The Problem of Formulating Design Problems : A Typology of Design Briefs

Abstract: It is common for a design team to be handed a problem to solve for others. The handing over is normally referred to as a ‘briefing’ process, and the documentation of the starting point and what is to be done is known as a ‘brief’. It is known that the way we frame and understand a problem influences what paths we see to potential solutions. The aim of this thesis is to understand what makes a good design brief and to do so in order to create an empirically informed, and theoretically underpinned, typology of design briefs and the kind of search processes they are disposed to induce.Different bodies of literature have tried to grasp how design solves problems in order to understand designer’s behavior and ultimately facilitate or improve it. Distinctions can, and have been made, between different kinds of problem formulations, as well as different problem-solving approaches. This thesis aims to integrate two previously distinct literatures, search process from the organizational perspective developed by James G. March, Herbert A. Simon, Richard Cyert and others and Design and the Design Process from the perspectives of authors such as Donald Schön, Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross among others, to propose a typology of design briefs in order to ultimately facilitate problem formulation and subsequently facilitate the design process.The simple and immediate answer to the question of what makes a good design brief is: ‘that depends’. It depends on the design process to be followed (if there is one), it depends on the kind of goals that should be achieved, the time available, and it also depends on how much and what is known about the problem and potential solutions. Based on this, four ideal types of design briefs are articulated, including the expected associated search behavior and challenges of design teams.