Debating about design in the social media of business seems aimed at designing Design itself; but the results so far are not very persuasive. This is a significant knowledge management problem.

1. DESIGNING DESIGN
A Knowledge Management Challenge

2. Experience, Designed
Recently we saw yet another online
debate concerning how to “properly”
identify different but interconnected
realms of “design”.
The disputed turfs ranged from UI to
UX, Service Design, Systems Design, and
(according to many), CX.
Most of the debate consisted of which
argued distinctions were the “correct”
way to segment the scope of design.
Floating above the debate, the apparent
question is, why does this segmentation
matter, or at least, who cares?
The answer we propose is that they
differentiate levels of interaction that
collectively account for the potential
overall experience made available or,
conversely, found unavailable.
Those differences ought to be
describable in ordinary language and
probably would quell much of the
debate if they were.
For example, if UI=controls, then
UX=function, Service=effect,
Systems=environment, and CX=impact.
It’s not hard to understand how these
differences are related.

3. THE DESIGNED EXPERIENCE
IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTS
EFFECTS
FUNCTIONS
CONTROLS
Increasingly specific
influence on the
event in the
moment
Increasingly broad
range (scope) of peripheral
influences to be considered
THE DESIGNED EXPERIENCE
if UI=controls, UX=function, Service=effect,
Systems=environment, and CX=impact.
We kinda knew this already, before the acronyms and synonyms took over.
Still, saying it and doing it are two different things. Meanwhile, beneficiaries
are at the top level, and operators are at the bottom level. Each level does
something within the context of the level above it.
© 2020 malcolm ryder / archestra research

4. The Who Cares Test
Each of those differences (the levels
in the stack diagram) can be
intentionally organized – separately
(independently) and together
(dependently).
Each difference can be changed
separately, in order to create, restore
or improve an overall resulting
experience in some way that another
difference alone cannot.
Casually speaking, each difference is
either a problem to solve or an
option to provide, “by design”…
Those differences correspond (or,
contribute) to other aspects of
experience that, under pressure of
desire or need, determine whether
something is preferable
(appropriate) or not preferable.
Those corresponding aspects include
utility, quality, value, safety, and
others.
Above and beyond possession,
application or consumption,
preference is the target future state
(experience) that drives design.

5. Problematic Knowledge
Too often in the online debating, the key
correspondences (utility, quality, value, safety,
and other) were not openly stated as the source
of a commenter’s point of view.
An additional problem was that commenters did
not clearly state their Roles as the perspective
they brought to their reactions to original posts.
Participation in debate can be motivated by
many things ranging from real research to
simple self-promotion.
Meanwhile, not everyone has degrees or
certifications, or even adequately broad skills by
trial-&-error in design. But every participant in
the debate somehow either has or wants
responsibility for design.
Additionally, in the online dialogue,
commenters (responders) often simply changed
the topic with or within their comments…
These problems made much of the debate
counter-productive, creating and adding as
much confusion as there was any clarity to be
gained.
Unmoderated debate does not provide much
structure or filter to help prioritize one thing
over another.
But if we assume that open-source knowledge
and self-service knowledge are viable pursuits,
then the confusion is worth resolving and
thereafter avoiding.
We decided to try to sort things out.

6. Debates about Designing
The underlying generic themes about
design were to “adopt it”, “gain advantage
with it”, “do a good job at it”, and “comply
with best practice for it”.
Those seem like broadly acceptable ideas.
But in the near-continual online re-
examining of design, there is both positive
and negative interaction and reaction
among people.
Some seem intent on making design more
universally and explicitly “regular” –
therefore more widely deployable and
predictably controllable.
Others imply that it is perhaps too complex
for most people to tame and that its
effectiveness depends on who is doing it.
But challenges in the discussions usually
pitted the speaker’s attitude against the
reader’s (commenter’s) acceptance.
Speakers (authors of original posters)
typically offered inspiration, endorsement,
instruction, or dogma with their assertions
about design or designing.
Theme about Design or
Designing
Attitude of Message
Adopt Inspiration
Gain Endorsement
Perform Instruction
Comply Dogma

7. Design Messages
Theme about Design or Designing Attitude of Message
Adopt Inspiration
Gain Endorsement
Perform Instruction
Comply Dogma
But nothing provoked push-back faster than someone saying “How To…”
Speakers covered a range of generally accepted ideas.

8. Deconstructing the Debates
But nothing provoked push-back to
speakers’ statements faster than
posts saying “How To…”
We extracted, the How To Design
topics without regard to particular
domains, schools, or industries.
We also noted each topic’s
distinctive association with certain
issues and roles.
Then we mapped them against the
apparent types and degrees of
acceptance and attitudes.
See tables below.
What is being discussed?
models
procedures
requirements
technique
type
ideation
demand

9. A completely unscientific survey of posts
about “design” on business social media gave
the following general categories of “topics”.
This range of issues, taken altogether,
appears to be an open-ended discussion
aimed at designing “design” itself –through
either refining or replacing whatever has
been prevalent in the “groupthink” so far.
Topic (generic) What is being discussed? Who’s talking/listening?
How to design: process Models Teachers, Instructors
How to design correctly Procedures Auditors, Students
How to design well Requirements Practitioners, Developers
How to design smartly Technique Managers, Consultants
How to design <item X> Type Experts, Specialists
How to design uniquely Ideation Creators, Inventors
How to design profitably Demand Marketers, Suppliers
In the near-continual online re-examining of design,
there is both positive and negative interaction and
reaction among people. Some seem intent on
making design more universally and explicitly
“regular” – therefore more widely deployable and
predictably controllable. Others imply that it is
perhaps too complex for most people to tame and
that its effectiveness depends on who is doing it.
Design Ideas

10. SKEPTICISM
The idea being asserted was
clearly debatable regardless of its
attractiveness
HOPEFULNESS
The idea being asserted was
strongly and aspirationally
attractive regardless of current
validation
COMPETITION
The idea being asserted was
contradictory to the reacting
reader’s own preferred idea
ADVOCACY
The idea being asserted was
attractive as a proposed
standard or solution
dogmainspiration endorsement instruction
reject
consider
agree
Reader’sacceptance
Speaker’s attitude
Decoding the Commentary
Commentary about design or designing came from people in all different roles. But when a given
post asserted something, reactions to it fell into four broad categories. We saw this happen as a
pattern of associations between the poster’s attitude and the reader’s disposition.

11. SKEPTICISM
HOPEFULNESS
COMPETITION
ADVOCACY
dogmainspiration endorsement instruction
reject
consider
agree
process
correctly
correctlywell
smartly
<item X>
<item X>
uniquely
uniquely
profitably
smartly
profitably
Reader’sacceptance
Speaker’s attitude
process
well
THE WHO CARES TEST:
Acceptance of ideas
Topics about design and designing:
speakers assert things for various
reasons; readers react according to
their predisposition and what they
are looking for.

12. SKEPTICISM
HOPEFULNESS
COMPETITION
SOLUTION
THE WHO CARES TEST:
Ideas vs. Professionals
dogmainspiration endorsement instruction
reject
consider
agree
teachers
auditors
auditorspractitioners
managers
experts
experts
creators
creators
marketers
managers
marketers
Reader’sacceptance
Speaker’s attitude
teachers
practitioners
Topics about design and designing:
speakers assert things for various
reasons; readers react according to
their predisposition and what they
are looking for.

13. SKEPTICISM
HOPEFULNESS
COMPETITION
SOLUTION
THE WHO CARES TEST:
Ideas vs. Roles
dogmainspiration endorsement instruction
reject
consider
agree
instructors
students
studentsdevelopers
consultants
specialists
specialists
inventors
inventors
suppliers
consultants
suppliers
Reader’sacceptance
Speaker’s attitude
instructors
developers
Topics about design and designing:
speakers assert things for various
reasons; readers react according to
their predisposition and what they
are looking for.

14. Archestra notebooks compile and organize decades of in-the-field empirical findings. The notes offer explanations of why things
are included, excluded, or can happen in certain ways or to certain effects. The descriptions are determined mainly from the
perspective of strategy and architecture. They comment on, and navigate between, the motives and potentials that predetermine
the decisions and shapes of activity as discussed in the notes. As ongoing research, all notebooks are subject to change.
©2020 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research
©2020 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research
www.archestra.com
mryder@archestra.com