Ashley Rene Wilson

4.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

A literature review is a document that compiles and presents research that has already been completed and is accessible regarding a given topic. This information has typically been published or recognized by accredited scholars or academic and industry peers as valid and credible research and information. A literature review conveys the knowledge and ideas that have already been established regarding a given topic and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the material.

The following section provides knowledge and information surrounding communication methods, designer interactions, and design and society at large. This research discusses team dynamics, process models and methods, and the value of collective creativity. This literature review presents this research as an introduction to the knowledge base already present in the field of design communications.

4.1 COMMUNICATION METHODS & PROCESSES

In the design fields especially, people have recognized the need for clear, distinct, and trustworthy presentation of verbal and visual messages. Because design, as opposed to science and theories, is a means of developing a course of action to change an existing condition or situation to a preferred, optimally, improved one (Faust 2010, 110), effective communication is essential. This form of communication depends on ‘effort and understanding from both the initiator of the message and the recipient.’ (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 63)

Pettersson argues that the need for successful and effective communication is satisfied through the focus on information design. Information design consists of analysis, planning, presentation, and understanding of a message—its content, language and form. Well-designed information materials, regardless of the selected medium, will satisfy aesthetic, economic, ergonomic, and subject matter requirements. (Pettersson 2009, 39-40) Zunde and Bougdah also state that any and every attempt at communication should clearly define the objective or message, the language used in transmission, and the condition under which the recipient and receiver will use the message. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 65-6) Faust expands the idea of information design by defining the terminology, ‘designing design.’ Designing design is where theory and practice merge into one discipline, therefore, ‘…framing design in a new way, providing new possibilities and responsibilities.’ (Faust 2010, 111)

The following section aims to highlight the research of decision making processes and phases used in creative problem solving and the role communication plays in these processes and phases. Tools, barriers, and channels of communication are also discussed; the awareness and role of these factors in communication is critical to effective and successful outcomes in the design professions.

4.1.1 COLLECTIVE CREATIVITY

Unfortunately, people often feel out of touch with decision making processes that affect their lives so critically; they often feel alienated, powerless, and therefore, apathetic. Chang cites that people may be ‘afraid to express their true feelings or their personal ideas and concepts, even though they could be harboring the ingredients to massive social solutions.’ (Chang 1978, 29) Often designers’ ideas are challenged by individuals outside of the design team on the simple basis that they are not directly involved in or accountable for design decisions. Gestalt Therapy, developed by Frederick S. Perls, presents the theory that only through interaction of the individual with the group and individual with the community is it possible for art, life, and problem solving, to come together in a positive, creative way. (Chang 1978, 30)

The career-long research of Lawrence Halprin was focused around the creative process; what energizes it, how it functions, and how its universal aspects can have implications for all creative fields. His analysis and exploration of the creative process led him to the concept of ‘scores.’ These scores are ‘symbolizations of processes which extend over time.’ (Halprin 1969, 1-2) Halprin’s definition of scores involves four parts that all account for humanistic aspects and the human communications of creative processes. These four parts of the creative process together make up what Halprin entitled the RSVP cycles:

• R— Resources; what you have to work with, both human and physical resources
• S— Scores; process leading to the performance
• V— Valuaction; analysis and decisions
• P— Performance; resultant of the scores, ‘style’ of the process

(Halprin 1969, 2)

‘Scores are a way of symbolizing reality—of communicating experience through devices other than the experience itself.’ (Halprin 1969, 9) Halprin’s goal was not to categorize or systemize the creative process, but rather to make the process visible and ultimately free the process. (Halprin 1969, 3)

Further advancing the ideas of collective creativity, Halprin and his wife, Ann, developed a series of
workshops known as the Take Part Processes. The goal of these workshops was to develop a common language through shared experiences and situations. These shared experiences and development of a common language allowed members of a team or group to communicate and work collectively to solve mutual problems. (Chang 1978, 38) It is important to note that part of the successful communication and development of a common language was centered on varying communication tools, including non-verbal skills. Some examples of the manner in which workshop participants were charged to develop a common, shared experience are a simple walk through a particular downtown area or by all partaking in a meal at a particular restaurant. Through their workshops, the Halprins aimed to enlarge each person’s efforts and unlock hidden energy and genius within a team or group.

Another defining factor of the Take Part Processes was the distinction between objectives of the creative process and definitive, static ‘goals.’ (Chang 1978, 38) This distinction opens up alternatives and allows new solutions to arise. The Halprins workshops were about the method of becoming creative, not necessarily about the result. In other words, Take Part Processes, as the title suggests, are not about a way of selling a building or designing a city; it is about a process. The process itself has validity aside from the results.

While Halprin’s work may be seen as dated information, 30 years later, his processes are still being utilized in the field. Fox, Leicht and Messner argue that in building and construction teams, when team members have shared experiences, individuals work more quickly from the concept studies to the execution tasks of design. Individuals with shared experience and frames of reference are also able to then work independently with greater familiarity to the design problem. (Fox et al 2010, 59)

4.1.2 VISUAL LITERACY

Goldschmidt defines visual literacy as the “ability to both ‘read’ and ‘write’ forms and shapes with great precision.” (Goldschmidt 2007, 45) Visual literacy encompasses three major categories; human abilities, teaching strategies, and the promotion of ideas. It is also defined as the ability to both interpret and accurately create such messages. For example, visual literacy is viewed as a parallel to reading and writing in print literacy. (Pettersson 2009, 38)

Designers often appropriate a selection of visual elements that are used as the ‘inventory’ for a given design project. This inventory can be thought of as a ‘kit of parts.’ Recognizable designers (painters, architects) use items from a repeated inventory or a kit of parts, all of which constitute the particular designer’s style. Examples of elements within a designer inventory are shapes, forms, and color palettes. In order to control the aesthetic value of a design artifact, designers need a high level of visual literacy. Visual literacy is an acquired skill and is specific to given fields. Often, it may take some time before an individual can maneuver within a visual world of a given culture or subculture with authority or mastery. (Goldschmidt 2007, 45)

In visual communication, there is a move towards the multimodal approach of analysis of semiotic resources such as composition, movement and color; especially within the modes of images, graphics, typography, fashion, product design, exhibition design, and architecture. (van Leeuwen 2008, 130) Van Leeuwen cites a study several students conducted where they analyzed companies’ web content and home pages and noted trends in visual elements. The students noted the irrelevance of full textual explanations and how they observed ‘…plenty of words, but they were nouns and noun-clusters, not sentences.’ (van Leeuwen 2008, 130) This trend shows the prominence of visual literacy in today’s culture versus the previously predominate focus on print literacy in media engagements. Essentially, visual communication is creating a new form of writing. While the lexis of this new form of writing may be verbal or visual, the syntax is always expressed visually through diagrams and visual composition and through cohesive uses of color, typography, and other stylistic elements. (van Leeuwen 2008, 132)

Color, as a semiotic characteristic, must work with other semiotic modes. Van Leeuwen notes two key aspects of
the multimodal functionality of color. The first aspect is the ability of color to confer identity; traditional examples of identity are evident in heraldry, uniforms, and ceremonial robes and modern examples can be seen in the psychographic lifestyle identities seen in fashion and interior design. The second aspect is the characteristic of color to appear as a bundle of features with metaphoric and cognitive potential. Van Leeuwen argues that a color is never just red—‘…it is always characterized by being red and dark or light and plain or textured and luminous or not…’ (van Leeuwen 2008, 132)

4.1.3 ASYNCHRONOUS & SYNCHRONOUS PHASES

Hisarciklilar and Boujut define the asynchronous phase of design as the phase when individual decisions are made and the synchronous design phase as the phase when these solutions are then evaluated. (Hisarciklilar and Boujut 2008) The most common example of the synchronous phase within the design profession is the design review; it is the phase where collective thinking influences the design and is especially influenced by those outside of the design team. Hisarciklilar and Boujut aim to define what they call an ‘information gap’ in the concept design phase of projects, between the asynchronous and synchronous phases. They note that improvements in dealing with this information gap can lead to improved sharing not only of a design solution itself, but also the decisions and rationale behind the solutions. (Hisarcikilar and Boujut 2008) These two definitive stages are discussed further in Section 4.2 (asynchronous phase) and Section 4.3 (synchronous phase).

4.1.4 DESIGN TOOLS

‘Tools are used to externalize ideas and mental images.’ (Stones and Cassidy 2010, 439) Stones and Cassidy describe a tool as a moving entity that, through initiation and guided purpose, acts as an extension of a human being. For designers, tools are used in the process of designing artifacts. The tools designers use are extensions of our own hands that give us the ability to express mental images on paper or in a digital realm. Mark-making activities (i.e. sketching) are represented by the use of tools such as pen and paper, while digital design tools are used as extensions of thought through the manipulation of pre-defined shapes and the use of free-form lines. (Stones and Cassidy 2010, 440) These two realms allow our creative manifestations to appear in the visual world via tools.

The tools designers use facilitate a conversation with oneself and others that allows for ‘selection, reflection, and change’ to occur. Sketching and digital representations allow graphic thinking to manifest. This graphic thinking is often centered on manipulation of mental imagery as well as the perception of physical, external elements. This process is defined by Stones and Cassidy as ‘reinterpretation’ and is generally described as the result of lateral design thinking, thanks in part to our design tools. (Stones and Cassidy 2010, 441)

Faust cites the idea that a message of any medium or technology is the change of scale, pace, or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. (Faust 2010, 111) In our culture, the hybrid work of several design tools also allows for new, ground-breaking architectural expressions to be introduced into human affairs. While working with one tool may result in a strong sense of ambiguity, clarification can likely result from working with a different design tool during the asynchronous phase of design. Stones and Cassidy argue that because of the irresolute nature of the sketch and the decisive nature of computer-aided artifacts, the ambiguity of the sketch is, and should be celebrated. (Stones and Cassidy 2010)

4.1.5 CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION

Zunde and Bougdah also introduce the channels of communication that are most common in the design industry. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 66-74) The following list of communication channels encompasses the most prominent examples found with the architecture and design industry:

• Oral
  • Formal Meetings
  • Informal Meetings
  • Phone Calls
  • Teleconferencing and Web Conferencing
• Written
  • Emails
  • Minutes and Records
  • Letters
  • Memoranda
  • Contract Documents
  • Specifications
  • Filing
• Drawn (2D Representations)
  • Sketches
  • Hard-line Drawings
  • Production Drawings
  • System Designs and Layouts
  • Assembly Drawings and Details
  • Record Drawings
  • Computer-aided Images
  • Photographs
  • Mixed-media
• Models (3D Representations)
  • Sketch Models (i.e. axonometric/isometric assembly)
  • Full-scale Mock Ups
  • Massing
  • Physical
  • Computer-generated
  • Building Information Modeling (BIM)

4.1.6 MESSAGE BARRIERS & NOISE

There are several barriers evident between the initiator and receiver of a message that can ultimately affect the perception of the content and can cause distortion en route. These barriers can also be seen as filters through which the information must pass.

• skills ; fluency in the language used to communicate (i.e. English grammar, technical drawing, handwriting)
• culture ; the environment and experiences of individuals that affect their perceptions
• knowledge ; avoiding assumptions of what is ‘common knowledge’
• status ; inferiority and superiority in relationships
• attitudes ; differences in our responses to situations, mainly from value differences and prejudices

(Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 64-5)

Another factor that can interfere with the transmission of a message from source to destination is described as ‘noise.’ Noise can appear both extraneously and inadvertently through lack of care. Zunde and Bougdah cite simple extraneous examples of noise such as ‘poorly chosen letterhead, pompous email signatures, poorly groomed staff at formal meetings, and a cavalier attitude to punctuality.’ (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 63-5)

4.2 DESIGN TEAM DYNAMICS

Zunde and Bougdah argue that ‘professions cannot exist in isolation.’ Designers therefore work in groups to solve problems and develop design solutions they are not able to solve individually. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 54) All team members (both in-house and in consultant positions) for a given design project must work together and therefore must develop grounding in each other’s concerns as well as empathy for one another’s ideas and perspectives. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 1) Designers that work within groups and teams must communicate their cognitive thinking with one another and thus make evident the general structure of problem-solving. (Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002, 477)

Typical design teams in the building and construction industry consist of several individuals from varying technical disciplines that work together for anywhere from several months to several years to undertake the design of a given space or facility. These design teams are often divided into varying degrees of sub-teams and may often be geographically distant from one another. Boddy et al note that the most crucial levels of collaboration and decision making in the larger design team often occur at the ‘boundaries’ of the sub-teams. These ‘boundaries’ can be described as the most socially disconnected and non-cooperative members of the sub-teams; the ones unintentionally kept ‘in the dark’ during a given project. Coordination within the teams at these boundaries is the significant problem in resolving differences in design teams. These issues have raised awareness of the importance of openness, transparency, social capital, and accountability in successful collaborations within interpersonal communication as well as digital workspace. (Boddy et al 2010, 433)

Designers not only deal with the design task at hand, but also spend a large part of their time structuring and organizing the group process of problem-solving. Expanding on this thought, Stempfle and Badke-Schaub determined the two main actions of a design team to be focused around content and process. This division was backed by laboratory research of design teams where Stempfle and Badke-Schaub determined that approximately 30% of the communication in design teams is focused around clarification of the group process and the structuring of the team. (Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002, 483)

While the task-based approach to design team processes is vital to problem-solving, a look at the activity-based process and skills of given team members is also crucial to the outcome of the design project. (Hisarciklilar and Boujut 2008) As I previously described in Section 4.1.7, the various stakeholders in a design team all have different understandings, cultural backgrounds, and use various tools and representations to communicate, making team integration highly valuable for optimal design processes. Fox et al also note that perceptions of design team members can be influenced by not only culture but also personality types and even gender. (Fox et al 2010, 56) In order to optimize the design team efforts, a move from co-ordinated communication to a co-operative communication method is necessary to produce important and relevant artifacts. (Hisarciklilar and Boujut 2008) This allows all participants to work together towards a common result while sharing immature thoughts and visualizations of the design iterations throughout the process so as to jointly develop the final output of the artifact; the team must work in synergy.

The following section will discuss the present research in problem-solving within a design team, the importance of shared mental models, and the social interactions of team members.

4.2.1 PROBLEM SOLVING

Design is about problem-solving. In problem-solving there exists both a goal space and a solution space. Stempfle and Badke-Schaub discuss the area between these two spaces and how it must be coordinated in such a way that they overlap and an optimum fit is developed between the two. In design, the solution space is actually much more flexible than the goal space. Specific constraints and requirements in the goal space are generally preset and can only be negotiated to a certain level, while in the solution space there are often infinite possibilities and solutions. (Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002, 475)

Together, the two spaces can be viewed as a ‘problem space’ and such a space requires cognitive processes for operation. Stempfle and Badke-Schaub propose that generation and exploration serve to widen a problem space while comparison and selection serve to narrow a problem space. The team proposes these cognitive processes as the basic components of design thinking and problem-solving of all types. The four cognitive operations serve as the basic thinking operations that connect the actions introduced in Section 4.2 of content and process.

The following six steps are focused in the content-related process:

• goal clarification; communication acts dealing with the goal space
• solution generation; proposals and solution ideas concerning the design task
• analysis; questions and answers concerning the solution space
• evaluation; positive and negative evaluations concerning the solution space
• decision; decisions for or against a solution idea
• control; control of the implementation of a solution idea

(Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002, 477)

The following five steps directly relate to the process in relationship to the content :

• planning; proposals concerning the group process (how to proceed, how to distribute tasks, etc.)
• analysis; questions and answers concerning the group process
• evaluation; positive and negative evaluations of the group process
• decision; decisions concerning the group process
• control; summary of control of group members’ work

(Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002, 478)

The above diagram illustrates the content and process steps for a design team and the previously listed cognitive operations that that link the two areas.

Similarly to the process shown above, Zunde and Bougdah define the systematic approach to making decisions as ‘creative problem-solving.’ They define their systematic, linear process in problem-solving using the following steps:

• define problem; collecting available data from all parties involved
• analyze; consideration of materials
• collect data; gathering information regarding conditions and environmental requirements
• consider and relate; proper synthesis of design iterations developed through team interaction
• develop and evaluate; team-generated iterations ranked and decided upon with total confidence
• communicate; convey outcomes to clients and outside parties by visual and verbal representation of both the process and the outcome of the design artifact

(Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 88)

Through the same laboratory study previously mentioned and conducted by Stempfle and Badke-Schaub, the analysis of the teams’ methodology showed that, contrary to methodological perspectives on problem-solving in design teams, when a new solution idea is proposed, a team is more likely to immediately evaluate that idea rather than conduct a thorough analysis. This process is incongruent with the concept of brainstorming which encourages intense analysis and prevents premature evaluation. (Stempfle and Badke-Schaub 2002, 487)

4.2.2 SHARED MENTAL MODELS

Designing is a complex means of problem solving that can result in many varying outcomes. A factor that is critical to the integrated success of a design solution is that of shared mental models. While design team members are often focused on varying degrees of design development, they are working to produce an artifact and all team members must inevitably view the artifact with a sufficiently shared mental model. Visual representations of this artifact are essential to the product development and shared mental model of the design product. (Goldschmidt 2007, 43-4)

Dynamic design spaces are heavily occupied with visual images; some are exported from an external cultural context and some are images generated by the designers themselves—all are manipulated by the designer as part of the design process. This process is defined by Goldschmidt as the ‘creation and utilization of mental models (task-related), which in the case of teamwork, have to be sufficiently shared to allow joint creation of designs.’ Goldschmidt defines the necessity for both task models and (visual) mental models for design teams. (Goldschmidt 2007, 45)

4.2.3 SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

Zunde and Bougdah highlight various patterns of intercommunication amongst a design team. They describe those patterns as follows:

• a bunch of balloons; all participants report to one leader
• the pyramid; the leader purposefully directs the members
• the organic; general dissemination of information is evident

The team cites the last pattern, the organic, to be the most effective form of intercommunication in a design team. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 54)

Boddy et al cited several studies on the nature of communication within design teams. Many of these studies cite the fact that informal and opportunistic interactions between design team members account for a significant portion of the total volume of communication between team members, alongside traditional interactions such as meetings. Many studies found that the formal meeting setting tends to focus around the organization or review of work rather than the actual business of design. Studies also note that a large portion of input on design projects came from individuals outside of the design team in a mixture of informal and formal interactions. (Boddy et al 2010, 431)

Creativity is often thought to be an individualistic process. However, some argue that creativity actually flourishes when social interactions with others and with artifacts takes place and an individual is then able to reflect on that interaction. (Boddy et al 2010, 432)

4.3 SOCIETY AT LARGE & OUR CLIENTS

Design is a manifestation of a culture and is almost always context dependent. (Goldschmidt 2007, 44) Design is a substantial indicator of culture for varying geographic, climate and historical contexts. Our experiences within buildings, spaces, and archaeological sites of cultures other than our own allow us to understand the values, aspirations, and patterns of life of a culture as well as the conditions and skills with which the designers and builders worked. These factors, still today, are markers for our sense of cultural identity. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 1) Architects work to ensure the practical purpose of structures for users and the visual and cultural environment which they serve. This is the primary concern of architectural philosophy within society at large. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 2)

With the movement from unself-conscious design to self-conscious design throughout the modern era, tradition is much less of a moderating factor in design. Today, designers are self-consciously aware of the general cultural context of their work as well as the narrower micro-culture to which they subscribe. These micro-cultures and sometimes competing design theories and philosophies have led to a rich design discourse. Because the micro-cultures designers subscribe to accommodate their values, beliefs, tastes, and preferences, they create a dynamic state that leads to an acceptable application of style. (Goldschmidt 2007, 44)

The following section presents the current research for the role design plays within our culture and society. It also defines the roles of clients in the design process and how to integrate them within earlier stages of the design process and not just depend on their input in the synchronous design review stage.

4.3.1 TECHNOLOGY BASED CULTURE

Our material culture is largely technology-based and therefore demands different design artifacts than previous generations. Technological advances have affected the expectations and possibilities in the creation and outcome of design artifacts, ultimately affecting the aspirations of both the designer and their clients; society at large. Societal changes such as values, norms, conventions, and lifestyle also affect design cultures. Place also determines design cultures and is also affected by time, much like the societal shifts that are in need of response. (Goldschmidt 2007, 44)

4.3.2 CLIENT ROLE IN DESIGN PROCESS

Zunde and Bougdah define the client (particularly in a corporate design project) as an individual, or sometimes a committee, who does not speak personally but rather whose role is to interpret the requirements of the investor, the administration, and the potential users of the building or space. However, in smaller projects, the client may be an individual with personal investment who will be the user and the operator of the facility. The client is rarely looked at as a member of the design team, yet plays a very critical part in the design process. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 59)

Zunde and Bougdah break down the roles of the possible clients or stakeholders in a project as follows;

• the investor; an individual whose primary goal is to ensure the safety of their capital and the possible return on their investment, also with outlook for their shareholders
• the building/facility administrator; with priorities in the areas of maintenance, repairs, and general up-keep, cash-flow is the primary concern of this client
• the daily users; functionality, quality, aesthetic value, and convenient and logical layout are all concerns for the user of the building/facility

(Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 59)

Designers are typically not their own client either, so it is essential that effective communication allows the client and designer to clearly understand and follow one another’s goals and priorities. A team of minds together allows for accurate consideration of design iterations and artifacts in the cognitive actions of analysis and evaluation previously mentioned in Section 4.2.1.

It is important that clients also never feel as though they have been misled, even if the misunderstanding stems from the client’s own inability to appreciate the nature of the design proposals and/or artifacts. (Zunde and Bougdah 2006, 106) Therefore, channels of communication and designated tools that are familiar to all team members and are appropriate for given settings are highly desirable, especially in the synchronous stage of the problem-solving where client input is so critical—the review process.

4.3.3 REVIEW PROCESS

A key to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, within the design review process is the interaction between owner or client and the designer. The most effective interaction starts early and continues throughout the entirety of the project’s design. For the design professional, criticism, especially from an owner or owner’s reviewer, is never easy. A well-structured design review process can improve this often complex environment by providing for a collaborative, non-adversarial, and valuable process. (Carlin 2010, 64)

Evaluations of design artifacts are necessary for collective thinking and evaluation of premature design moves as well as the final artifact output. Synchronous meetings, or design reviews, are moving towards the medium of digital representations and geography is becoming a factor that increases the necessity for such digital tools as email, instant messaging, and video teleconferencing. (Hisarciklilar and Boujut 2008) The design review is often thought to not end with a design solution; it is simply thought to be a place where design moves and solutions are discussed and points of view from all the involved actors are taken into account in some manner. A design artifact will not typically be modified during a design review activity; however, the review instead often becomes a forum for stakeholders to exchange arguments about the design solutions and make new suggestions and propositions. (Hisarciklilar and Boujut 2008)