Design Process Models as Metaphors in Education Context 1

We argue that visual representations of design processes contribute toward social and material practices of design(ing). They are used as didactic devices. We will discuss them using metaphors to illustrate that they are active material devices of which circulation, production and consumption are informed and informing perceived complexities, ambiguities and paradoxes associated with design. We propose a follow-up study to investigate how teachers and designers use and interpret visual design process models. The reason is to identify how these models are informing what design is as we are interested to understand how these models are contributing to the development of Design Literacies.


INTRODUCTION
transformation, and (viii) instruments of domination. Wilkes (1989, p. 67), suggested "that metaphor is an especially appropriate tool for assisting us to appreciate, interpret and understand" complexities, ambiguities and paradoxes associated with organisations. Metaphors contribute towards production of organisational cultures and how we can think of organisations, including their possibilities and limitations (Jermier & Forbes, 2011). We would like to extend this idea to design process models.
The motivation to study the design process models is that they 'represent' how design practices are conceived (Wynn & Clarkson, 2005). Chaplin (1994( , cited by Banks, 2007 suggested that "representation has the following three properties: 1. its form is not dictated solely or even at all by the thing represented but by set of convention codes 2. […] but only [comprehensible] to viewers who understand the convention 3. reflects and constitutes social process 4. the representation has some kind of intentional force behind it (agency) 3. The constructional images are used to explain the components or elements of an object or system, emphasizing the structural aspects. 4. Functional images show processes and interrelationships that occur between the elements that make up a system, for example the illustration of the water cycle, the food chain or the communication scheme 5. Algorithmic images allow to describe procedures, visualizing possible actions, routes or steps of an activity. They are used to teach procedures to solve problems, for example flow charts.
Most of the design process representations would fall into the algorithmic category, as generally they define steps to solve problems. Some however include functional elements, which try to characterize thought forms (divergent thinking/convergent thinking), axes or dimensions involved in the process design (understanding -doing, concrete, abstract). Cross (1999Cross ( /2005, Lawson (2004), Wynn and Clarkson (2005), Dubberly (2005) and others have made a useful contribution in keeping record and analysing different models. For example, Dubberly (2005) classified over 100 models according to their formal characteristics -linear ( Figure 1) or cyclical ( Figure 2) -or by the context from which they are elaborated: academia, professional consulting, software development.  Our interest is to view these design process models using metaphors. During our research we have identified the following metaphors which might be useful for exploring design process models: • Design Process as Problem Eradication • Design Process as a Rational Order (e.g. Simon, 1988) • Design Process as a 'Thinking Journey' (e.g. Alexander, 1964Alexander, /1973 • Design Process as a Co-Evolution (Maher, Poon, & Boulanger, 1996) • Design Process as an 'Mental State' • Design processes as a Learning

DESIGN PROCESS AS A PROBLEM ERADICATION
Generally, a design process starts with a problem and ends in a solution (see Figure 3). But this is a fairly schematic way to define it because a design process can also be activated with the detection of a need or an opportunity (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000). If the design process starts with a 'problem' then it is referring to a 'problematization' of an aspect of reality, and the interpretation of the reality is that there is a 'fault' or a deficiency. FIGURE 3. A Design Process Models with a 'well-defined' (a) and 'ill-defined' problem (b). Source: Maher et al. (1996, p. 4).
However, Dorst and Cross (2001) suggested that designers do not consider the problem as an objective element-on the contrary-they interpret and construct it from their own contexts, experiences, capabilities and resources, manipulating it during almost the whole process. Implication is, that in this context the problem is never fixed but rather it is continuously 're-moulded' throughout the whole design process. Prior to Dorst's and Cross' article, Rittel and Webber (1973) outlined that "every textbook of systems engineering starts with an enumeration of these phases: 'understand the problems or the mission,' 'gather information,' 'analyse information,' 'synthesize information and wait for the creative leap,' 'work out solution,' or the like. For wicked problems, however, this type of scheme does not work. One cannot understand the problem without knowing about its context; one cannot meaningfully search for information without the orientation of a solution concept; one cannot first understand, then solve" (p. 162). However, we would like to consider that this issue is not much related the wicked problems, but rather to a desire to develop a demand. Mol (2008, p. 27) suggested that "advertising agencies are not at all inclined to 'treat demand' as something that is given. For them 'what people want' is not rational phenomenon, they try to create demand. Not with arguments, but through seduction" (p. 27). We can extend these very qualities onto designers who with professionals such as advertisers, reporters and journalists, are part of the cultural mediators (du Gay, Hall, Janes, Mackay, & Negus, 1997). It is these professions who are in the business of producing seductive 'meanings' for the consumers to consume (Berger, 2010;Fry, 2011).

DESIGN PROCESS AS A RATIONAL ORDER
The design process models developed under the influence of engineering, focus on identifying the main stages of the process. They tend to be linear representations, which are organized in a temporal axis (representing a transition of time, from left to right and from top to bottom) -vertical or horizontalon which activities or stages are deployed. Some include tasks, objectives, results and feedback loops. 'Synthesised' models identify only the main phases. The green rice by Munari (1981Munari ( /1989) also reflects a linear logic, although clearly the invitation to cook is friendlier and in general well received by design students. Vol.14 Nr.4, 2021, Art. 10, 1-18 Lawson (2005) stated that these sorts of design process models suggest that transitions will take place during the design process. He used RIBA's sequential design process (see Figure 4) to examine how it might be interpreted by a designer. On a practical level, he observed that it might be difficult for a designer to complete phase 1 before the problem is investigated in phase 2. However, more importantly, relying on his teaching experience, he suggested that students might step over the transition process between phase 1 and phase 2. Implication of this design process representation is that it might "encourage unproductive procrastination!" (p. 34). Further on, in his analyses he outlined that the model does not indicate how the transition (a jump from one of the phases to the next) will take place or how a designer should gather the "information about problem, study it, devise a solution and draw it" (p. 35). In addition, it is not clear how often and what will trigger these jumps.  Maher et al. (1996) characterised the design process as an exploratory activity, aimed at defining a problem and searching for possible solutions. They suggest that the design process represents into discreet phases "is not good (or correct) description of design" (Maher et al., 1996, p. 3). Unlike the search process, which starts with a well-defined problem (see Figure 3a), exploration begins with an open and poorly defined problem. So, that in addition to generating a solution, a designer must shape and define the problem itself (see Figure 3b). They suggest that problem and solution are interrelated rather than separate entities. For example, producing a prototype (solution space) might redefine a problem space (Dubberly, 2005), "which in turn will generate a new design space" (solution space) (Maher et al., 1996, p. 4). Thus, the problem space and solution space co-evolve (p. 7), see Figure 5 and Figure 6. To advance their thinking they used analogy of gene mutation. The understanding of the problem and the solution affect each other (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The information needed to understand the problem, depends on the idea that a person has to resolve it and the characteristics and constraints of a possible solution affect and contribute to redefine the problem.

DESIGN PROCESS AS A CO-EVOLUTION
The Double Diamond Model (see Figure 9) proposed by the Design Council (Design Council et al., 2015); which resembles Banathy (1996) 'Dynamics of Divergence and Convergence' model, see Figure 10 (Dubberly, 2005, p. 24); combines a temporal linear structure, with the representation of two main cycles of divergent and convergent thinking, culminating respectively with the definition of the problem and the solution. This model is based on the mnemonic 4 resource of the 4D: Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver ( Figure 9) (Dubberly, 2005, p. 6). Both models incorporate two key phases which are made of two steps. The diagrams suggest that as the design progresses during the first step problem finding grows exponentially (discovery/divergence). Then, during the subsequent step (define/convergence) the designs are reduced into a 'single problem'. This is then followed with developing many divergent solutions to address the identified problem in the previous step. Once again, the next step (delivery/ convergence) is to reduce these divergent solutions into a 'single solution'. The key difference between the Design Council's and Banathy (1996) 'Dynamics of Divergence and Convergence' models is that Banathy (1996) attributes the divergent to involvement of members from different disciplinary backgrounds and it is these disciplinary differences which enable to generate the divergence in thinking. What is not clear, is how the use of same elements which facilitate generating the divergence in the prior step will also achieve the convergence. Kotovsky (2014, 2015) suggested that as expert designers select a 'good' direction for solution quickly they will generate low levels of divergence, which means that they will consider fewer solutions in comparison to novice designers. The implication is that convergence takes place much earlier in the process then the model might indicate. The separation of analysis and synthesis can be observed in many design process models (e.g. Double Diamond, see Figure 9). The influence comes from understanding cognitive thinking skills having analysis (divergence) and synthesis (convergence) as separate thinking activities, see Figure 11, even though research suggests otherwise. For example, Koberg andBagnall (1972/1981) suggested that both analysis and synthesis continue through a project. This is supported by Eastman (1970, cited by Lawson, 2004) and Akin (1986) that analysis (understanding the problem) is much more integrated with synthesis (generating a solution). For example, Akin (1986) concluded that designers were constantly generating new goals and redefining constraints. Thus, Akin (1986) suggested that analysis is part of all phases of design and synthesis is found very early in the process.
The implication of understanding these as separate activities results in, for example, forcing design team members delaying making solution for as long as possible (Bason & Austin, 2019).

DESIGN PROCESS AS A CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Popularised within the Total Quality Metagaming (TQM) movement the Continuous Improvement cycle also known as the Shewhart-Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act 5 Cycle (see Figure 12) was developed for problem solving and it was used in manufacturing to eliminate a waste (1997): • PLAN (Approach) means to avoid MURI, or [waste caused by] unreasonableness • DO (Deployment) means to avoid MURA, or to control [waste caused by] inconsistencies • CHECK (Study/Results) means to avoid MUDA, or to find waste in outcomes 6 • ACTION (Act/Improvement) indicates the will, motivation, and determination of the Management FIGURE 12. The Shewhart-Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle for problem solving adapted from: G. H. Watson (1993, p. 4), Ishikawa (1985, p. 85), Dubberly (2008, p. 31), (Hamson, 2003, p. 239) and Chestnut (1997, p. 52).
The cycle was adopted as a cyclical design process model to illustrate the 'never ending' cycle of the design improvement. One of the implications of this model is that any development is done in relation to the existing solution which most likely might prohibit a radical innovation and most likely entrench exiting practices.

DESIGN PROCESS AS A 'MENTAL STATE'
Some of the most popular models are those of the Institute of Design at Stanford University (d.school). They have been developed to teach design thinking to students from various academic undergraduate and graduate programs in Stanford, as well as executives and young professionals who take their courses and workshops. There are many d.school design process models in circulation (see Table 1 and Table 2). However, perhaps the most widespread is the (i) model composed of six stages -understanding, observing, point of view, ideate, prototype and test -represented by coloured circles, from which curved lines display alluding to the iterations. In addition, (ii) the model consisting of five hexagons where empathizing and defining stand out. (iii) A third model includes the same hexagons arranged in a circular shape and adds a final stage of storytelling.
Design Thinking refers to the process that designers 'follow' to address problems and develop proposals with a purpose of solving those problems. As the process includes both cognitive processes and concrete actions, we will refer to those as processes. The differentiators of the d.school models are empathy and prototyping.
These are not only considered as stages, but as a 'mental state' or disposition towards innovation. Empathy seeks to identify motivations, needs and wishes of the people, with the purpose of anticipating behaviours that allow the introduction of innovations that are highly significant and relevant to the users. Prototyping is not a stage at the end of the creative process, which enables to make adjustments before starting the production, as was conceived in the traditional models (see for example Ulrich & Eppinger, 2004); on the contrary, it is a way of materialising ideas from a very early stage, with the purpose of communicating and validating them with various stakeholders, as the team members or the users themselves.
Storytelling is another of the additional elements included in one of the d.school's models. It is different from the stages of communication of the traditional models, because it is not geared to describe the proposal for subsequent production, but to build a persuasive story to support the launch of a product or service.
The leaders of IDEO, Kelley and Kelley (2013) and Brown (2009) do not adhere to rigid models, but identify fundamental phases. They proclaim that the processes are not linear and that several iterations are necessary before completing the process. Using the acronym HCD (Human-Centred Design), the manual for social innovation developed by IDEO proposes three phases: Hear, Create and Deliver. In synthesis, it is possible to identify the following stages with their characteristics listed in the Table 1.  Council et al. (2015), d.school, Both, andBaggereor (2013), Kelley and Kelley (2013), IDEO (2009) and Kumar (2012). Vol.14 Nr.4, 2021, Art. 10, 1-18

DESIGN PROCESSES AS A LEARNING
The adaptations of the design process to the educational context also vary in structure, naming and number of stages. In general, the first phases aim is to observe contexts and people, identify and define a problem to develop and explore solutions. However, the testing and implementation stages-that respond to the logic of the productive processes where professional designers operates-are replaced by stages of reflection and evaluation, seeking to promote meta-cognition processes. In some cases, improve and share, are added, enriching the proposals and facilitating their application in other contexts to promote collaborative work between the students. Some models use pictograms that facilitate the identification of each stage. As in the representations of the design process, it is possible to identify linear and cyclical models.
Henry Ford Learning Institute (HFLI) (https://hfli.org/) and Design Thinking for Educators (https://designthinkingforeducators.com) adjusted the models developed by the d.school. HFLI seeks to develop creative thinking and collaborative work, promote empathy, critical thinking and the resolution of problems through learning by doing. The model was developed in conjunction with d.school with the purpose of transferring design thinking to their students. It maintains the stages of empathy, definition, ideation and prototyping, and incorporates feedback and reflection. Each phase is represented using abstract arrows as symbology.
The Design Thinking for Educators manual for teachers-undertaken by IDEO and Riverdale Country School-describes design thinking as a mental ability and is characterized by being collaborative, optimistic, human-centred and oriented towards experimentation. It includes a description of the process, working guides, testimonies and cases in which it has been applied to problems of diverse scale and level of complexity.
Testing is replaced by a stage of evolution, oriented to develop the proposal in time; either looking for the necessary support to carry it out, documenting the process, defining criteria for success, sharing the experience or planning future stages (Riverdale Country School & IDEO, 2012).
The international Design for Change (DFC) movement (https://www.dfcworld.org/SITE) proposes a methodology of four steps, for children and young people to develop creative proposals to solve problems of their communities. It seeks to develop leadership, empathy, collaboration, and promote analytical thinking and creativity. The stages have pictograms and motivating names as feel, imagine, do and share. DFC Spain (https://www.dfcspain.org/) adds "evolúa" (a term that mixes the words evaluate and evolve). The organization has developed an illustrated manual that invites the children to be superheroes: explains the activities of each stage, proposes questions, promotes reflection and makes suggestions.
FabLab Teacher Studio (DiGiorgio, 2013) proposes a spiral structure of seven steps: question, imagine, design, build, evaluate, refine and share. They have developed a canvas named Project Planning Doc that includes the visual representation of the process, questions that guide the conduction of the different stages, a definition of criteria for assessing results, a list of challenges to improve the proposal and a stage to share results, conclusions and suggestions. It does not include explicitly the observation of users in the initial stage and focuses on manufacture and promotion of collaboration and the transfer of learning. Developed under the influence of the MIT, the model has been used to strengthen critical and creative thinking and the resolution of problems and the integration of content (A. D. Watson, 2015).
The design cycle of the MYP 7 has a circular structure composed of different stages that are grouped into four main phases: investigate, ideate or plan, create and evaluate. There are numerous versions of this model published online. The shape and structure are maintained, but the names and the number of stages vary. This mode is based on the 'Continuous Improvement' model: Plan, Do, Check and Act (see Figure 13). Vol.14 Nr.4, 2021, Art. 10, 1-18 The Compass model by Index, also with a circular structure, proposes four main phases -prepare, perceive, prototype and produce -, each one composed by actions or activities. The system incorporates the three dimensions of sustainability -social, environmental and economic -and sets parameters of evaluation -form, impact and context -. In addition, it defines learning objectives of each phase, describes the activities and proposes techniques to facilitate its implementation. It is a very interesting proposal, which manages to articulate elements from design, education and sustainability.
The enthusiasm generated by Design Thinking in the field of education can be perhaps attributed to their common need to understand people, fundamental for both disciplines: their particularities and motivations; making diagnoses and proposing strategies of intervention and applying creativity, in both diagnosis and troubleshooting. Understanding how designers address these issues are seemed to be valuable for educators, in the light of current methodological requirements and curricula.

CONCLUSION
Becoming professional entails developing and refining embodied understanding of professional practice that integrates knowing, acting and being in the world (Dall'Alba, 2009). We argue that design process models act as didactic tools by mediating between the aims of instruction (the models) and the outcomes (how to do) (Gellert, 2004). The representations of design process models contribute towards production of the design professional culture. It is through the production, circulations and consumptions of these design process models which contribute to 'shared values' amongst the designers and others who are wishing to adopt this way of working. Images of the design process models, in part, give a meaning to what it means to design (act) and to be a designer (identity).
The representations of the design process vary according to the economic and productive context in which they were developed and the disciplinary and professional influences that generate them. The representations originated in the context of the industrial boom, differ from those developed under the influence of emerging technologies and digital economy. The difficulty of graphically representing the design process lies in its problems that 'shift' throughout the process. Feedback processes defy assumed certainties, which require high levels of flexibility. There are cognitive skills, practical procedures, attitudes and productive variables involved, and can be applied to different contexts and address problems of varying complexity.
The design process models do not have any meanings themselves, they signify, it is us who 'read' the meaning. The meaning is constructed by system of representation, which is fixed by the code (Bowker & Star, 2000). It is the code which makes it possible to establish the 'translation' between those producing representation and those consuming (reading) them. This means that the readers need to have access to both the code and mental maps in order to read the design process models. The design process models are not passive objects. Thus, as with maps representing geographies, the design process models do not fully capture all of the design process 'terrain', they are nevertheless "powerful technologies" (Becker, 1986 cited by Bowker & Star, 2000, p. 54). The importance of the design process model representations is their 'doing' (agency).
Even though the representations of the process are not formulas or recipes as they are visual analogies that indicate certain milestones that occur during the process and not a path to follow in a strictly linear way, they privilege certain ways of understanding design practices such a separation of doing and thinking.
As design process models are increasingly taken up within the field of education, the understating of their 'doing' as significant didactic resource is becoming imperative. Therefore, we propose a follow-up study to investigate how design process models are used by teachers and by designers, and their interpretation of these in the used context. The reason is to identify how these models are informing what design is as these design process models are one of the vital components which are contributing to the development of Design Literacies.