Transdisciplinarity seen through Information, Communication, Computation, (Inter-)Action and Cognition

Similar to oil that acted as a basic raw material and key driving force of industrial society, information acts as a raw material and principal mover of knowledge society in the knowledge production, propagation and application. New developments in information processing and information communication technologies allow increasingly complex and accurate descriptions, representations and models, which are often multi-parameter, multi-perspective, multi-level and multidimensional. This leads to the necessity of collaborative work between different domains with corresponding specialist competences, sciences and research traditions. We present several major transdisciplinary unification projects for information and knowledge, which proceed on the descriptive, logical and the level of generative mechanisms. Parallel process of boundary crossing and transdisciplinary activity is going on in the applied domains. Technological artifacts are becoming increasingly complex and their design is strongly user-centered, which brings in not only the function and various technological qualities but also other aspects including esthetic, user experience, ethics and sustainability with social and environmental dimensions. When integrating knowledge from a variety of fields, with contributions from different groups of stakeholders, numerous challenges are met in establishing common view and common course of action. In this context, information is our environment, and informational ecology determines both epistemology and spaces for action. We present some insights into the current state of the art of transdisciplinary theory and practice of information studies and informatics. We depict different facets of transdisciplinarity as we see it from our different research fields that include information studies, computability, human-computer interaction, multi-operating-systems environments and philosophy.Comment: Chapter in a forthcoming book: Information Studies and the Quest for Transdisciplinarity - Forthcoming book in World Scientific. Mark Burgin and Wolfgang Hofkirchner, Editor

Concept Blending and Dissimilarity: Factors for Creative Design Process: A Comparison between the Linguistic Interpretation Process and Design Process

This study investigated the design process in order to clarify the characteristics of the essence of the creative design process vis-à-vis the interpretation process, by carrying out design experiments. The authors analyzed the characteristics of the creative design process by comparing it with the linguistic interpretation process, from the viewpoints of thought types (analogy, blending, and thematic relation) and recognition types (commonalities and alignable and nonalignable differences). A new concept can be created by using the noun-noun phrase as the process of synthesizing two concepts—the simplest and most essential process in formulating a new concept from existing ones. Furthermore, the noun-noun phrase can be interpreted in a natural way. In our experiment, the subjects were required to interpret a novel noun-noun phrase, create a design concept from the same noun-noun phrase, and list the similarities and dissimilarities between the two nouns. The authors compare the results of the thought types and recognition types, focusing on the perspective of the manner in which things were viewed, i.e., in terms of similarities and dissimilarities. A comparison of the results reveals that blending and nonalignable differences characterize the creative design process. The findings of this research will contribute a framework of design practice, to enhance both students’ and designers’ creativity for concept formation in design, which relates to the development of innovative design. Keywords: Noun-Noun phrase; Design; Creativity; Blending; Nonalignable difference</p

Proceedings of the ECCS 2005 satellite workshop: embracing complexity in design - Paris 17 November 2005

Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science. These proceedings are the result of a workshop organized as part of the activities of a UK government AHRB/EPSRC funded research cluster called Embracing Complexity in Design (www.complexityanddesign.net) and the European Conference in Complex Systems (complexsystems.lri.fr). Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science. These proceedings are the result of a workshop organized as part of the activities of a UK government AHRB/EPSRC funded research cluster called Embracing Complexity in Design (www.complexityanddesign.net) and the European Conference in Complex Systems (complexsystems.lri.fr)

Designing as Construction of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research

This article presents a cognitively oriented viewpoint on design. It focuses on cognitive, dynamic aspects of real design, i.e., the actual cognitive activity implemented by designers during their work on professional design projects. Rather than conceiving de-signing as problem solving - Simon's symbolic information processing (SIP) approach - or as a reflective practice or some other form of situated activity - the situativity (SIT) approach - we consider that, from a cognitive viewpoint, designing is most appropriately characterised as a construction of representations. After a critical discussion of the SIP and SIT approaches to design, we present our view-point. This presentation concerns the evolving nature of representations regarding levels of abstraction and degrees of precision, the function of external representations, and specific qualities of representation in collective design. Designing is described at three levels: the organisation of the activity, its strategies, and its design-representation construction activities (different ways to generate, trans-form, and evaluate representations). Even if we adopt a "generic design" stance, we claim that design can take different forms depending on the nature of the artefact, and we propose some candidates for dimensions that allow a distinction to be made between these forms of design. We discuss the potential specificity of HCI design, and the lack of cognitive design research occupied with the quality of design. We close our discussion of representational structures and activities by an outline of some directions regarding their functional linkages

Considerations for a design and operations knowledge support system for Space Station Freedom

Engineering and operations of modern engineered systems depend critically upon detailed design and operations knowledge that is accurate and authoritative. A design and operations knowledge support system (DOKSS) is a modern computer-based information system providing knowledge about the creation, evolution, and growth of an engineered system. The purpose of a DOKSS is to provide convenient and effective access to this multifaceted information. The complexity of Space Station Freedom's (SSF's) systems, elements, interfaces, and organizations makes convenient access to design knowledge especially important, when compared to simpler systems. The life cycle length, being 30 or more years, adds a new dimension to space operations, maintenance, and evolution. Provided here is a review and discussion of design knowledge support systems to be delivered and operated as a critical part of the engineered system. A concept of a DOKSS for Space Station Freedom (SSF) is presented. This is followed by a detailed discussion of a DOKSS for the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and Work Package-2 portions of SSF

An Investigation of Modeing Behaviors in Function Structure Modeling With Respect to Chaining Methods

The systematic engineering design process equips designers with tools and methods necessary to understand and solve a given design problem. Function decomposition is one such tool that allows designers to decompose the given problem into sub-problems which may be easier to address. Research on Function modeling, specifically Function Structure models, has focused on improving model construction techniques and using the Function Structure models to support concept generation. Additionally, Function Structure models have also been traditionally used as individual design tools; however, most other conceptual design tools are used in a collaborative setting (e.g. gallery sketching, method 3-6-5, etc.). This research investigates the use of Function Structure models as a collaborative tool by using seed models constructed using three different chaining methods (forward chaining, backward chaining, and nucleation) identified in a pilot protocol study. These seed models were intended to represent a partially completed model created by one designer, which was then delivered to the next designer for completion. A designer study and a protocol study were conducted to identify differences between the final Function Structure models generated using different seed models, based on the percent increase in the number of functions and flows, change in model complexity, and a rubric based evaluation of the model. Results show that using a nucleation seed model yield a higher increase in function and flows, as well as a larger change in model complexity. Analysis of the rubric based model evaluation shows that the presence of the seed model improves the evaluation scores, however, the type of chaining method used does not impact the final score. These results suggest that teaching of Function Structure models should include explicit identification of the different chaining methods, and recommends nucleation as the chaining method of choice. Moreover, future research areas are identified with respect to further comparison of chaining methods, as well as investigation of behavioral patterns in the modeling activity