The Interface between Design and Management – Summary

Design management should not interfere with the designer's prerogatives about the
"quality" of design outputs, but rather play a supportive role by coordinating tasks and
information to make the design process effective, efficient, and lean. It is assumed that a
properly managed process would result in a high-quality product. Many strategies and
tools have been created by supporters of this approach to make individual and
collaborative design processes more successful. They "manage" by evaluating, identifying,
mapping, and arranging diverse design activities sequentially or concurrently. The design
process is a complicated system that may be broken down into development phases, work
units, and product components.

In general, there are three hurdles to design management research and practise success.
The first hurdle is that the notion of design management - particularly in architecture - is
very new, and current research is highly dispersed. Each study focuses on a distinct design
issue and elaborates on a specific management strategy to address it. An comprehensive
and cohesive design management framework is required since genuine design practise
cannot be split down into discrete sections to be handled independently.

The second impediment is that, while present systems appear to be reasonable

theoretically, they lack a solid scientific base. Those notions are also difficult to convert into
practise and apply to the day-to-day problems that arise in a genuine project. In the field of
architecture, a creative research for new scientific advancement is sometimes met with the
counter-argument that design management is just a variety of project or construction
management throughout the design phase.

The third and most significant hurdle is that no existing technique can access the essence of
design, namely how designers work via creative processes to develop design solutions. It's
surprising that practically all prominent design management techniques were developed
by people who don't design anything themselves (e.g., managers, engineers, and scientists).
As a result, the method frequently clashes with the core of design, making many designers
hesitant to adopt design management.

This paper provides a theoretical study that aims to address the demand for creative design
management. Because it depends on weak scientific references and adopts a top-down
strategy to apply project management instruments in design, the current management
method has failed to offer adequate outcomes. Many of these devices, according to the
evidence, are incompatible with the core of design. A common ground must be created
before a new, cohesive design management system can be built. The common ground is an
interface between design and management that allows these two areas to be integrated in a
new productive way. A common term of reference and a common scientific paradigm make
up the interface.

Its early influence is accomplished through leading managers to learn from certain design
competencies that are beneficial for dealing with complicated problems, as well as
persuading designers to understand the critical role of management in enhancing design
work. This study draws on the work of Vitruvius, Drucker, Simon, Jones, Kuhn, Bucciarelli,
Lawson, and Buchanan in an attempt to understand the core of design and management.
According to Dorst, there are two basic paradigms of design: one that views design as a
logical problem-solving process tied to engineering sciences, and the other that views
design as a social science activity requiring reflective practice. The goal of this study is to
determine which paradigm is best for managing design.

The emerging phenomena in real-world practice demonstrates that, in addition to technical

complexity, social complications in design have been increasing. While new technology
breakthroughs can address practically every technical problem, a new requirement for a
socio-psychological strategy to managing socially complicated creative cooperation has
emerged. The similar pattern may be seen in academia, where there is a trend to transition
from technical-rationality to social psychology early on. We can see the "development" of
scientific philosophy from systematic thinking to a social-reflective paradigm. The human
component, with its particular cognitive capabilities, is being reintroduced as a focal point
in design and management.

This study supports new cognitive science concepts that were formerly a topic of
philosophical speculation but have now become important to the science of design
management. Design management using a socio-psychological approach holds a lot of
promise since it increases designers' awareness to complicated social issues both before
and after the design process. Through creative and introspective collaboration, progressive
learning-in-action, and high-performance teamwork, it also leads to improved design.

- Chanchal Soni

00106142019

5th Semester