
processes. The long-term aim is the development of an integrated knowledge and
communication platform for research THROUGH design. The outcomes of research
through design projects are models in the widest sense: artefacts and new knowledge.
MAPS assists problem specification by means of a questionnaire, which collects the
main characteristics of the project. It suggests, if necessary, the use of a systemic
model of the situation, which evolves during the process. MAPS provides an archive of
methods. The methods are tagged according to the generic APS process model.
MAPS generates preliminary process proposals, based upon the generic process
model and using the outcome of the questionnaire (this is pre-rationalization). The
process can be modified according to new and changing insights and requirements at
any time, so that MAPS has the function of a communicative / reflective tool during the
process. The final process can be documented and stored in a project archive for
further evaluation and use (this is post-rationalization). Finally the growing project
archive will feed MAPS and will generate new knowledge regarding the appropriate use
of methods for the configuration of processes. Prototypical processes for certain
situations may emerge, so that transferability of processes will be a longer-term effect
of the use of MAPS.

generic process models

ANALYSIS PROJECTION SYNTHESIS

PROJECTION ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

situation (systemic model, evolving

during process)

specific process
Knowledge-supported
process generation
problem
specification

emerging model

project archive
methods / toolbox (related to
the generic process model)

Knowledge and Communication Platform

Fig. 3: The wider design concept of MAPS and its use.

OPERATIONALIZATION OF MAPS
Following from these theoretical considerations we have conducted in-depth user-
studies in the context of a communication and information technological research
center. Users from Business, Engineering, Design Design Research, were
[Link] from these interviews, we transferred the four ideal functions as
conceived above (Fig. 2) into three demonstrative use-scenarios or working modes for
MAPS. They serve as guidelines for the development of the system and the specific
user-interfaces:
• "WIZARD-mode" is an assistance tool, mainly for beginners, for knowledge-supported
configuration of processes. It is highly normative, using the questionnaire for the
specification of process requirements.
• "PLANNER-mode" is a discursive tool / workspace for planning a process timeline for
a team of experts, possibly from different disciplines. It is intensively using the methods
toolbox and the methods descriptions.
• "REFERENCE-mode" is a reference tool with easy access to the methods database
and the project archive and links. Effective user-generated knowledge capture and
retrieval features are implemented here

Matching algorithm for

relating problem situations
and methods
REFERENCE
WIZARD

Specification of the
PLANNER
problem situation Methods database

(questionnaire)  method tags

Project archive
Workspace for project
 situation tags
configuration

User - interface

Fig. 4: Main components of MAPS2.0.

The questionnaire in the WIZARD mode is a tool for the user to specify his / her project
situation. By answering the questions the user is also selecting tags that characterize
the project. At the same time the tags are instruments for method profiling, that means
characterizing their usability / usefulness for specific purposes. The set of tags is
shared by the questionnaire (problem side) and the methods archive (solution side);
they are the connecting elements. MAPS uses tags to match the situation with the
suitable methods. That means for example: a problem situation can be designerly /
scientific and a method can be designerly / scientific, etc. Matching the profiles of the
situation and of the methods available contributes to the intelligent knowledge-
supported selection of methods and tools for specific project situations. The matching
algorithm for the meaningful relation of problem situations and methods is essential
and still in the process of development and refinement ….
The four idealized functions (Fig. 2) are matched with users needs and made usable by
three different interaction modes.
Function User needs Mode
Help Easy handling (Step by Step) Wizard
Not so complex. Preselection of Information Wizard
Pre-rationalization Wizard
Not so interested in process, just need some advice on Reference or Planner
methods
Favorite methods Reference
Instruct Archive Reference
 Lots of in-depth information Reference
Search for particular method Reference
Fast & efficient Reference
Promote Access to other people’s processes Planner
Post-rationalization Planner
Streamlining processes Planner or Reference
Collaborate Show process plan to client Wizard or Planner
Fix process Planner
Access to own history Planner
Reuse processes & methods Planner or Reference

Table 5: User-centered functions and interactions of MAPS.

WIZARD is the mode for non-experts, who seek recommendation regarding the
configuration of their design research process. See Fig. 5.
Julia (Design Think Tank) is a young designer who has just joined a design
consultancy for a month. Her first project is to assist a senior designer to develop
mobile communication for teenagers. She is very practice-oriented, creative and used
to work intuitively. In her design education she has not learned to reflect and
communicate her design process. But now she has to make explicit her methods and
process. She is under time pressure for this short-term project and she needs to get
information quickly and is looking for easy-to-understand cookbook descriptions of
process and methods. Julia starts using WIZARD to get quick and plausible results.
She also browses through REFERENCE and gets interested in the archived
experience reports and ratings from colleagues and thinks about reusing existing
templates, etc.

PLANNER is for those who have much experience in planning and carrying out
projects. Users can enter PLANNER either through first using WIZARD or directly. See
Fig. 6.
Barbara (Product Development) is a very pragmatic project leader with an engineering
background. She leads a multi-professional team and needs to co-ordinate and to
organize the group and information flow. She needs to plan in advance in details for
every single project. Consensus among project members is highly important; therefore
transparent and explicit communication is essential for successful teamwork. She
needs clear overview of the project: what is happening when, with whom and where.
Her projects are longer term with definite milestones. Moreover she is interested in new
methods that improve efficiency and effectiveness. Barbara enters PLANNER,
retrieves a successful project from the archive and modifies it according to the
requirements of the actual project. From time to time she browses in REFERENCE in
order to check out the newest methods and updates that might be useful for her team.
Sometimes she also adds new methods that she finds useful to share with colleagues.
REFERENCE is for all to get information about methods. The user can search for the
database of methods in various ways. Furthermore, (s)he can evaluate and comment
existing methods and add own methods. See Fig. 7.
Herbert (Research Consultant) has a scientific background and is a very analytical
worker. From his long consulting experience he has in-depth theoretical and practical
knowledge about processes and methods. He needs and prefers scientific references,
links, published case studies and literature for his work. He needs information and
sound knowledge. He likes to keep record of his own projects to show clients.
Furthermore, he is permanently looking for new knowledge and he is constantly
building his professional network. So Herbert is a frequent user of REFERENCE where
he comments and rates existing methods, looks for interesting new methods and
projects and frequently adds new methods.

Fig. 5: Knowledge supported process configuration in the WIZARD mode.

Fig. 6: Configurating a design research project in the PLANNER mode.

Fig. 7: Method description in the REFERENCE mode.

CONCLUSIONS
It is not difficult to find descriptions and representations of processes for designing,
problem solving, and innovative product development. Evbuomwan et. al. (1996) and
Dubberly (2004) provide a comprehensive collection of philosophies and process
models. However, most of these representations, although informed by practical
experiences, can hardly be considered systematic or rigorous. And even the more
thoughtful representations come short in a few critical aspects, since they overlook the
problematic situation, i.e. the relevant contextual factors of the project, or they conflate
process models with methods and tools, or they fail to distinguish the epistemological
domains of knowing (the true, the ideal, the real), or they are focussed on specific
application areas such as software, HCI, architecture, etc. Table 6 provides an
overview.
Our ambitious claim may be supported by the observation that there is self-similarity in
the project. The entire ongoing development process of MAPS can be described so far
as A – P – S – A – P – A – S … with open end: A: Analysing existing process models
and tools – P: Projecting a tool for design research (theoretical concept) – S:
Synthesising the first version of MAPS (toolbox and MAPS1.0) – A: Analysing user
experience with MAPS1.0 – P: Projecting the improved version of MAPS – A:
Analysing user needs for the new version – S: Synthesising the improved version
MAPS2.0 – …
The rather rigid toolbox structure of MAPS1.0 has been made much more open and
flexible in MAPS2.0. Three different modes are available by means of a user-friendly
interface. Further improvements are required for each of the three modes:
• WIZARD: Filtering algorithm for matching problem situations and methods needs
refinement. MAPS-users have to contribute.
• PLANNER: Connecting interfaces to project planning software might be helpful.?
• REFERENCE: User collaboration is required for the evaluation of the existing
methods, for the thorough examination of the tagging logic, and the introduction of new
methods
We are looking forward to MAPS3.0…
 MAPS2.0 ID Chicago MePSS Z-Punkt CF IDEO method
approach toolbox cards
Reference [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]
[Link] du/130/ .nl/[Link]?p=i t-im- om/work/item/met
ntro [Link]/z_ hod-cards/
[Link]?kat=1
Application Support Design + Support human- Support Product Support Inspire human-
focus Research centered design Service Systems Corporate centered design
Through Design and design (PSS) Foresight (CF) and research
(RTD) research development processes processes
Problem Situation may be Human-center-ed PSS One out of four Design situations
situation / specified in detail design and development in different CF in general
purpose (questionnaire) design research general purposes has to
situations be chosen
Theory 3-step macro- 4-step process 5-step process 4-step process 4 suits according
and 4-step micro (Kolb-type) and 6 decision (Kolb-type) to activity modes:
process (Kolb- nodes Ask, Watch,
type), 12-step Learn, Try
hypercyclic
Methods 200 methods 100+ methods 23 tools, detailed 21 methods, 51 methods, brief
des-cription of detailed illustrated
the working steps description of descriptions
tools
Method According to the Selection of Configuration Predefined Completely free,
selection / situation as methods for each according to a proposal, user supported by the
process specified in the of the 4 steps fixed scheme can choose 4 suits
configu- questionnaire, or among 1-3
ration underlying 12- methods for each
step struc-ture , of the 4 steps
or free
Normativity Normative, Mainly normative Mainly normative Mainly normative Non-normative
regarding descriptive, or
whole anything in
process between
Comment Theoretically the The classic Excellent for PSS Excellent for CF Nice and playful
most robust and development purposes tool for inspiration
practically the
most general.
Usability still to
be improved

Table 6: Comparison of exemplary methodical tools.

References
Archer, Bruce (1981) "A View of the Nature of Design Research" in Jacques, R and
Powell, J (eds), Design:Science:Method, Guildford: Westbury House
Boland, Richard J. jr. and Collopy, Fred (eds.) (2004) Managing as Designing,
Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books
Boland, Richard J. jr. (2004) "Design in the Punctuation of Management Action", in:
Boland, Richard J. jr. and Collopy, Fred (eds.) (2004), 106-112
Chow, Rosan (2005) For User Study. The Implications of Design, PhD dissertation,
Hochschule für Bildende Künste Braunschweig
Chow, Rosan: Jonas, Wolfgang (2008) "Beyond Dualisms in Methodology - An
Integrative Design Research Medium "MAPS" and some Reflections", in: Proceedings
of DRS-conference Undisciplined!, Sheffield 2008

Chow, Rosan (2009) "Fallman meets Jonas", in: Communication by Design, Sint-
Lucas, 15-17 April 2009, Brussels
Dubberly, Hugh (2004) "How do you design?", Dubberly Design Office, San Francisco
Evbuomwan, N F O; Sivaloganathan, S; Jebb, A (1996) "A Survey of design
philosophies, models, methods and systems", Proc. of the Inst. of Mech. Engineers,
Vol: 210 (1996) Fasc: 4 p 301-320 (University of Newcastle, UK)
Findeli, Alain (2006) "Qu´appelle-t-on 'théorie' en design? Réflections sur
l´enseignement et la recherche en design", in: Brigitte Flamand, Le design. Essais sur
des théories et des pratiques, Paris: Edition du Regard
Findeli, A., Brouillet, D., Martin, S., Moineau, Ch., Tarrago, R. (2008a) "Research
Through Design and Transdisciplinarity: A Tentative Contribution to the Methodology of
Design Research", in Minder, B. (ed.), Focused - Current design research projects and
methods, Bern, SDN, 2008, pp. 67-94.
Findeli, Alain (2008b) "Searching for Design Research Questions: Some Conceptual
Clarifications", in: Questions & Hypotheses, DRN Learning Conference, Berlin, October
2008
Hugentobler, Hans Kaspar; Jonas, Wolfgang; Rahe, Detlef (2004) "Designing a
Methods Platform for Design and Design Research", in: futureground, DRS
International Conference, Melbourne, Nov. 2004
Fallman, Daniel (2008) The Interaction Design Research Triangle of Design Practice,
Design Studies, and Design Exploration, in: Design Issues, 24(3), 4-18.
Jonas, Wolfgang (2007) "Research through DESIGN through research - a cybernetic
model of designing design foundations", in: Kybernetes Vol 36 No 9/10, special issue
on cybernetics and design
Jonas, Wolfgang; Chow, Rosan (2008) "Beyond Dualisms in Methodology – an
integrative design research medium ('MAPS') and some reflections", DRS conference
Undisciplined!, Sheffield, 07/2008
Jonas, Wolfgang (2009) " Design Research Thinking – a Narrative Sketch. or:
Elements of a Theory of Design Research, in: Communicating BY Design, Sint-Lucas,
Brussels, April 2009
Kolb, David (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Lawson, Bryan (1980) How Designers Think. The Design Process Demystified,
Oxford: Architectural Press, third edition 1997
Nelson, Harold G.; Stolterman, Erik (2003) The Design Way. Intentional change in
an unpredictable world Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications
Nowotny, Helga; Scott, Peter; Gibbons, Michael (2001) Re-Thinking Science.
Knowledge and the Public in the Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Rittel, Horst (1984) "Second-generation Design Methods", in: Cross, Nigel (ed.)
Developments in Design Methodology, Chichester: John Wiley, pp 317-327 (Original
1972)
Simon, Herbert A. (1977) New Science of management decision, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall
Simon, Herbert A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press
Weick, Karl (1969) Social Psychology of organizing, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley

Authors Biographies
Wolfgang Jonas
studied naval architecture at the Technical University of Berlin, he holds a PhD in
engineering (1983) and a lecturing qualification (Habilitation) in design theory (1994).
Since 1994 he has been professor for "process design" at the University of Art and
Design Halle, for "design theory" at the University of the Arts Bremen and for "system
design" at the School of Art and Design, University of Kassel. His focus of interest:
systemic design theory, design methods, scenario planning, research through design.
Rosan Chow
is a research scientist at the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories at. She holds a Bachelor
and a Masters Degree in Communication Design and a Ph.D in Designwissenschaft.
She has studied, practised and sessionally taught design in Canada, United States and
Germany. She is a research fellow at the Communication Research Institute in
Australia and the project manager of the newly established Design Research Network.
Her research focuses on design theory and design research methodology.
Katharina Bredies
is a research scientist and PhD candidate at Deutsche Telekom Laboratories. She
holds a Diploma in product and interface design from the University of Arts Bremen. In
her dissertation, she explores the impact of irritating interfaces on the 'interpretative
flexibility' of an artefact. Besides, she assists in research projects on design
methodology and theory.
Kathrin Vent
is currently working as interaction designer for ACT-NET, a European project for
evaluation and visualization of informal learning processes. She studied Product
Design with focus on System Design at the University of Kassel and at the Escola d'Art
i Superior de Disseny de València in Spain. Besides practicing design, she is preparing
her PhD Thesis which focuses on learning processes in systemic design.