Definition of Design: Diverse Perspectives on Professional Design

What is the most accepted definition of "design"?

There is no single, universally accepted definition, but in academic and professional circles, the consensus moves away from purely aesthetic notions. The most rigorous definition conceives of design as a project-based discipline. It focuses on the prefiguration of solutions to specific problems. One of the most influential conceptualizations comes from Herbert A. Simon, who described it as the process of changing existing situations into preferred ones. In essence, design is the deliberate and strategic planning of the form and function of an artifact, service, or system before its physical existence or implementation.

Why can a single word ("design") mean such different things?

The polysemy of the term "design" arises from its application in radically different contexts. The word is used to describe a process (the act of designing), a result (the design of an object), and a profession (the field of design). This intrinsic complexity is compounded by its popularization and co-optation by marketing and colloquial language, where it often becomes a vague adjective to label something as "modern" or "aesthetic." This semantic devaluation creates confusion and dilutes the term's technical and disciplinary meaning, forcing professionals to constantly engage in clarification.

Is it possible to explain "design" without using the word itself in the definition?

Yes, and it is a useful exercise for gaining precision. It can be described as the activity of "planning," "configuring," or "prefiguring." It consists of the formal and functional structuring of objects, communications, or services intended for industrial production or systematic implementation. It is the process of strategic decision-making that defines what an artifact will be, how it will work, and how it will interact with its user to fulfill a specific purpose. We are talking about the conception of a plan, a blueprint, or a detailed specification that serves as a guide for manufacturing or execution.

How does the definition of design change depending on the field (graphic, industrial, architectural, etc.)?

While the project-based essence is common, the definition is nuanced by the object of study and the constraints of each field. The core does not change, but its application does:

• Industrial Design: Focuses on the configuration of mass-produced products, considering materials, production processes, ergonomics, and life cycle.
• Graphic Design: Centers on structuring visual communication, organizing text and images on two-dimensional or digital media to convey a specific message to a defined audience.
• Architectural Design: Deals with the conception and organization of habitable spaces, integrating structural, functional, social, and contextual variables.

In each case, the act of planning adapts to particular media, scales, objectives, and constraints, but the methodological basis and functional purpose remain.

Is there a common essence to all specific definitions of design?

Yes. The common essence is the act of planning: an intellectual, methodical, and deliberate activity of prefiguration. Unlike spontaneous creation, design is intentional and teleological—that is, it is goal-oriented. This mediating activity is situated between the identification of a problem or need and the creation of a tangible or intangible solution. The essence of design lies in its ability to provide a formal and functional, rationally argued response to a specific requirement within a set of constraints.

What is the practical utility for a professional in defining what design is?

Rigorously defining design is a fundamental strategic tool. It allows the professional to delimit the scope of their work, justify their methodology, and communicate the value of their intervention to clients, collaborators, and society. A clear definition transforms the perception of the designer from a mere "stylist" to a strategic thinker who solves complex problems. It helps in setting fees, drafting contracts, defending project decisions, and ultimately, building and consolidating the authority and respect of the discipline.

How does a clear definition help differentiate the role of the designer from that of other creative professionals and the artist?

A precise definition is crucial for drawing disciplinary boundaries. The most important distinction is with the artist: art's purpose is expression, and the work is self-referential, open to free interpretation. Design, in contrast, has a utilitarian purpose; the work is a means to solve someone else's problem, and its effectiveness is measured by its ability to fulfill a function, not by its expressive value. Unlike other creatives, such as the advertiser who focuses on the persuasive message, the designer concentrates on the structural configuration of the communicational artifact or product. The designer does not create "what" is said, but "how" it is formally structured to be effective.

Is design a purely functional activity, or is it also a creative/artistic act?

Design is a fundamentally functional activity that employs creative processes. Creativity in design is not an end in itself, as it is in art, but a tool for finding efficient solutions to concrete problems. The aesthetic or formal dimension is not an "artistic" add-on but an integral part of the function. An object's form affects its usability, perception, and efficiency. Therefore, although design can produce results of great aesthetic value, its nature is not artistic but project-based and utilitarian. Confusing the two is a conceptual error that trivializes the strategic complexity of design.

Are there philosophical stances that oppose defining design strictly?

Yes, there are schools of thought, often influenced by postmodern or deconstructionist thinking, that criticize strict definitions for being reductionist and exclusionary. They argue that a closed definition limits the discipline's evolution and ignores hybrid and emerging practices that blur traditional boundaries. These stances prefer a more fluid and open understanding of design. However, from a disciplinary and academic perspective, the lack of a rigorous definition leads to ambiguity, weakens the profession, and hinders the development of a solid and transmissible body of knowledge.

Does the definition of design change depending on whether it is understood as a process, a final result, or a profession?

Rather than changing, the definition is complemented by observing these three interconnected facets. Understanding design requires grasping its triple nature:

• As a process: It is the sequence of methodical actions (research, analysis, conceptualization, prototyping) to arrive at a solution. It is the act of "designing."
• As a result: It is the configured artifact, system, or communication. It is the "design" of a product.
• As a profession: It is the body of knowledge, competencies, and ethical framework that govern the practice. It is the discipline of "Design."

A complete definition must encompass these three dimensions, understanding that the process gives rise to the result, and the combination of both, governed by specific knowledge, constitutes the profession.

What is the most accurate definition of design for FOROALFA?

For FOROALFA, design is the discipline concerned with the strategic and rational prefiguration of the form of artifacts, services, and systems for their production and use. Its fundamental purpose is to solve specific problems of interaction between people and their environment, mediating through solutions whose effectiveness is measurable and whose value lies in their functionality, not in their capacity for self-expression. It is, therefore, an intellectual craft and a technical practice, distinct from the concept of art and focused on the optimization of the artificial world.