Search results

This paper aims to describe relationships between cybernetics and design, especially service design, which is a component of service‐craft; to frame cybernetics as a language for design, especially behavior‐focused design.

The material in this paper was developed for a course on cybernetics and design. Work began by framing material on cybernetics in terms of models. As the course progressed, the relevance of the models to design became clearer. A first focus was on applying the models to describe human‐computer interaction; later another focus emerged, viewing cybernetic processes as analogs for design processes. These observations led to a review of the history of design methods and design rationale.

The paper argues that design practice has moved from hand‐craft to service‐craft and that service‐craft exemplifies a growing focus on systems within design practice. It also proposes cybernetics as a source for practical frameworks that enable understanding of dynamic systems, including specific interactions, larger systems of service, and the activity of design itself. It also shows that development of first‐ and second‐generation design methods parallels development of first‐ and second‐generation cybernetics. Finally, it argues that design is essentially political, frames design as conversation, and proposes cybernetics as a language for design and a foundation of a broad design education.

The paper suggests opportunities for more research on the historical relationship between cybernetics and design methods, and design research on modeling user goals.

The paper offers tools for understanding and managing the complicated communities of systems that designers increasingly face.

The paper suggests models useful for practicing designers and proposes changes to design education.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the two subjects, cybernetics and design, in order to establish and demonstrate a relationship between them. It is held that the two subjects can be considered complementary arms of each other.

The two subjects are each characterised so that the author's interpretation is explicit and those who know one subject but not the other are briefed. Cybernetics is examined in terms of both classical (first‐order) cybernetics, and the more consistent second‐order cybernetics, which is the cybernetics used in this argument. The paper develops by a comparative analysis of the two subjects, and exploring analogies between the two at several levels.

A design approach is characterised and validated, and contrasted with a scientific approach. The analogies that are proposed are shown to hold. Cybernetics is presented as theory for design, design as cybernetics in practice. Consequent findings, for instance that both cybernetics and design imply the same ethical qualities, are presented.

The research implications of the paper are that, where research involves design, the criteria against which it can be judged are far more Popperian than might be imagined. Such research will satisfy the condition of adequacy, rather than correctness. A secondary outcome concerning research is that, whereas science is concerned with what is (characterised through the development of knowledge of (what is)), design (and by implication other subjects primarily concerned with action) is concerned with knowledge for acting.

The theoretical validity of second‐order cybernetics is used to justify and give proper place to design as an activity. Thus, the approach designers use is validated as complementary to, and placed on an equal par with, other approaches. This brings design, as an approach, into the realm of the acceptable. The criteria for the assessment of design work are shown to be different from those appropriate in other, more traditionally acceptable approaches.

For approximately 40 years, there have been claims that cybernetics and design share much in common. This was originally expressed through communication criteria, and by the use of classical cybernetic approaches as methods for use in designing. This paper argues a much closer relationship between cybernetics and design, through consideration of developments in cybernetics not available 40 years ago (second‐order cybernetics) and through examining the activity at the heart of the design act, whereas many earlier attempts have been concerned with research that is much more about assessment, prescription and proscription.

The paper seeks to serve a dual process, first, to raise awareness of the epistemological weaknesses inherent in the ways that visual communications designers address their own practice, and, second, to suggest that cybernetics has some of the answers to these weaknesses.

These objectives of this paper have been addressed through an examination of the cybernetics, critical theory and visual design theory. A comparison of the points of convergence (often of aims) and those points of divergence (often in its ontological reading of the world) is illuminating, especially when post‐structuralist semiotics – as a system of knowledge exterior to both design and cybernetics, yet capable of commenting on both – is used as a point of triangulation.

The literature analysis carried for this paper indicates that in both visual communications design and cybernetics there are areas of overlapping interest (concerns with the cyclic nature of coding and decoding information) and areas that might at first seem divergent but are in fact often complementary (the role of the observer as controller and participant in a system). The paper proposes that cybernetics uncovers principles at the heart of communication that in turn inform visual communication practices, which in a circular fashion informs cybernetics.

The paper suggests that new areas for cyberneticians to use in their study of second‐order cybernetics may be found in the product of visual communications design. It also suggests areas where designers may begin to search for tools that may be useful in evaluating their working practices.

The paper notes that an external investigation of visual communications artefacts presents cybernetics with a potential test‐bed on which to test its theories, in practice, on a global scale. Cybernetics has the potential to define and offer constructive guidance to visual communications design in examining its own practice.

The purpose of this paper is to examine shared principles of “irreducibility” or “undecidability” in second‐order cybernetics, architectural design processes and Leibniz's geometric philosophy. It argues that each discipline constructs relationships, particularly spatio‐temporal relationships, according to these terms.

The paper is organized into two parts and uses architectural criticism and philosophical analysis. The first part examines how second‐order cybernetics and post‐structuralist architectural design processes share these principles. Drawing from von Foerster's theory of the “observing observer” it analyses the self‐reflexive and self‐referential modes of production that construct a collaborative architectural design project. Part two examines the terms in relation to Leibniz's account of the “Monad”. Briefly, developing the discussion through Kant's theory of aesthetics, it shows that Leibniz provides a “prototype” of undecidable spatial relations that are also present in architectural design and second‐order cybernetics.

The paper demonstrates that second‐order cybernetics, architectural design and metaphysical philosophy enable interdisciplinary understandings of “undecidability”.

The paper seeks to improve understanding of the geometric processes that construct architectural design.

The paper explores interdisciplinary connections between the disciplines, opening up potential routes for further examination. Its analysis of the aesthetic and geometric value of the Monad (rather than its perspectival value) provides a particularly relevant link for discussing the aesthetic production and experience of spatial relations in second‐order cybernetics and contemporary architectural design.

This paper aims to present lessons learned in applying 2nd‐order cybernetics – specifically Maturana and Varela's “biology of cognition” – to the actual design of interactive decision support systems.

This consists of a review of the rationale and bases for applying 2nd‐order cybernetics in interactive IT design, the challenges in moving from theory to praxis, illustrative examples of tactics employed, and a summary of the successful outcomes achieved.

The paper offers conclusions about the general applicability of such theories, two sample applications devised for actual projects, and discussion of these applications' perceived value.

The applications described are not claimed to represent a complete toolkit, and they may not readily generalize beyond the scope of interactive information systems design. On the other hand, the examples offered demonstrate that 2nd‐order cybernetics can constructively inform such designs – advancing the focus of discussion from theory‐based advocacy to praxis‐based recommendations.

The paper presents illustrative examples of the exigencies entailed in moving 2nd‐order cybernetics ideas forward from theory to praxis and specific tactics for doing so.

This paper addresses the persistent deficiencies in both concrete examples and guidance for practical applications of 2nd‐order cybernetics theories. It will hopefully stimulate similar attempts to demonstrate such theories' practical benefits.

The purpose of this paper is to connect two discourses, the discourse of cybernetics and that of design.

The paper takes a comparative analysis of relevant definitions, concepts, and entailments in both discourse, and an integration of these into a cybernetically informed concept of human‐centered design, on the one hand, and a design‐informed concept of second‐order cybernetics, on the other hand. In the course of this conceptual exploration, the distinction between science and design is explored with cybernetics located in the dialectic between the two. Technology‐centered design is distinguished from human‐centered design, and several axioms of the latter are stated and discussed.

This paper consists of recommendations to think and do things differently. In particular, a generalization of interface is suggested as a replacement for the notion of products; a concept of meaning is developed to substitute for the meaninglessness of physical properties; a theory of stakeholder networks is discussed to replace the deceptive notion of THE user; and, above all, it is suggested that designers, in order to design something that affords use to others, engage in second‐order understanding.

The paper makes several radical suggestions that face likely rejection by traditionalists but acceptance by cyberneticians and designers attempting to make a contribution to contemporary information society.

The purpose of this paper to discuss ethical principles that are implicit in second-order cybernetics, with the aim of arriving at a better understanding of how second-order cybernetics frames living in a world with others. It further investigates implications for second-order cybernetics approaches to architectural design, i.e. the activity of designing frameworks for living.

The paper investigates terminology in the second-order cybernetics literature with specific attention to terms that suggest that there are ethical principles at work. It further relates second-order cybernetics to selected notions in phenomenology, pragmatism and transcendental idealism. The comparison allows for conclusions about the specificity of a second-order inquiry. In line with the thematic focus of this journal issue on the framing of shared worlds, the paper further elaborates on questions relating to the activity of designing “worlds” in which people live with others.

The paper highlights that a radical openness toward the future and toward the agency of others is inscribed in the conception of second-order cybernetics. It creates a frame of reference for conceiving social systems of all kinds, including environments that are designed to be inhabited.

The paper identifies an aesthetics grounded in the process of living-with-others as an ethical principle implicit in second-order cybernetics thought. It is an aesthetics that is radically open for the agency of others. Linking aesthetics and ethics, the paper’s contributions will be of specific value for practitioners and theoreticians of design. Considering second-order cybernetics as a practice generally dealing with designing, it also contributes to the wider second-order cybernetics discourse.

This paper offers design cybernetics as a theoretical common ground to bridge diverging approaches to design as they frequently occur in collaborative design projects. Focusing on the education of architects and structural engineers in China, the paper examines how compatible approaches to design can be established in both disciplines.

The paper analyses relevant literature as well as observations from Chinese practice and academia. Design cybernetics is introduced and examined as a basis for establishing shared narratives to support cross-disciplinary collaborations involving architects and structural engineers.

Design cybernetics offers a body of vocabulary and a rich resource of strategies to address applied designing across design-oriented disciplines such as architecture and science-based disciplines such as structural engineering. The meta perspective of design cybernetics also provides a basis for the implementation of pedagogy supporting cross-disciplinary collaboration in applied design.

The scope of the paper is limited to the examination of the theoretical framing as well as the implementation of pedagogy in the cultural and geographical context of China.

The paper outlines several design cybernetic strategies for pedagogy in support of cross-disciplinary collaborative design processes and illustrates their implementation in applied design education.

Addressing a significant and persistent gap between the two disciplines of architecture and structural engineering in the context of Chinese building practice, this paper examines the particularities of this context and presents an educational approach to support cross-disciplinary collaboration that has value in and beyond the context of China.

The purpose of this paper is to put forward a way that ethics may be applied recursively to itself, in the sense that how we speak and reason about ethics is an activity to which ethical considerations and questions apply.

The paper is built on parallels between design and cybernetics, integrating elements of ethical discourse in each field. The way that cybernetics and design can each act as their own meta-disciplines, in the design of design and the cybernetics of cybernetics, is used as a pattern for a similarly recursive approach to ethics. This is explored further by drawing parallels between Heinz von Foersters’ criticism of moral codes and concerns about paternalism in designing architecture.

Designers incorporate implicit ethical questioning as part of the recursive process through which they design their design activity, moving between conversations that pursue the goals of a project and meta-conversations in which they question which goals to pursue and the methods they employ in doing so. Given parallels between designing architecture and setting out an ethics (both of which put forward ways in which others are to live), a similar approach may be taken within ethical discourse, folding ethics within itself as its own meta-discipline.

The paper provides a framework in which to address ethical considerations within ethical discourse itself. Recursive ethical questioning of this sort offers a way of coping with the incommensurability of values and goals that is commonplace given the fragmented state of contemporary ethics.