Evolution in Design Management and its affect on Design Practice

The past decade has seen greater interest around design practice from an evolutionary perspective (Dawkins, 1986, Sibly, 2000, Langrish, 1999, 2004, 2005, Yagou, 2004). Arguments from these contributors include the memes construct, adaptation and natural selection. Similarly management is engaged in the evolutionary debate in the field of business practice with similar points of reference (Aldrich, 1979, 1986, Bahk and Gort, 1993, Doz, 1996, Biggiero, 2001, Matthews, et al, 2003). This paper argues that Design Management, the interface between design and business, (De Mozota, 2003) adds dimension to the debate. Missing from these debates is the autopoietic view of evolution. Ontogeny described by Maturana and Varela (1972, 1987) is the history of structural changes in a particular unity. The perturbations by the environment in which this unity exists may impact on the unity “if” the internal communications determine this to be appropriate; thus creating a change in the structure of the unity. This subsequently leads to phylogeny or development and diversification in the unity. This filtering of feedback to feed-forward to determine change within the unity is an appropriate metaphor for any design, problem solving process. This is convergent with the way in which business units’ change in structure and organisation in their attempts to aligning with their changing operational environments. Natural selection is viewed in a particular manner in autopoiesis. The use of the word selection usually infers choice. In the case of autopoiesis and in Darwin’s theory on evolution and natural selection (Darwin, 1859) it is important to note that Darwin stated it was “as if” there was natural selection occurring. This seems again appropriate given the manner in which design practice in its complexity and likewise with management systems in business that an informed drift to a new state or change is occurring rather than known, restricted predictability. Drawing upon comparison around the scholarly debate of evolution within the fields of management and design practice, this paper proposes a table which outlines parallel and divergent thinking, with additional data from two case studies which postulate that drift is a more appropriate conclusion. It will demonstrate the determinations regarding the effect of design management on design practice from an evolutionary perspective. Highlighting the complexity of the situation, this paper will articulate why business and design practice struggle to answer the problems of selection as opposed to drift.