Function and Design Objectives

In dealing with function one wants to show two things:

1. How the abstraction of a function can lead to different ways of carrying out this function.
2. How one may need to change a particular idea of function in order to generate new approaches.

In practice one might say: ‘That is one way of carrying out this picking function — can you think of any others?’ But one might also say: ‘Those are different ways of carrying out this picking function but is that the only way of looking at it? Suppose we leave aside the idea of picking and just think of removing the apples from the trees.’

Design objectives

In a design problem there is very rarely only a single objective. Usually there is a main objective and many subsidiary objectives which may not be apparent. For instance in the design of an apple picking machine the main objective may be to reach and pick the apples but in achieving this objective one may make it impossible to achieve the other objectives as well. Shaking the trees to remove the apples would satisfy the main objective but it would damage the apples. Having a huge machine to do the job might satisfy both the above objectives but might be so uneconomical that it would still be cheaper to do it by hand. Thus three objectives have become apparent: picking the apples, obtaining undamaged apples, a machine that is more economical to use than hand labour. There are other objectives. For instance the machine might have to work at a given speed or it might have to be of such a size that it could pass easily between the trees in a standard orchard. All these objectives might be specified in a description of a desired machine or else they might only become apparent when the design was being examined.

Some designers try to keep all the objectives in mind all the time. They would only move forward very slowly and they would immediately reject an idea that failed to satisfy one of the objectives. Other designers would move quickly ahead in an attempt to satisfy the main objective. Having found some sort of solution they would then look around and see how well the other objectives were satisfied. This second method is probably more generative, but it does depend on a thorough assessment at the end otherwise the effect may be disastrous if one important objective is overlooked. It is better to have this assessment at the end rather than at each stage for an assessment at each stage would prevent the consideration of ideas which were inadequate in themselves, but served as stepping stones to much better ideas.

Design and lateral thinking

This section is not meant to be a treatise on design but an indication that the design process involves much lateral thinking and provides an excellent setting in which to practise lateral thinking. In the design process one is always trying to restructure concepts; one observes cliché units and tries to get rid of them; one is continually having to generate fresh approaches.

Many of the examples used in this section were obtained from the design efforts of children aged seven to ten years old. Such children are relatively unsophisticated and the design process is a caricature of the design process which would be used by older people. The advantages of such examples are that the design process and its faults are made much more clear. The faults arise from the way the mind handles information and not from any peculiarity of youth. In a less obvious form the same faults occur at all age levels.

The first purpose of the design setting is to get students to generate alternatives. The second purpose is to get them to look beyond the adequate in order to produce something better. The third purpose is to free them from domination by cliché patterns. These three purposes paraphrase the purpose of lateral thinking.