On Abduction in Design

The mechanism of design reasoning from function to form is addressed by examining the possibility of explaining it as abduction. We propose a new interpretation to some definitions of innovative abduction, to show first that the concept, idea, as the basis for solution must be present in the inference, and second, that the reasoning from function to form is best modeled as a two-step inference, both of the innovative abduction pattern. This double-abductive reasoning is shown also to be the main form of reasoning in the empirically-derived “parameter analysis” method of conceptual design. Finally, the introduction of abduction into design theory is critically assessed, and in so doing, topics for future research are suggested

A holistic multi-methodology for sustainable renovation

A review of the barriers for building renovation has revealed a lack of methodologies, which can promote sustainability objectives and assist various stakeholders during the design stage of building renovation/retrofitting projects. The purpose of this paper is to develop a Holistic Multi-methodology for Sustainable Renovation, which aims to deal with complexity of renovation projects. It provides a framework through which to involve the different stakeholders in the design process to improve group learning and group decision-making, and hence make the building renovation design process more robust and efficient. Therefore, the paper discusses the essence of multifaceted barriers in building renovation regarding cultural changes and technological/physical changes. The outcome is a proposal for a multi-methodology framework, which is developed by introducing, evaluating and mixing methods from Soft Systems Methodologies (SSM) with Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). The potential of applying the proposed methodology in renovation projects is demonstrated through a case study

Identifying divergent design thinking through the observable behavior of service design novices

© 2018, Springer Nature B.V. Design thinking holds the key to innovation processes, but is often difficult to detect because of its implicit nature. We undertook a study of novice designers engaged in team-based design exercises in order to explore the correlation between design thinking and designers’ physical (observable) behavior and to identify new, objective, design thinking identification methods. Our study addresses the topic by using data collection method of “think aloud” and data analysis method of “protocol analysis” along with the unconstrained concept generation environment. Collected data from the participants without service design experience were analyzed by open and selective coding. Through the research, we found correlations between physical activity and divergent thinking, and also identified physical behaviors that predict a designer’s transition to divergent thinking. We conclude that there are significant relations between designers’ design thinking and the behavioral features of their body and face. This approach opens possible new ways to undertake design process research and also design capability evaluation

Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems

Background: Problem exploration includes identifying, framing, and defining design problems and bounding problem spaces. Intentional and unintentional changes in problem understanding naturally occur as designers explore design problems to create solutions. Through problem exploration, new perspectives on the problem can emerge along with new and diverse ideas for solutions. By considering multiple problem perspectives varying in scope and focus, designers position themselves to increase their understandings of the “real” problem and engage in more diverse idea generation processes leading to an increasing variety of potential solutions. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to investigate systematic patterns in problem exploration in the early design phases of mechanical engineers. Design/Method: Thirty-five senior undergraduate students and experienced designers with mechanical engineering backgrounds worked individually following a think-aloud protocol. They explored problems and generated solutions for two of four randomly assigned design problems. After generating solutions, participants framed and rewrote problem statements to reflect their perspectives on the design problem their solutions addressed. Thematic analysis and a priori codes guided the identification of problem exploration patterns within and across problems. Results: The set of patterns in engineers\u27 problem exploration that emerged from the analysis documents alternative strategies in exploring problems to arrive at solutions. The results provide evidence that engineering designers, working individually, apply both problem-specific and more general strategies to explore design problems. Conclusions: Our study identified common patterns in the explorations of presented problems by individual engineering designers. The observed patterns, described as Problem Exploration Perspectives, capture alternative approaches to discovering problems and taking multiple problem perspectives during design. Learning about Problem Exploration Perspectives may be helpful in creating alternative perspectives on a design problem, potentially leading to more varied and innovative solutions. This paper concludes with an extended example illustrating the process of applying Problem Exploration Perspectives to move between problem perspectives to generate varied design outcomes

A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition

This paper reports the first systematic review and synthesis of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition. 47 protocol studies from the domains of architectural design, engineering design, and product de-sign engineering were reviewed towards answering the following re-search question: What is our current understanding of the cognitive processes involved in conceptual design tasks carried out by individual designers? Studies were found to reflect three viewpoints on the cognitive nature of designing, namely: design as search; design as ex-ploration; and design activities. Synthesising the findings of individual studies yielded a classification of cognitive processes involved in con-ceptual design tasks, described in different terms across different viewpoints. Towards a common terminology, these processes are posi-tioned within the cognitive psychology literature, revealing seven basic types of process that appear to be fundamental to designing across all viewpoints: memory (working and long term); visual perception; men-tal imagery; attention; semantic association; cognitive control; and higher-order processes, e.g. analysis and reasoning. The development of common cognitive models of conceptual design, grounded in a sci-entifically rigorous understanding of design cognition, is identified as an avenue for future research

Research in design Thinking

Proceedings of a Workshop meeting held at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, May 29-31, 1991.Industrial Design Engineerin

Visual behaviour during perception of architectural drawings: Differences between architects and non architects

Architectural design is not just a technical process based on problem-solving and representation, but also a social process distributed between architect and non-architect stakeholders. In this study, visual behaviour differences between architects and non-architects during perception, interpretation and evaluation of architectural drawings are analysed. An eye tacking experiment was conducted on two groups of participants: 19 graduate level students of the Department of Architecture and 19 students from other faculties. Eye tracking data were analysed according to three categories: means of gaze duration, gaze count and gaze plot patterns. The results show that architecture and non-architecture students exhibit different cognitive processes. The duration, count and inordinateness of gaze patterns of architect subjects are lower than those of non-architect subjects. Clarifying such cognitive differences is critical for further development of methods and tools supporting communication between professional and non-professional design parties and especially empowering non-professional parties