Are We Evolving “Strictured” Design Engineers?

This discussion paper is meant to stimulate debate among design engineering colleagues with a view towards reimagining how design engineering students may evolve their experiential knowledge with respect to how product designs (things) work, and more importantly how they may creatively develop new product designs (things) that should work. After introducing and framing the background of this paper the discussion turns toward the core issues found within the way design engineering problems are “typically” contextualised and framed in relation to “expected” solutions. In short the problem is the problem. This in turn shapes the nature of how students currently practice and hone their problem-solving skills. Subsequent discussions turn towards both the strengths and limitations of the experiential knowledge. It is argued that if we reimagine and introduce new perspectives and heuristics, our future design engineers may develop more creative and more considered designs. While the core intent of this paper is to initiate discussion on this, we will show an exemplar of how this has worked in a University setting at the University of Technology Sydney. We will contend this may also work within other institutions as well

A Case for Reimagining Reflection-in-Action and Co-evolution

This paper discusses core aspects of “Reflection-in-Action” found in the work of Schon and others suggesting that fundamentally an individual designer draws upon their previous pattern of experience and knowledge responding to complexity in a spontaneous tacit way. It is argued this has some limitations. Moreover, it is argued the nature of the limitations may be owed to the fact designers may limit the field of issues and indeed the dynamic interplay of the relationships both among and within issues and indeed contexts. Afterward, the paper draws upon the ideas of co-evolution found within Maher and Poon (1996) and Dorst & Cross (2001) suggesting the way the co-evolution model is often interpreted may also be somewhat limiting, as designers appear to “Muddle Through” a design problem co-evolving the problem and solution. Given these limitations, a reimagining of these models is presented. This paper supports the case that forestalling solution development in order to focus on developing a well-considered and comprehensively mapped Problem space first holds immense value for the creative design thinking process

Strategies for Creative Connections: Fomenting Technological Change

The pace of technological change in the world within which we live and work is increasing at an exponential rate. This in turn causes turbulent change within society, and indeed within social relationships. In a real sense it is the design teams who act as change agents. In the future these teams will need to alter their strategies for introducing even more change. As the artefactsâ designers and design teams develop, which fulfil societal wants needs and desires, become more technologically advanced and complex, there is an increasing need to make creative connections between diverse design issues and diverse resources. From both a technical and human perspective these creative connections will require new creative strategies. This paper will propose some strategies for developing novel non-deterministic relationships between issues and people in order to develop creative connections. These in turn may lead to creative artefacts for the benefit of society. Further, this paper will propose possible empirical methodologies for testing these suggested strategies. The utility of randomness and our ability/inability to cope with it is seen as a central theme for developing creative connections. Moreover, it will be argued that as higher and higher levels of complexity occur greater creative opportunities will occur as well. While the proposed strategies remain untested, the central focus of this paper will discuss the need for this research and the implications for both design practice and, more importantly, design education

Theorising the Utility of Combining Frame Theory and Game Theory: Consequences for Design and Technology Education

Abstract: A review of the three research domains of design, frame theory, and Game Theory, reveals that they offer new and relevant perspectives that have the capacity to inform Design & Technology education. Generally, at some point in everyoneâs life they will have learned to play some sort of game. Over time theoretical models of game play have emerged and evolved, and while games are often played against known opponents, the games that are played against unknown opponents have the most relevance here. Further, during game play the process of making sound incremental decisions is important. This also holds true for design decisions that are made incrementally, often in relation to shifting frames of reference. Consequently, the design process can be considered one of co-evolution with respect to the problem-solution nexus. These shifting frames of reference (manipulable variables of context/contexts) play a central role in the design process; therefore Framing Theory has significance for design. This paper reviews core underlying constructs within the domains mentioned above. Further, this paper will present the case that new perspectives derived from a number of core themes which have resonance within the three domains have implications and consequences for Design & Technology Education

A Strategy For Promoting The Use Of Collective Intelligence Within A Technology Education Context: A Case Study

Abstract: This paper examines and provides a critical analysis of the results of a recent research project/study. This study will show how Australian students in remote and rural locations collaborated on a set of negotiated design projects with partner schools in city locations. We argue the activity of pooling/sharing divergent perspectives and heuristics [collective intelligence] is a powerful educational tool. This study will posit that a central way teachers/academics may help students to identify design issues/problems and formulate ways to address them is by taking advantage of and using collective intelligence in a classroom context. Cooperative learning and collaborative problem solving are effective in improving academic and social skills. Often it is difficult for students, operating in the context of technology education, to experience collaborative design in the same manner as globalised corporations which develop products for distribution around the world. As aspects of the design process become more and more globally distributed, it is increasingly important for technology education students to have the ability to engage with meaningful problems and achieve desirable solutions that parallel and mimic the real world. Further, this paper investigated the strengths, weaknesses, and merits of providing school students with an understanding of the real world experience of collaborative on-line designing 24 hour rapid prototyping and remote realisation and manufacture. The research to be discussed led us to develop a strategy for moving technology education forward towards providing rich learning experiences that develop in students, the abilities to more fully engage in a truly collaborative design process. It is argued this study potentially has wider implications beyond technology education

Comparing Frame Creation and TRIZ: from model to methodology

In this paper we discuss a core quality of expert design practice, the ability to create new approaches to problems. If design can be seen as connecting Humanity to Technology, then the Frame Creation model we will introduce here focuses on the Human side of the problem, while an Engineering Design methodology like Theory of Inventive Problem Solving [TRIZ] does the same for the technical side of the equation. We will first illustrate such a complex Frame Creation project, using an example to establish an informal proof-of-concept. This raises the question how may we move from such a proof-of-concept to critically develop and validate a complete methodology. To answer this question we will draw parallels between the evolution of the well-developed and accepted TRIZ in Engineering Design, and the continuing evolutionary trajectory of “Frame Creation”

Technology clustering issues: Understanding problems in prediction

Frequently, Industrial Design students at the tertiary level, and Design & Technology students at the secondary level, have similar problems in developing technology based solutions to major projects in their final year. Often they need to make design decisions in relation to clustering 'appropriate' technologies when developing and embodying their design proposals. Technologies have limited life spans and these life spans are getting increasingly shorter. In addition, due to socio-cultural and technological changes these student projects are becoming more complex. Consequently, students will need to understand problems associated with predicting appropriate clusters of technologies in solution development. While this paper will discuss some tools which may assist the designer in the design decision making process in relation to technology clustering, it is argued at irrespective of prediction tools and strategies, which admittedly 'assist' design decision making, they fall short in terms of predicting relationships between technology clusters and the people who would use them. This paper presents the case that major projects being developed by university design students in their final year, and indeed high school D&T students can be supported by mapping strategies. These should address needs issues balanced against developing an appropriate discontinuity between technologies

The Importance of Mapping 1st Principle Physical Constraints with Non-physical Constraints

This paper will discuss issues surrounding technological change and pedagogical strategies/techniques which may assist industrial design/design engineering students in exploring and coping with the often conflicting constraints found within advancing technological changes. When dealing with complex issues surrounding technological change, often industrial design and design engineering students have difficulty in identifying and making evident the relationships between physical constraints and nonphysical constraints. These two key constraint typologies are seen as being central to the development of appropriate products systems and environments which form part of the technological change environment. This paper will propose a linking/mapping strategy and set of exercises, based on aspects of the first principles found within the literature relating to TRIZ [Theory of Inventive Problem Solving]. It is argued that if students are presented with a methodology for linking and mapping the relationships between conflicting constraint typologies, they are forced to externalize this relationship as part of their ongoing design process. This in turn will allow them to reshape their design decisions. Moreover, it will permit them to practice coping with complex interrelated constraints. This will serve to enhance their design thinking process