Design concept development in transportation design

The paper presents results of a study about design concept development in transportation design. The main question of this study concerns mainly the existence and development of design concepts and its status in the design process furthermore it partially describes its content, manifestation and function. From the view of industrial psychology, the design concept is one of the most important stages in the design process, because its availability determines the success, regarding the design object. A design concept can be understood as the first solid and focused unit of knowledge in design processes with ill-defined problems. In the Design Process Planning, based on Action Regulation Theory, design concepts act as a compact guiding principle, including the anticipation of the artefact. Using this as a scientific basis a long term study with 25 students including cross section and longitudinal aspects were held from 2005 to 2008. Three concept types derived from the literature preceded the investigation, whereby the holistic experience-oriented one after Uhlmann (2006a) forms the beginning. This focus was confirmed within the investigation for the majority of the projects, yet one must assume that, functional (construction-oriented) or formal concepts successfully finds to application. Holistic concepts enable a more comprehensive and more balanced treatment within the design process. Within the work two general methods of generating design concepts: extracting and compiling were defined. Following the typical processes they can be assigned to different fields: transportation design (extracting) and industrial design (compiling). Furthermore three designer types and an open category could be identified. The three types “automobile”, “design” and “story” can be clearly and consistently assigned by the students. The research closes with a recommendation of a hybrid design concept processing using aspects of the two generating methods as well as instruments of different designer types. Keywords: Design Concept, Transportation Design, Field study, Early stages</p

Designing an information system for updating land records in Bangladesh: action design ethnographic research (ADER)

Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Information Systems (IS) has developed through adapting, generating and applying diverse methodologies, methods, and techniques from reference disciplines. Further, Action Design Research (ADR) has recently developed as a broad research method that focuses on designing and redesigning IT and IS in organizational contexts. This paper reflects on applying ADR in a complex organizational context in a developing country. It shows that ADR requires additional lens for designing IS in such a complex organizational context. Through conducting ADR, it is seen that an ethnographic framework has potential complementarities for understanding complex contexts thereby enhancing the ADR processes. This paper argues that conducting ADR with an ethnographic approach enhances design of IS and organizational contexts. Finally, this paper aims presents a broader methodological framework, Action Design Ethnographic Research (ADER), for designing artefacts as well as IS. This is illustrated through the case of a land records updating service in Bangladesh

Designing Sensor-based Predictive Information Systems for Forecasting Spare Part Demand for Diesel Engines

As digital technologies become prevalent and embedded in the environment, "smart" everyday objects like smart phones and smart homes have become part and parcel of the human enterprise. The ubiquity of smart objects, that produce ever-growing streams of data, presents both challenges and opportunities. In this dissertation, I argue that information systems extending these data streams, referred to as "predictive information systems with sensors", can generate added value and will be gaining momentum in academia and in the industry. Subsequently, seeing apparent complexity in designing IS artifacts with such functionality, I introduce a framework for Designing Information Systems with Predictive Analytics (DISPA), extending Design Science Research specifically towards rigorous design of predictive analytics. The framework is evaluated based on a case study of MAN Diesel and Turbo, a lead designer of marine diesel engines generating multiple applicable artifacts in the process. Additionally, the framework exemplification in the case context led to supplementing the framework with a set of Design Principles for Designing Predictive Information Systems as well as a matrix for pre-assessing financial feasibility of predictive information systems with sensor technologies. This work provides a contribution to information systems research, and in particular to design science research, by introducing a model for Designing Information Systems with Predictive Analytics (DISPA) that can serve as a method for developing IS artifacts. The framework constitutes an Information System Design Theory consistent with the established definitions from the literature (Gregor & Jones, 2007; Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2012; Walls, Widmeyer, & El Sawy, 1992). In addition, the paper introduces and systematically evaluates a number of spare-part forecasting methods, which can be considered a contribution to operations research literature

Discursive Designing Theory - Towards a Theory of Designing Design -

Discursive Designing Theory - Towards a Theory of Designing Design- Juergen Faust Motivated by the immature theoretical framework of design, this thesis employs transdisciplinary discourse to provide a contemporary and forward-looking model of design and design theory, as well as the linkages between the two, along with the necessary methodology. The discourse involves research into the current understanding of design, its principles, its practice and conceptual framework. The methodology developed and employed in this thesis can be outlined in five steps: 0. Design briefing 1. Developing a conceptual model based on the writings of Michel Foucault and Helmut Krippendorff. 2. Presenting the model in a written form. 3. Using accounts of conferences as tools for Designing Design and building monuments. 4. Interrogating the theory through an expert system. 5. Summarising and evaluating the findings. Design Briefing The present study delves into design, and into the design of theory. In Chapter A.1.6, a summary of Chapter A.0−A.1.5 is given, highlighting the underlying discourse. As shown, the theory behind this work is based on a hypothesis, which cannot be proved experimentally, or deduced from experimental data, at least at the time of its construction. Therefore, it needs to be understood that the case studies (A.3.2−A.3.5) in this thesis are not intended to serve as experiments that were conducted in order to prove the theory; rather, these case studies are design cases—products and artefacts—and should be viewed as discourse frameworks that can be adopted to design design. As described in Chapter 3.1, these are elements of monuments—in reference to Raichman (1988)—that have resulted from the discursive strategies and were designed within a community of designers, allowing the design understanding to be shaped. Methodologically, the theory is created through an indication of differences. These differences were elaborated on in the literature review, and can be explained using either logic-based or hermeneutical metaphors. As the latter approach is more flexible, it might be more applicable to the design environment. The generated knowledge can be located in three areas—design knowledge, epistemology, methodology (the process to get there), and phenomenology (the composition of the artefacts). While the main focus of this thesis has been on theory design, it was also important to delineate how to get there, as well as analyse the questionable differences between theory and practice, since they are ideal types that mark the extreme ends of a continuum (Jonsen and Toulmin 1988, p.36). The work presented in this thesis was conducted in a circular manner, like a design process, in order to encapsulate the instance. Therefore, essential topics reappear, allowing them to be reframed and newly contextualised. Chapter 0.0 to 0.7 reperesent the introductory part of this work. Thus, the content presented could be referred to as ‘the briefing’—as a parallel to a design case—to provide the background. It shows the motivation, a first hypothesis, some methodological considerations, and the research design and decisions. The aim is to provide insight into the phenomenon of interest and discuss some preconceptions. Thus, these introductory chapters provide orientation through locating some statements of the provided (design) discourse. Developing a conceptual model based on the writings of Michel Foucault and Helmut Krippendorff. As a follow up, Section A consists of several key components, and encompasses the research methodology specificity, its theoretical underpinning, and its connection to design, a reframing and contextualisation. This section also provides the means to overcome the discrepancy between researching and designing. Therefore, in Chapter A1−A1.6, a more substantial discourse of design is provided, along with the theory and the essential knowledge. Here, we can see the method in operation, as a patching of discursive statements—akin to an additive process of designing. Clearly, the attempt made here belongs to the constructivist epistemology, as the idea of design is a mental construct. Nonetheless, the aim is to provide a broad perspective of what can be presently observed in the design field. The employed methodology strategically aims to overcome the divide between designing and researching—between acting and reflecting—in order to provide a conceptual model. Still, it also makes the designing practice a conscious process, whereby theory is designed through discourse. Such discourse is revealed within the discovery of textual statements based on an extensive literature review, as well as through the discovery of textual statements from organised interactive conferences. The theory developed here is, in fact, a theory derived from theory, and is shaped through finding patterns and the simplification of the overall structure they form. In A.2, the concept of discourse and its designing quality is revealed. It shows how discourse, as the guiding method, is ‘excavated’ from the writings of Michel Foucault and Helmut Krippendorff. Methodologically, Michel Foucault’s ‘Archeology of Knowledge’ was analysed against and parallel to Helmut Krippendorff’s ‘Semantic Turn’, as these sources are complementary to each other. The goal of this process is a comparison of statements, yielding reasoning towards discourse and design discourse. In sum, this analysis helped reveal that it is a matter of design how the discourse is provided. The outcome of the aforementioned comparison is very interesting and satisfying. The findings revealed a difference in discourse, because engineering and design discourses are informed by rhetoric of design, rhetoric of deliberation, in opposite to humanistic discourse, which consumes textual objects (Perelman 1999). The discursive designing process within these chapters reveals some important elements, such as the conceptual frame of politics, referred to in Foucault’s discourse explorations. According to the author, power is a generating force in shaping discourse (Faucault 1980, p.119). In contrast, Krippendorff (1995b) sees power as emanating from language, which can be overcome through avoiding the construction of certain language. In the research presented, the designing practice that took place during the conferences, as well as the aforementioned notions, play a role, as was shown in Chapter 3. Power, as it was experienced, is unavoidable. Yet, rather than seeing it as a problem, it should be viewed as a generating force. A second more substantial question arises around the notion of discontinuity (A.2.3), which is essential in Foucault’s concept. According to Krippendorff, knowledge is not partitioned; it rather provides continuity through the various disciplines. As this research shows, this view should not be seen as an opposite to Foucault’s concept of discontinuity, because statements can refer to the same object, but coming from a discontinuous field, from various disciplines. In other words, as design discourse can be viewed as a discourse hosted by various disciplines, it is discontinuous! With respect to Foucault’s concern of grasping of statements, the main goal of this thesis is to provide support for this perspective. As the author noted, the grasping of the statements needs to follow the exact specificity of their occurrence (Foucault 1972). The prudence and success of dissociating statements from their original context to place them in a new context is questionable, since no discontinuity can be ignored (Foucault 1972). Often, rather than paraphrasing the text so that it reflects one’s own understanding of it, the result is a mere citation of the original texts and con-texts. The awareness of discontinuity does not allow for this thesis to be presented according to the positivistic paradigm. Thus, rather than stitching the chapters together, as if they would naturally support each other, there might be some discontinuity ‘logic’. Presenting the model in a written form. In Chapter A.2.5 to A.2.7, further perspectives on the various elements of this thesis are revealed, in reference to the discussions presented in the preceding chapters. Scientific discourse, in Krippendorff’s (2006) view, is misleading, since the design activities are different from those involved in science, which focus on search for patterns, and are thus always driven by the past. However, designers are not motivated by the quest for knowledge (patterns), by the challenges, or conflicts that need to be resolved. Rather, they are motivated by opportunities for creating something better (patterns), or by the potential for introducing variations. In sum, designers generate various versions of the future, as they are always interested in the possibilities (variables) and realistic paths (Krippendorff 2006, p.28). Discursive designing of design theory is seen in this way. It is an overcoming of the divide between the past and the process of generating the future, since statements are driven by the past. The monument that emerges as a result, as well as the resulting theory, is thus the future generated by patterning past statements into something new—something we can call future. Generating future in discourse is common for designers, as shown in A.2.6. Designers live in discourse, as sketching is a kind of dialogue (Cross 2007). If not working on design theories, designers produce discourse in conveyance matter, but do not necessary generate knowledge. Drawings and texts serve as evidence of a discourse held, rather than being the discourse itself. Design discourse can be conveyed in various textual forms. Designers turn documents into monuments (Rajchman 1988) when creating objects based on documents. Such dialogues, such discourse, and specifically the design discourse, follow ‘rules’. These ‘rules’ lie in connections with textual matter, with constructed artefacts, with the community of its practitioners, its recurrent practices, and boundaries that justify its identities to outsiders (Krippendorff 2006). In Chapter A2.7, the difference among discourse, discourse analysis and discourse practice is clarified. Discourse practice is not limited by language, as it relies on textual matter. On the other hand, discursive analysis involves search for discourses, discourse formations and rules. It has transformed into the analysis of media texts and talks, the relation between discourse and pictures, photographs or film and many other fields, including therapeutic discourse (van Dijk 1989). While the aforementioned process yields valid results, research that produces explicit knowledge is more desirable. Communication through images is often not accessible for individuals outside the design community (Robbins 1997). Still, practice-based research is what designers do (Dorst 2008a). The differentiation between reflective practice and research should remain (Hart 2006), since the latter is the methodical search for knowledge, while the same is not always true for the former (Friedman 2003). Even though design knowledge arises from practice, not all (design) practice is systematic and methodological. Accounts of conferences as tools for Designing Design and building monuments. Several examples of a systematic design practice and methodology are provided in Chapter 3. While an overview of the setting and method is provided in Chapter 3.1, the conferences included in this study, and the discourse summaries they generated, are presented in Chapter 3.2−3.4. The process of designing these events and evaluating their respective outcomes was very informative for the search for theory. Moreover, the theory itself has led to the discourse of the presented designing design theory. On the other hand, not all conferences were relevant for this study, as not all design practice has been successful in providing knowledge. In three of the conferences held during the period of this study, the design practice was only partially successful. In one instance, the possible knowledge yielded was not sufficiently clear, since it was not documented in usable form. The conference reflection yielded results similar to those arising from the discursive practice that took place when excavating texts. Discourse based on the previously generated textual matter shows clearer evidence of knowledge and influence of the understanding of design. This is to be expected, since the shaping and reshaping, the summarising and condensing has taken place over time. Conference results and discourses are highly depended on the already available documentation. In this work, all other rules of discourse have been observed as well. Thus, it is evident that discourse design can be influenced through the speaker selection, their backgrounds and topics of presentations, as well as the time allocated to each. In this selection, the politics involved is always latent. In Chapter A.3.5, the discourse of the conferences as discursive as cases is validated. The outcome is very interesting, as it reveals statements that have and might influence not only the concept of design, but also its understanding. For instance, design thinking is the foundation of the discursive practice design. Such a design practice is marked by the shift towards a rhetoric and dialectic. Designers can solve design problems, such as creating a design theory, only through conversations. Designing design aimed at conceptualising the future of design is designing based on rhetoric and dialectic, because the base is text and conversation with the actors in the network—the community of individuals who come together in order to solve some design problems. It is important to note that, designing in a conference setting, as presented in the three cases, is participatory. In such instances, design is a social process, as the design activity extends beyond one designer. When engaged in a participatory design workshop, the attendees are an integral part of the social process of design. Moreover, they play an active role in the issue/problem raising, discussion and decision-making processes that are part of the early design stages of a project. When such an approach is adopted, the boundary between designers and users becomes blurred (Luck 2003, p.523). Reflecting on what was previous stated in Chapter 3.7, various social practices are recognized, namely (1) the way we are doing a job—i.e., using language; (2) discourse serves as representation and re-contextualisation of other practices to incorporate them into their own; and (3) discourse helps in the constitution of identities (Fairclough 2000). When discussing these events, it is possible to apply discourse analysis, adopting discursive methods to design theory. However, discourse should not be seen as the hammer that treats everything as a nail, since ‘…there exists no strictly Foucauldian method of analyzing discourse’ (Hook 2001, p.521). In other words, when the aim of an event is generating a discursive designing process, it should not be governed by strict rules. For instance, we can see the entire process of discursive designing from an action theory perspective, as was shown in Chapter 3.8. All criteria can be applied, since action research is a group activity with an explicit critical value basis and is founded on a partnership between action researchers and participants, all of whom are involved in the change process. The participatory process is educative and empowering, involving a dynamic approach in which problem identification, planning, action and evaluation are interlinked. When such approach is adopted, knowledge may be advanced through reflection and research, and qualitative and quantitative research methods may be employed to collect the data. Different types of knowledge, including practical and prepositional, may be produced by action research. Theory may be generated and refined, and its general application explored through the cycles of the action research processes. Yet, it also highlights presence of differences, since not all participants have been invited to consciously design theory in an action research process. The action research frame also demonstrates the value of the process applied, allowing and framework of the designing design theory to be better understood. The discursive design theory process—designing design—can also be framed as grounded theory (Chapter A.3.9). In social research, generating theory goes hand in hand with verifying it (Glaser and Strauss 1967, p.2). It is a systematic inquiry to construct theory (Bryant 2010). This is succinctly explained by Hannafin (1997), who noted: ‘theory-based approaches provide designers with powerful heuristics that guide design processes and procedures rather than provide explicit prescriptions’ (p.102). Developing a theory that can be applied to elucidate the shaping of the understanding of the notion of design and applying this theory in order to reshape the understanding of design is a grounded theory process, whereby theory merges into practice. ‘It assists designers in synthesizing across, as well as recognizing important distinctions among, various theoretical perspectives’ (Ibid, p.102). As Hannafin (1997) ponted out: Finally, grounded designs and their frameworks are validated iteratively through successive implementation. Methods are proven effective in ways that support the theoretical framework upon which they are based, and the framework itself is refined as implementation clarifies or extends the approach. The design processes and methods continuously inform, test, validate, or contradict the theoretical framework and assumptions upon which they were based, and vice-versa. (p.103) Therefore, it can be said that discursive design theory in action—Designing Design—is a grounded design process. While all the conditions are met, Hannafin (1997) cautioned that we need to be aware that ‘Clearly, not all design practice is grounded’ (p.103). We should also be mindful that the discursive designing practice was not intended to be grounded. Within the circular process of designing the research, discussed in Chapter A.4 to A.9, further defining and contextualising the process of designing design helps with generating and exploring the discourse and stating the theory. In A.4, a history of designing design is presented, highlighting some rudimentary statements of relevance for this study (Jonas 1996) which puts it into the context of Universality. In the view of Giaccardi (2005), designing design as a meta design concept, as it is a design by anticipation. Glanville (1999) described a process of simplification and pattern finding to develop our understandings. Glanville argued that design is a process of continuous modification and unification—the inclusion of an increasing number of elements into a coherent whole. It may also involve an occasional re-start, extension, and revolution, as well as the increase in range and of simplification. When designing design, theory designing can be accomplished in different ways, as was shown in Chapter A.5. While it can be achieved through externalisation within a group process, it can also be an individual process (conferences and text-based individual patterning). However, while the designing of theory has to be based on some clear conditions, it can also be seen as a basic human activity (Chapter A.6.) Everybody designs; design is not a monopoly of designers (Rittel 1988). Each iterative process that changes existing situations can be referred to as design. Based on this premise, design is not an exclusive profession, since many professions include processes based on iterations and changes of existing situations. Still, there is a difference between professional designers and non-designers because a ‘reflective practice approach to design engages in knowing-in-action that serves as a substantial base of design skills’ (Wakkary 2005, p.1). This definition leaves only the explicit knowledge in the realm of the design profession and indicates the need for a design theory designer, a design theory specialist. As shown in Chapter A.7, Designing Design is driven by design thinking which should be viewed as an instance in a discursive practice reaching the goal. It is thus a technique, developed based on the understanding of what is needed for the production, as well as the consequences of such a theory and model. Design thinking is about the dependencies and the acceptance of such a theory within the community of professionals, within the design theory community. Designing of design (theory) is also designing a system, since all systems comprise several components, which are interdependent and interact with each other to form an integrated whole within a specific context. This is exemplified in the design theory developed in this thesis. The interdependent group of statements is thus organised to form the systemic whole. As the observer is the one that decides what belongs to the system, not only the system space, but also the designing design theory space and its boundaries, changes with the research process and statements produced within the discursive system. This is presented in Chapter A.6−A.9, which also define the system boundary, while also ensuring viability of this approach by limiting input to the discourse system. In Chapter A.9 and A 9.1, the discursive theory design is put into an epistemological context. In this process, it is assumed that designing design does not solve finite problems, as it creates new

Segmenting Publics

This research synthesis was commissioned by the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to examine audience segmentation methods and tools in the area of public engagement. It provides resources for assessing the ways in which segmentation tools might be used to enhance the various activities through which models of public engagement in higher education are implemented. Understanding the opinions, values, and motivations of members of the public is a crucial feature of successful engagement. Segmentation methods can offer potential resources to help understand the complex set of interests and attitudes that the public have towards higher education. Key findings: There exist a number of existing segmentations which address many of the areas of activity found in Universities and HEIs. These include segmentations which inform strategic planning of communications; segmentations which inform the design of collaborative engagement activities by museums, galleries, and libraries; and segmentations that are used to identify under-represented users and consumers. Segmentation is, on its own, only a tool, used in different ways in different contexts. The broader strategic rationale shaping the application and design of segmentation methods is a crucial factor in determining the utility of segmentation tools. Four issues emerged of particular importance: 1. Segmentation exercises are costly and technically complex. Undertaking segmentations therefore requires significant commitment of financial and professional resources by HEIs; the appropriate interpretation, analysis, and application of segmentation exercises also require high levels of professional capacity and expertise 2. Undertaking a segmentation exercise has implications for the internal organisational operations of HEIs, not only for how they engage with external publics and stakeholders 3. Segmentation tools are adopted to inform interventions of various sorts, and superficially to differentiate and sometime discriminate between how groups of people are addressed and engaged. 4. For HEIs, the ethical issues and reputational risks which have been identified in this Research Synthesis as endemic to the application of segmentation methods for public purposes are particularly relevant

Towards Design Principles for Data-Driven Decision Making: An Action Design Research Project in the Maritime Industry

Data-driven decision making (DDD) refers to organizational decision-making practices that emphasize the use of data and statistical analysis instead of relying on human judgment only. Various empirical studies provide evidence for the value of DDD, both on individual decision maker level and the organizational level. Yet, the path from data to value is not always an easy one and various organizational and psychological factors mediate and moderate the translation of data-driven insights into better decisions and, subsequently, effective business actions. The current body of academic literature on DDD lacks prescriptive knowledge on how to successfully employ DDD in complex organizational settings. Against this background, this paper reports on an action design research study aimed at designing and implementing IT artifacts for DDD at one of the largest ship engine manufacturers in the world. Our main contribution is a set of design principles highlighting, besides decision quality, the importance of model comprehensibility, domain knowledge, and actionability of results

Usability evaluation of digital libraries: a tutorial

This one-day tutorial is an introduction to usability evaluation for Digital Libraries. In particular, we will introduce Claims Analysis. This approach focuses on the designers’ motivations and reasons for making particular design decisions and examines the effect on the user’s interaction with the system. The general approach, as presented by Carroll and Rosson(1992), has been tailored specifically to the design of digital libraries. Digital libraries are notoriously difficult to design well in terms of their eventual usability. In this tutorial, we will present an overview of usability issues and techniques for digital libraries, and a more detailed account of claims analysis, including two supporting techniques – simple cognitive analysis based on Norman’s ‘action cycle’ and Scenarios and personas. Through a graduated series of worked examples, participants will get hands-on experience of applying this approach to developing more usable digital libraries. This tutorial assumes no prior knowledge of usability evaluation, and is aimed at all those involved in the development and deployment of digital libraries

Designing a Travel Guide to the Un-Natural World: Exploring a Design-led Methodology

The analogy of designer as tourist in the un-natural world is used as an aid for thinking my way into the nature of design research. An exploration of how the design researcher, like a tourist, travels widely through the un-natural world of thought, theory and concept. If we are to design a travel guide for the un-natural world then what would this guide book look like, why do we need it and how could it work? The paper will propose that a ‘travel guide to the un-natural world’ in the form of a design-led methodology is needed for research into sustainable development and is useful not only for the design discipline but for the research community at large. These premises have been derived from the aptitude of the design process and the creative methods it employs to deal with the complex messiness of issues such as sustainability. Such a design-led methodology would be useful for the wider research community due to the integrative abilities of the design process and the trans-disciplinary scope of the tour through the un-natural world. Design-led methodology will be explored using examples from field work in Tumut (rural New South Wales, Australia) Keywords: Design Research, Design-Led Methods, Metadesign, Sustainability.</p