When people cite Herbert Simon’s definition of design (as they frequently do) as an activity that seeks to Change Existing Situations Into Preferred Ones, this is usually an entrée into what they really want to discuss, which is “how do designers do this?” Here lies the history of the ‘design methods’ movement that sought to rationalise design as process, and the counter-reaction to it as researchers and designers began to conceptualise their work in terms of human-centred design, participatory design, co-design, design ethnography, and so on. But what’s been overlooked in Simon’s oft-repeated definition of design is the change bit – the move from existing to preferred is glided over as if obvious. If pressed to name the gap between the existing and the preferred, those who cite Simon would perhaps say something like – better functionality, performance, convenience, efficiency, aesthetic appeal, and so on. The parameters of change are assumed as given, as issuing from the client, thus they are circumscribed, delimited, not an issue.