The paper " Design Decision Making in Architecture" is an outstanding example of a literature review on architecture. Hetfield's view regarding the role played in design decision making is put forward by positioning the distinction between two categories of problems; the problem as given and the problem as a design goal. One of the available assumptions by other expert players that leads to the formation of Hetfield's claim is that the act of design is commenced by and predicated on problems but the author further states that regardless of this, definite analysis of the nature of problems in regard to design is hardly ever handled in the hypothetical literature.
According to Hays (2009), conformist wisdom proposes that such problems are outwardly bred, that is, offered to the designer by some outside agency. Several important viewpoints have been put across by Herfield. To begin with, Her field highlights that in order to understand the outlook of buildings, the idea of the problem as a design goal is imperative (2007). He further states that the designer is the fundamental formalizing representative in the design procedure the reason why each designer constructs a different problem from any set of initial givens.
Ever since the formulation of a number of theories in architecture, writer after writer always focused on the central role played by the designer in that without the designer there would be no design problem and solutions. This means that design problems were created based upon the designer claims, assumption and myths but at the same time guided by professionalism Consciously or inadvertently, there is a common claim by architectural designers and other theorists that each designer accepts the problem as a given perspective or a position, a set of prescribed and aesthetic and practical receptivity.
All these are based on previous experiences and predilections and bigotries, which establishes not the only solution to the problem as if it is by some means impartially open for the most effectual solution, but just what problem the designer will choose to solve (Harfield, 2007). This argument is sustainable based on the fact that in architecture just like any other discipline, the general understanding of a problem facilitates the route towards different solutions.
According to Herfield (2007), this is an absolute certainty when it comes to design fields in question as well as many other design faculties. However, Herfield is very quick to mention that the view that design problem-solving is tantamount with cautious analysis and thorough use of apposite skill sets to the problem as given is not entirely true (2007). According to him, architects create problems as design goals from the preliminary and broader problems-as-given. It is therefore clear that various levels of determination are present or should be applied in design problems.
This is where the sustainability of this argument is established; architecture is a popular faculty and therefore it must be guided by critical analysis and apposite skills when coming up with designs. According to the views of Hays (2009), a psychologist, a teacher and a doctor will confirm that a problem cannot be solved from the blues; it has got to be understood first. The same case applies to design in architecture where before a solution to a design problem is arrived at, the actual design ought to be deciphered first.
This is backed up with Harfield’ s view that where the problems offered for solution deduce a designed upshot, as disparate to, say, an intended one, it is acknowledged that such results will essentially be subject to the designer, and thus potentially varied (2007). Based on this fact, the initial argument of Harfield is persuasive and factual.
Clois, EK and Joan, CK 2008, Architecture: Residential Drafting And Design, Goodheart-Willcox Publisher: Tinley Park
Frank, C 2007, Architecture: Form, Space, & Order, John Wiley: New York
Hays, MK 2009, Architecture Theory since 1968, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Massachusetts.
Harfield, Steve 2007, “On Design ‘Problematization’: Theorising Differences in Designed Outcomes,” Design Studies Vol 28 No. 2
Nathan, BW 2005, Architecture is Elementary: Visual Thinking through Architectural, Gibbs Smith, Publisher: North Carlina
Rudolf, S 2010, “Architecture: An Introductory Reader,” The Builder, vol. 4 no 456: 345-356