Design. Now, there is a fine word for you. A grand word, both noun and verb carrying great meaning and import. It is like the word drink, also a noun and verb and equally grand. Words such as drink and design are heavily contextual and it depends on the who, what, when, where, why, and how to really understand how to interpret the word. Drinking and designing are also things that we typically do not consciously think about doing in our every day existence.

Designing is essentially the arrangement of things (which can be quite varied) to create a pattern of things (which can also be quite varied) that will accomplish something (also varied). Almost everything we do has a design; good or bad. There are patterns (which are designed) for how we plan a vacation, write an email, start a conversation, prepare for a lecture, etc. Anything that has a decision, has something that could have been or should have been consciously designed.

Basically, designing is just thinking it through and putting things into the best arrangement, sequence, composition.

Thoughts…

• It is inherently and implicitly part of any problem-solving task or any task that involves multiple steps and coordination, or arrangement of things.
• There are many things we do which are ‘designing’, but we probably would never consider call them designing or consider the output as a design.
• There can also be intentional, systematic design of a professional nature, and ad hoc, flailing design of an amateur nature. Just like not having a plan is a form of planning (admittedly, not a wise one), not having a skilful approach to design is also a way of designing. Not everything needs to be professionally designed but when you are being paid to design, or when there is risk to others, it is better to be a professional than an amateur.

• Designing is a cognitive skill. To develop a skill requires various domains of knowledge, coaching, deliberate practice, feedback, and awareness of what and naïve or novice level looks like, as well as what a high and, professional or expert level looks like.
• Designing is a skill subject to what is called near and far transfer. This means that you can develop expertise in one domain, a specific type of task, and very similar tasks (and we do mean very similar); but this expertise and skill does NOT transfer to another domain. For example, you might be artful and well skilled in one discipline or domain when it comes to problem-solving and design, but it does not mean that you are equally skilled in all design tasks, nor does it mean that you will be skilled when attempting design tasks outside of the primary domain.
• This ‘faux’ expertise is often seen where someone accomplished in field x is asked to comment upon field y as an ‘expert’. They will have opinions and thoughts. Rest assured they will pontificate. But expert? Not! What can confuse people is that they can have beginner’s luck, or others are just that much worse, that a sense of over-confidence and achievement is created. It is not difficult to be perceived an eagle when surrounded by turkeys.
• Any design has components which are brought together. The components have attributes, qualities, and characteristics that define their value and behaviour.
• Often, the components are in a hierarchy or are co-dependent upon each other or might have interdependencies.
• A design can have different levels of granularity in detail which are being used; for example meta-concepts, system characteristics versus subsystem.
• You can have a design for the highest level of interaction and value generation, you can have a design for how the value is actually generated, and you can keep drilling down.
• You can have a design for the process of investigating the requirements, and have a design for the problem analysis to understand if it is a real problem, or if it is a problem worthy enough to proceed with, and so forth.
• When looking at any substantial activity in hindsight, it is possible to identify many design tasks, each having its own unique set of cognitive skill and expertise requirements.
• When teaching design, it is important to think about what assumptions are being made about the students’ design skills, knowledge and expertise, and what the task assumes. We know it is best to teach one thing at a time, so what are you going to focus on? The how, or the what? What part of the how? What part of the what? What is to be explored? What course learning is expected to be applied?
• Professional design implies that the individual has some clue (or is learning) about a systematic approach to tackling the task, knows something about the types of components that might be appropriate to combine, how to combine them, and how to evaluate the design to know whether or not it is a good design. This is true for any process, set of tasks, or object that is to be designed. You need to know the domain for which the design is intended, and perhaps the specific situation as well. You need to know how the design will be intentionally and un-intentionally used. You need to know when the design will be used, why, by who, etc. You need to know what is going to be done with the design.
• Design can be found in all fields, not just the usual suspects like Engineering, Architecture, or Fine Arts. There is the element of design in all disciplines and all activities. For example, how do you design an intervention involving someone with an addiction? How do you design the pattern of tasks to get x done? The designing is the 'synthesis' part of the cognitive complexity jungle.

• We suggest assigning an open-ended design assessment at the start of the course; to determine what the students would do naturally. Design the task so that you can pick up the process and how they design, not just the final result. This will give you a baseline on the class and on each individual. Make it an individual task, not a team activity!
• At several points during the term, have similar tasks where you can pick up any learning and changes in behaviour; again the mastery associated with the what, and the how. The how is important for improvement, self-awareness, and mindfulness.
• Rubrics and debriefing exercises are important for learning design. The rubrics should be done after the fact and not used to guide the students. A constructive failure approach with subjective rubrics are recommended (separate notes on these methods exist). It is important to give the students one or more chances to practice the lessons, without adding other learning outcomes to the mix. It is important in any systematic learning to control the learning! It is also important to discuss the what and the how with the students; especially the how. Get the students to document their process in think-pair-share activities and as part of the exercise, ask them to recommend a better process in hindsight (then have them try it, or try another group’s suggestion). This active learning process will help the design skill learning.
• Since designing is a cognitive skill, it must be practiced; deliberately, with coaching and feedback. It is possible to have momentary gains which are not sustained after the course and it is likely that the design skills will either decay slowly or quickly (depending on how they were taught in the course). Without substantial practice and reinforcement, it is highly probable that the students will revert to first year behaviour when it comes to the how. They will use information during the program for the what, but the process will be as unsystematic, chaotic, and amateurish upon graduation as it was when the students arrived. We have tested this theory informally with students taught problem solving skills in first year, without systematic practice and reinforcement during the program, and the ‘how’ behaviour in the final year resembled the first week of the first term; little or no evidence of the gains achieved during the first term.
• Be aware that true experts will tell you what they were told by their instructors when probed about the actual cognitive task. They will not be able to explain how they actually do it as an expert. The recipe they will share will not likely be what they actually do.
• If you are using an ‘expert’ as part of the instruction, be aware of the relative nature of expertise; is the individual a real expert or just better than others in the room?
• This last point also goes for many applied topics in academia. There are some, but few instructors who are actually experts in the applied design aspects of their discipline. The instructor might do the occasional consulting gig, or work with a non-academic research center. The instructor might have worked for a number of years before returning for grad studies. However, if the instructor did the typical undergraduate, masters, and doctorate trajectory without five to ten years practicing and learning the domain specifics and design in that domain, the instructor will be book smart, but will not likely have the actual design experience to justify an expert title beyond their own studies. Some will, but few.
• The typical instructor will be an expert and be respected as such. Often this respect is for a skill and knowledge set that is highly concentrated and specialied. For example, specific ways of asking a question to avoid bias, how to determine the thermal impact within a certain process. This level of special design knowledge does not mean that the instructor can design a quality questionnaire for a specific cultural situation, nor that the instructor can design the machine or factory that will use a certain process. 

Further reading

• Lewis, W.P., and E. Bonollo (2002). An analysis of professional skills in design: implications for education and research, Design Studies, 23, 4, pp. 385-406.
• Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J. and C. Meinel (2012). Towards a Paradigm Shift in Education Practice: Developing Twenty-First Century Skills with Design Thinking. in H. Plattner et al. (eds.), Design Thinking Research, Understanding Innovation, pp. 71-94.