Joshua Porter's post about whether good design can be replicated is fabulous. What I like is the idea that there isn't a solid set of methods that you can reuse in every case and think it might guarantee success or "good design". There's an interesting thought in there about process:
I wonder if the real issue is that most of the time designers simply don’t know if what they’re building is great, and they end up relying on process to get as far as they can. If they go through the right process, they think, then they’ll produce maybe not the best solution, but the best solution possible. This may be true…and it is comforting, in a way, because if you feel like you are doing it right then you can sleep soundly.
Couldn't we just say that all this activity that leads to design, whether it uses one methodology or another, just helps frame the problem and start the discussion about understanding what you're trying to solve before the eureka moments hits. We're not talking about sticking to rigor here, but maybe using tools and methods to get to some moment of clarity before carrying on to the design that can now be given focus.
The Michael Bierut passage is a great one, in that he suggests that he works at the problem in one way or another until the solution manifests almost magically. And Joshua suggests that perhaps it's just hard work, and I would say experience, that makes good design. I'd side with that opinion, if I had to side with anything.
