Coevolution simultaneously develops the formulation of and solution to a problem
Expert designers develop and refine both “the formulation of a problem and ideas for a solution in concert” in a process called “coevolution.”[1]
In expert design practice, research has shown that the design problem is not fixed before the search begins for a satisfactory solution concept. … Coevolution involves a constant iteration of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation passing back and forth between the two conceptual design “spaces”—the problem space and the solution space. … the designer is seeking to generate a matching problem-solution pair.[2]
The essential process generally follows this pattern:[3]
- A chunk, or seed, of coherent information arises from the problem situation.
- It sparks the crystallization of a core solution idea (the “primary generator”).
- This core solution idea in turn changes the designer’s view of the problem situation.
- Redefine the problem in light of the possible solution.
- They then check whether the new problem definition still suits the earlier solution idea.
The creative process of design is generally not so much, as the popular perception depicts, a flash of sudden inspiration as an iterative process of exploration. The intent of the designer, then, is to achieve a creative event by bridging the problem space and the solution space by the identification of a key concept. Once problem and solution “fit together nicely, the result takes on an unassailable quality: a structure emerges that is simple and coherent and that integrates all the demands that had occupied the initial, messy problem arena.”[4]
See also:
- Design practice can address open, complex, dynamic, networked challenges
- Developing problem situations allows reframing
- Creating frames improves cognition
- Exploring themes leads to solutions
- Fostering a discourse shapes behavior
- Wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve
- Kind vs. Wicked Learning Environments
Frame Innovation – Dorst (2015), ch. 3, § “Five lessons from design.” ↩︎
Ibid. ↩︎
Ibid. The wording in this list is essentially Dorst’s. ↩︎
Ibid. ↩︎