Making Design Rationale Matter: how design rationale has failed and how it can succeed again Stacy Branham, Steve Harrison, Scott McCrickard Virginia Tech 2202 Kraft Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060 <sbranham, srh, mccricks>@vt.edu ABSTRACT birth of design rationale, and in the 20 years since it has This paper argues that design rationale has become been introduced to HCI, design rationale systems have been irrelevant by effectively ignoring the practical contexts for enthusiastically argued for and developed [6, 28]. Yet, which it was first developed and from which it needs rationale-based design systems have seldom broken confirmation of its core assumptions. We identify the through to industry and into the environments that they original and current rationale behind design rationale were initially design for. The problem at the root of this research and find that the two have diverged in ways that situation is that design rationale researchers seem to have, prohibit its validation and relevance as a design approach. ironically, neglected the design rationale for design To address this issue, we propose the adoption of a rationale; they have become distanced from the original phronetic research agenda that supports the study of human aims of rationale as a practical tool for democratic value rationality in design. We finish by presenting the engagement, human value-sensitivity, and real-world notion of a Participatory Design of Design––one example deployment. In this respect, design rationale has thus far of how we might employ a phronetic research frame–– failed to live up to its reputation. towards making design rationale matter again. We argue that design rationale can matter again––that is, it Author Keywords can become relevant to practical design contexts, produce Guides, instructions, author’s kit, conference publications. knowledge to support practice, expand our research frontiers, and begin to substantiate (or disprove) some of ACM Classification Keywords the noble theoretical claims that have been made in its H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): support. We borrow from Bent Flyvbjerg’s book, Making Miscellaneous. Social Science Matter, not only our title, but also a research program that we believe can support a new mode of INTRODUCTION research to complement and reinvigorate current work Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), as its name suggests, [12]. Participatory Design of Design, as we are calling it, is has long been concerned with human-centric design. To a natural extension of Flyvbjerg’s phronetic research that end, we have developed countless methods of engaging program––in which value-rational decisions are legitimate with users and stakeholders to promote design that reflects forms of knowledge––and may provide a way for rationale their needs, values, and life situations. Yet, as HCI to return to the practical contexts for which it was researchers design design processes, we take a different originally intended. frame toward engagement with the designers that will use We begin in the next sections by presenting the origins and them––our “users.” To this author’s knowledge, there has motivating rationale behind design rationale in the form of not been an effort to, for example, pursue a more user- Rittel’s IBIS notation and Alexander’s pattern language. centered design of user-centered design. This becomes an We then turn to one form of design rationale within HCI, issue when our “products” are not accepted in real use Carroll’s claim, as a lens for discussing the current state of scenarios, as is the case with design rationale. design rationale research. A comparison of the values and This paper explores the failings of design rationale and how motivations that underpin each of these three forms of we might make it relevant again. In the 40 years since the design rationale reveals that current research has made departures and introduced gaps that must be filled. We finish by putting forth a complementary phronetic research agenda and proposing a Participatory Design of Design. DESIGN RATIONALE ORIGINS Design rationale was born on the heels of a tumultuous rejection of the design methods movement. Beginning in the late 1950’s, the movement was ushered in by a host of influential mathematicians and engineers, including John Chris Jones, Morris Asimow, Bruce Archer, Horst Rittel, 1 and Christopher Alexander [10]. Their approach built from scrutinized style of reasoning,” and to document “the state Taylorism and Simonian simplifications of human activity, of discourse at any time” [16]. imposing rigorous structure onto the once craft-oriented The IBIS system was an embodied illustration of Rittel’s task of design [10]. However, a number of large-scale rejection of the notions that design problems can be failures in planning [20] and deadly social protests against tractably planned, carried out objectively, or handed off to its totalitarian result [5] would disrupt the design methods the computer. With IBIS, Rittel aimed to acknowledge movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The impact political decision-making while rendering the design was so profound that a number of those who first process more transparent. He understood that optimization spearheaded the movement publicly denounced it. and pure rationality were out of reach and definitionally Whereas Rittel began to distinguish between first and depended on the people involved, and so opened up the second generation design methods by introducing the design process to a wider audience. And, with humans notion of “wicked problems” [25], Alexander changed his providing the ever-changing content, he knew that it would approach from objective mathematical symbols [1] to be “adaptable to rapidly changing language,” values, and subjective prose [3] and urged others to forget design social agreements [24]. methods altogether [2]. The promise of IBIS was not to provide an optimal or even Kunzʼs & Rittelʼs IBIS rational pathway for design; instead, it sought to offer a Design rationale was Rittel’s practical answer to the new stage for political decision-making towards a more complexity he saw in design as a result of the failures of the democratic, transparent, and reflective design process. It design methods movement [27]. Real-world design moved away from the “scientific design” that aims to problems, he insisted, do not have a well-described set of prescribe systematicity––it was, in fact, created in direct permissible operations nor do they have an enumerable set rejection of it––and occupied a third space between that and of possible solutions. In fact, describing the problem is “design as discipline,” which aims to describe intuitive describing the solution, and so there can be no clear reflection in action. The practical commitment of design problem definition from the start. There is no stopping rule rationale was reified by being, from the beginning, for wicked problems, and solutions are never “right” or deployed into the field in three varied contexts and into the “wrong,” they are only “better” or “worse.” Each problem hands of real design planners in action [16]. is ultimately unique. Design problems, then, are intractable. Alexanderʼs Patterns Rittel believed that design problems are further complicated A second outgrowth of the failed design methods because they exist in a social context where there is a movement––separate from the development of design plurality of constantly (re)constructed values that make any rationale but closely related to it––was the development of one problem definition or solution unable to fulfill the Alexander’s pattern language. According to Alexander, desires of all stakeholders. Issues of ethics and democracy “every place is given its character by certain patterns of arise, as well, and traditional planning has ignored them events that keep on happening there” [11]. Patterns, then, both. In design, “there are no value-free, true-false aim to capture the architectural and social phenomena of a answers” and “planning is a component of politics”[27]. place through problem descriptions, example solutions, Furthermore, design provides ultimate “epistemic freedom: design rationale, etc. Patterns are linked in a hierarchy––a there are no logical or epistemological constraints or rules point that was much more the focus of Alexander’s work which would prescribe which of the various meaningful before his rejection of the design methods movement––of steps to take next” and is completely rooted in the design solutions that constituted a language. In a designer’s subjective worldview [26]. These concerns–– Wittgensteinian sense, he saw the connection between the democracy, human value frames, politics, and subjectivity abstract and the grounded and communicated architectural in design––were driving forces behind his new approach to knowledge through multiple built (as opposed to design. theoretical) examples. Rittel’s answer to design complexity was to propose Even though Alexander and Rittel had little respect for one argumentation as a form of design. In 1970, Rittel, in another’s work1, many of their goals were shared. Both collaboration with Kunz, authored his first paper on the relied on people in context to provide the content of the Issues-Based Information System (IBIS) [16]. IBIS is a design; patterns are descriptive, not prescriptive, and formal notation for exchanging and documenting textual Alexander acknowledged that each context would require arguments in an ongoing design decision dialectic. It situated re-workings of the examples provided [11]. Rittel provided a hierarchical structure for documenting topics, and Alexander also acknowledged the role of human values issues, questions of fact, positions, arguments, and model in design; where IBIS allowed values to be embedded into problems. As an ongoing and historical reference, IBIS was the content of each entry, patterns explicitly admit the supposed to “assist in generating dispute,” offer “a more values that their solution takes for granted. In both, the 1 Gleaned from conversations with Steve Harrison, an architecture student at Berkeley from 1969-1977.