← Resources & Sources

brand/foundational/sources/methodology-notes.md

Notes for the methodology

Contents
  1. Corrections to the thesis
  2. Credits the methodology documents lack
  3. Counterweights
  4. Open questions
  5. Each source's notes

What the source research (c117) found that bears on Mark Parson's 2007 thesis, Looking In, and on the methodology drawn from it: brand/design_methodology.md, brand/design_philosophy.md and brand/design_methodology_analysis.md. The methodology documents have not been changed; these notes are for their next revision. Each source page keeps its own notes in full (see Each source's notes). Compiled 2026-10-20; gathered on this page 2026-10-21.

Corrections to the thesis

The thesis itself is left as written. Correct these in any reproduction or quotation of it.

  • Webber's initials. The thesis lists him as "Webber M. W."; he is Melvin M. Webber (Rittel & Webber).
  • Three quotations from Alexander's Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964) are each slightly misworded. The book reads "a form which we have not yet designed" (p. 26), where the thesis drops "which" twice. It reads "very few designers have tried to understand" (p. 6), where the thesis drops "have tried to". It reads "it not only solves it but illuminates it" and "1920's" (pp. 90–91) (Alexander).
  • "The Quality that Cannot be Named" is cited to "Alexander (1976)". The idea is from The Timeless Way of Building (1979), whose chapter 2 is "The Quality Without a Name" (Alexander).
  • Notes "based on" Ashby's Design for a Brain (1960). Notes cites Ashby several times (pp. 196, 200, 203), but "drew on" is safer than "based on" (Alexander).
  • The precedent claim cited to Jones (1992), that designed forms are always recombinations of existing ones, was not found in Design Methods. The nearest passage, on craft evolution, says precedent fails when a form needs complete reorganisation (p. 20) (Jones).
  • The new topics the thesis attributes to Jones's 1992 edition date from the 1980 edition; 1992 reprints them (Jones).
  • The Rabbit Cabinet. The thesis says Jencks made it for a Scottish client from the population cycles of Scottish rabbits. The book's caption says only "Scotland, 1992", and the rabbits are the textbook example for the population equation (pp. 46–48) (Jencks).

Credits the methodology documents lack

  • The edge of chaos is Coleridge's, through Jencks. "The Edge of Chaos" in design_methodology.md gives "where a more than usual level of imagination meets a more than usual degree of order" without a source, and design_philosophy.md and design_methodology_analysis.md put it in quotation marks. It is the thesis's paraphrase of Jencks, The Architecture of the Jumping Universe (1995, ch. VII, p. 39). Jencks was quoting Coleridge, Biographia Literaria (1817, ch. XIV): "a more than usual state of emotion with more than usual order". Credit both, and don't present the paraphrase as a quotation of either (Jencks).
  • The term "edge of chaos" comes from complexity science (Langton, 1990; Packard; Kauffman), which Jencks credits. There it names the narrow regime between frozen order and chaos where complex computation and adaptation happen (Jencks).
  • Decomposition and modularity come from Alexander's Notes (1964), through the thesis. Anyone citing Notes for decomposition should cite its 1971 preface too, where Alexander rejects the method and keeps the diagrams (Alexander).
  • The three-stage design process in the thesis checks out. Jones's 1962 conference paper is organised as analysis, synthesis and evaluation (published 1963, pp. 55 ff.), and Design Methods (1970) restates the stages as divergence, transformation and convergence (pp. 63–69) (Jones).
  • "Design problems are ill-behaved." Rittel (1966/1971), "Some Principles for the Design of an Educational System for Design", is the design-specific source; "Dilemmas" (1973) is about planning (Rittel & Webber).
  • Ideas Roesler applies but didn't coin: the "envisioned world problem" (Woods & Dekker, 2000) and "joint cognitive systems" (Hollnagel & Woods, 2005) (Roesler).

Counterweights

  • Against "Decomposition and Modularity". Churchman (1967) criticises "'carving off' a piece of the problem", and Rittel & Webber's proposition 8 says "There is nothing like a natural level of a wicked problem" (p. 165) (Rittel & Webber).
  • Alexander against his own decomposition. Notes (1964) splits a problem into a strict hierarchy of subsets, a tree. "A City is Not a Tree" (1965) argues that real systems overlap and do not split cleanly. Gabriel (2023) reads it as a repudiation of the Notes method (Alexander).
  • Two founders left the methods movement. Alexander rejected design methods in his 1971 preface, and Jones in 1977. Both turns support the methodology's "literacy, not ceremony" stance: methods are notes to compose with, not a procedure to follow (Alexander, Jones).
  • Two of the thesis's sources disagreed. The 1995 Spectator review of Jumping Universe points to Alexander's The Nature of Order as the deeper account of order in architecture (Jencks).

Open questions

  • "Modes of Innovation." Rittel's 1964 seminar had the same name as the methodology's section from the thesis. Check Protzen & Harris (2010) before claiming either influence or coincidence (Rittel & Webber).
  • "Designers are situation improvers" is unattributed in the thesis. It fits Jones's definition of designing, "to initiate change in man-made things" (Design Methods, p. 4), and Herbert Simon's "changing existing situations into preferred ones" (1969), but neither is the source of that wording (Jones).
  • "Early stages need more freedom, later stages need more order" is the methodology's own addition. Coleridge and Jencks describe a balance held at once, not a sequence (Jencks).
  • The self-organizing designer. Jones's third view of the designer divides designing into a free search and a control of that search. That is close to the Coleridge balance, and may be worth citing alongside it (Jones).

Each source's notes

Qpoint Brand Style Guide