Improving design processes through structured reflection : a domain-independent approach

In the world of designing, three fields of attention can be recognised, namely design research, design practice, and design education. Gaps exist between these three fields. In this thesis about designing, the focus is on the gap between design research and design practice. Design practice includes many design disciplines and an increasing number of multidisciplinary teams. Main problems in design practice are the communication between designers with a different background and the integration and co-ordination of important aspects during a design process. By tackling these problems, the effectiveness and efficiency of design processes in practice can be improved. The study of similarities and differences between design processes in several design disciplines and the development of support for reflection on design processes are topics that can improve design practice and that deserve more attention in design research. The goal of my research is to decrease the gap between design research and design practice in order to improve design processes. Reflection on design processes can help designers to improve their design process, its results, and the designer’s proficiency: By reflecting explicitly on the current design situation and on the performed design activities, in a systematic way and on a regular basis, designers can plan next design activities that can be performed effectively and efficiently given the design goal at that moment. In this thesis, the combination of systematic and regular reflection is called structured reflection. To improve design processes in various design disciplines in practice, the study of similarities and differences between design processes in several disciplines can be useful. Similarities between design processes are the basis for domain-independent design knowledge (as distinguished from domain-specific design knowledge). To reach the goal of my research, I have chosen to combine, in a broad explorative study, the development of support for structured reflection on design processes and the development of domain-independent design knowledge. This thesis describes a domain-independent approach to improve design processes through structured reflection. My research process can be summarised as follows. I studied three design disciplines, namely architecture, mechanical engineering, and software engineering. To get input from design practice, I did qualitative empirical research: I performed twelve case studies in the three disciplines to inventory characteristics of design processes and I compared the cases for similarities and differences. The similarities, together with the results of a literature study, have been the basis for the development of domain-independent descriptive design knowledge. The developed descriptive knowledge, in turn, formed the basis for developing domain-independent prescriptive design knowledge. At the end of the project, I confronted all results with design practice to get feedback on the results in another empirical study and I performed a literature study to position the results in the design literature. My design philosophy and design frame are the descriptive results developed to answer the first research question, namely “How to describe design processes in a domain-independent way?”. My design philosophy is a set of domain-independent concepts and terms for describing a design process. The concepts and terms are based on an application of the general theory of state-transition systems to the context of designing; the concepts of state and state transition correspond to the main concepts of design situation and design activity in my design philosophy. The answer to the first research question given by the design philosophy is refined in a design frame: The design frame offers a means to structure the description of a design process in a domain-independent way. Major structuring concepts of the design frame are dimensions and subjects. I define three dimensions, namely level, perspective, and time. These dimensions define a three-dimensional space, called a positioning space, in which important aspects of design processes can be positioned. A positioning space must be defined for each subject, being the three parts of a design situation: the product being designed, the design process, and the design context. My design frame is a domain-independent structure formed by the combination of the three dimensions for each subject. My design method is the prescriptive result developed to answer the second research question, namely “How to support structured reflection on design processes in a domain-independent way?”. My design method is a domain-independent aid that offers designers support for reflecting on design processes in a structured way. Reflection on design processes is defined as an introspective contemplation on the designer’s perception of the design situation and on the remembered design activities. A reflection process is described as a process that consists of three steps that are called preparation, image forming, and conclusion drawing. The design method is based on two main concepts: The first concept is the systematic description and analysis of design situations and design activities by means of forms and checklists; only systematic support for the preparation step of a reflection process is developed. The second concept is the idea of design sessions, introduced to stimulate designers to reflect regularly during a design process. A design session is defined as a period of time during which one or more designers are working on a subtask of a certain design task, for example, one afternoon, a whole day, or a week. Both concepts are combined to support structured reflection on design processes. The complete design method consists of five steps for each design session, namely planning a design session, defining the subtask of the design session, reflecting at the beginning of a design session, designing during the core of a design session, and reflecting at the end of a design session. A prototype software tool, called ECHO, has been developed to explore the benefits of using a software system to facilitate the use of the design method. Together, the design philosophy and the design frame offer concepts, a vocabulary, and a structure to describe design processes in a domain-independent way. The design method is a first proposal of a method that supports structured reflection on design processes. My results are thus possible answers to the mentioned research questions and are starting points to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of design processes. Based on the feedback I collected, I am optimistic about the applicability of my results in design practice. By asking input from design practice and by developing results that are useful for design practice and that contribute to design research, I contribute to decrease the gap between design research and design practice. The most important recommendations for further research are to test all results extensively in design practice and to investigate how to apply the results in design education.

[1]  R. M. Oxman,et al.  Design inquiry : an introduction , 1995 .

[2]  Hh Henri Achten,et al.  Design Research in the Netherlands – Preprints of the symposium 25-26 May 2000 , 2000 .

[3]  Per Galle,et al.  Design as intentional action: a conceptual analysis , 1999 .

[4]  György E. Révész Introduction to formal languages , 1983 .

[5]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing , 1992 .

[6]  Jaap-Henk Hoepman,et al.  Communication, synchronization and fault tolerance , 1996 .

[7]  Isabelle Reymen DOMAIN INDEPENDENT DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN SITUATIONS , 1999 .

[8]  Eric Young,et al.  Editorial , 1955, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[9]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Developments in design methodology , 1984 .

[10]  Immj Isabelle Reymen,et al.  Improving Design Processes through Structured Reflection: A Prototype Software Tool , 2001 .

[11]  Walter Guido Vincenti,et al.  What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History by Walter G. Vincenti , 1992, Technology and Culture.

[12]  John Chris Jones,et al.  Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures , 1981 .

[13]  D. K. Hammer,et al.  Design method supporting regular reflection on design situations , 2000 .

[14]  P. Severi Normalisation in lambda calculus and its relation to type inference , 1996 .

[15]  Eberhardt Rechtin Systems Architecting: Creating & Building Complex Systems , 1990 .

[16]  D. Dunn,et al.  Experiential Learning , 2019, High Impact Teaching for Sport and Exercise Psychology Educators.

[17]  Dick Alstein,et al.  Distributed algorithms for hard real-time systems , 1996 .

[18]  Twan Laan The evolution of type theory in logic and mathematics , 1997 .

[19]  Donald A. Sch The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[20]  M.P.J. Stevens,et al.  System level design methodology , 1998, Proceedings IEEE Computer Society Workshop on VLSI'98 System Level Design (Cat. No.98EX158).

[21]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[22]  M.H.G. Kesseler,et al.  The implementation of functional languages on parallel machines with distributed memory , 1996 .

[23]  Judi Maria Tirza Romijn,et al.  Analysing Industrial Protocols with Formal Methods , 1999 .

[24]  Edward Lumsdaine,et al.  Creative problem solving , 1995 .

[25]  Joao Paulo Saraiva,et al.  Purely Functional Implementation of Attribute Grammars , 1999 .

[26]  F. Wester,et al.  Strategieën voor kwalitatief onderzoek , 1987 .

[27]  Ac Rianne Valkenburg,et al.  The reflective practice of design teams , 1998 .

[28]  TakedaHideaki,et al.  Modeling design processes , 1990 .

[29]  Gerhard Banse,et al.  Stains on the screen : the geometric imaginary and its contaminative process . Research in design theory and methodology : a selective overview of recent work in English , 1999 .

[30]  Peter Achten,et al.  Interactive functional programs: models, methods, and implementation , 1996 .

[31]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  The significance of co-evolving requirements and solutions in the design process , 1997 .

[32]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[33]  Cj Roel Bloo,et al.  Preservation of termination for explicit substitution , 1997 .

[34]  K. Leeuw Cryptology and statecraft in the Dutch Republic , 2000 .

[35]  Marieke Huisman,et al.  Reasoning about Java programs in higher order logic using PVS and Isabelle , 2001 .

[36]  J. Blanco Definability with the State Operator in Process Algebra , 1995 .

[37]  J. Wessels,et al.  Faculty of Mathematics and Computing Science , 1988 .

[38]  M. Bonsangue,et al.  Topological Dualities in Semantics , 1996 .

[39]  Janet McDonnell,et al.  Descriptive models for interpreting design , 1997 .

[40]  Terence Love,et al.  Philosophy of design: a meta-theoretical structure for design theory , 2000 .

[41]  Dennis Dams,et al.  Abstract interpretation and partition refinement for model checking , 1996 .

[42]  Kenneth N. Brown,et al.  A Parallel Multi-Attribute Transformation Model of Design , 1995 .

[43]  J. Verriet Scheduling with communication for multiprocessor computation , 1998 .

[44]  Charles L. Owen,et al.  Design research: building the knowledge base☆ , 1998 .

[45]  Tetsuo Tomiyama,et al.  Extended general design theory , 1986 .

[46]  Michel A. Reniers,et al.  Message sequence chart : syntax and semantics , 1999 .

[47]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements , 2000 .

[48]  Nwa Norbert Arends,et al.  A systems engineering specification formalism , 1996 .

[49]  M. Franssen Cocktail : a tool for deriving correct programs , 2000 .

[50]  John R. Dixon,et al.  A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes , 1989 .

[51]  A. J. van der Net,et al.  Designing and manufacturing assemblies , 1998 .

[52]  Jason E. Robbins,et al.  Cognitive support features for software development tools , 1999 .

[53]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Training for designers: a way to reflect design processes and cope with critical situations in order to increase efficiency , 1999 .

[54]  W. Ernst Eder,et al.  Viewpoint Engineering design — art, science and relationships , 1995 .

[55]  Vladimir Hubka,et al.  Design science : introduction to needs, scope and organization of engineering design knowledge , 1996 .

[56]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  An overview of descriptive studies in relation to a general design research methodology , 1998 .

[57]  B. D. Fluiter Algorithms for graphs of small treewidth , 1997 .

[58]  D. Turi,et al.  Functional Operational Semantics and its Denotational Dual , 1996 .

[59]  John Bennett,et al.  Reflective conversation with materials , 1996 .

[60]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Analysing design activity: new directions in protocol analysis , 1995 .

[61]  John R. Dixon,et al.  A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part II: Representations, analysis, and design for the life cycle , 1989 .

[62]  S. Isaksen,et al.  Creative Problem Solving: The Basic Course , 1985 .

[63]  Ad M. G. Peeters,et al.  An asynchronous low-power 80C51 microcontroller , 1998, Proceedings Fourth International Symposium on Advanced Research in Asynchronous Circuits and Systems.

[64]  N. F. M. Roozenburg,et al.  Product design: Fundamentals and methods , 1996 .

[65]  A. M. Geerling,et al.  Transformational development of data-parallel algorithms , 1996 .

[66]  Terry A. Kuykendall,et al.  Systems Architecting–Creating & Building Complex Systems , 2001 .

[67]  Peter Linz,et al.  An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata , 1997 .

[68]  van Je Joan Aken,et al.  Domain independent design theory , 2000 .

[69]  G Georgina Fabian,et al.  A language and simulator for hybrid systems , 1999 .

[70]  L. Allbon,et al.  Creative Problem Solving , 1968, Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie.

[71]  Rmc Rene Ahn,et al.  Agents, objects and events : a computational approach to knowledge, observation and communication , 2001 .

[72]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think , 1980 .

[73]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[74]  Clive L. Dym,et al.  Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views , 1994 .

[75]  Willem Otto David Griffioen,et al.  Studies in computer aided verification of protocols , 2000 .

[76]  P. Frank,et al.  Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 1968 .

[77]  Nigel Cross,et al.  A History of Design Methodology , 1993 .

[78]  Jpl John Segers Algorithms for the simulation of surface processes , 1999 .

[79]  Kent W. Seibert Reflection-in-Action : Tools for Cultivating On-the-Job Learning Conditions , 1999 .

[80]  Peter Kroes,et al.  The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology , 2000 .

[81]  ter Hugo Wilfried Laurenz Doest Towards Probabilistic Unification-Based Parsing , 1999 .

[82]  R Rene Schiefer,et al.  Viper : a visualisation tool for parallel program construction , 1999 .

[83]  Scott G. Isaksen,et al.  Creative Approaches to Problem Solving , 2000 .

[84]  John Zeisel Inquiry by design : tools for environment-behavior research / John Zeisel , 1993 .

[85]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design Methodology and Relationships with Science , 1993 .

[86]  John Zeisel,et al.  Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behaviour Research , 1984 .

[87]  G Goce Naumoski,et al.  A discrete-event simulator for systems engineering , 1998 .

[88]  Poul Henrik Kyvsgaard Hansen,et al.  Toward a Pragmatic Ontology for Product Development Projects in Small Teams , 1999 .

[89]  MFTh Thijs Bax,et al.  Research, design and education, Von Humboldt revisited , 2001 .

[90]  Hh Henri Achten,et al.  Design research in the Netherlands , 1995 .

[91]  F.A.M. van den Beuken,et al.  A functional approach to syntax and typing , 1997 .

[92]  Ad M. G. Peeters,et al.  Single-rail handshake circuits , 1995, Proceedings Second Working Conference on Asynchronous Design Methodologies.

[93]  A. C. Valkenburg The reflective practice in product design teams , 2000 .

[94]  Emilia I. Barakova,et al.  Learning reliability : a study on dindecisiveness in sample selection , 1999 .

[95]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[96]  M. Daudelin Learning from experience through reflection , 1996 .

[97]  R. S. Venema,et al.  Aspects of an integrated neural prediction system , 1999 .

[98]  D. Schoen Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[99]  Sjhw Silvan Wiegeraad Development of a design history information system : capturing and Re-using the knowledge behind the product , 1999 .

[100]  J. Huisman The Netherlands , 1996, The Lancet.

[101]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Elements of the Theory of Computation , 1997, SIGA.

[102]  Isabelle Reymen,et al.  Design in architecture, software engineering and mechanical engineering: A comparative study , 1998 .

[103]  D. Nauta,et al.  Implications of the philosophy of Ch.S. Peirce for interdisciplinary design: developments in domain theory , 2000 .

[104]  Ts Ed Voermans Inductive datatypes with laws and subtyping : a relational model , 1999 .

[105]  A. H. Bos Oordeelsvorming in groepen : willens en wetens, wikken en wegen : polariteit en ritme als sleutel tot ontwikkeling van sociale organismen , 1974 .

[106]  J Jan Zwanenburg,et al.  Object-oriented concepts and proof rules : formalization in type theory and implementation in Yarrow , 1999 .

[107]  Erik Harald Saaman,et al.  Another formal specification language , 2000 .

[108]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Analysing design work by critical situations: identifying factors influencing team work in design practice , 1997 .

[109]  J. P. Warners,et al.  Nonlinear approaches to satisfiability problems , 1999 .

[110]  Amaresh Chakrabarti Engineering Design Synthesis , 2002 .

[111]  Lex Heerink,et al.  Ins and Outs in Refusal Testing , 1998 .

[112]  J.J.H. Fey,et al.  Design of a fruit juice blending and packaging plant , 2000 .

[113]  Isabelle Reymen,et al.  Improving Design Processes through Structured Reflection: Feedback , 2001 .

[114]  Adrianus Dingeman de Groot,et al.  Methodologie: Grondslagen Van Onderzoek En Denken in de Gedragswetenschappen , 1981 .

[115]  Aa Twan Basten,et al.  In terms of nets : system design with Petri nets and process algebra , 1998 .

[116]  Jelasity Márk,et al.  The shape of evolutionary search: discovering and representingsearch space structure , 2001 .

[117]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design , 1994 .

[118]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Training for designers: empirical results of trained designers in selected design processes , 1999 .

[119]  Zhengmai Zhao,et al.  Structuring information for design problem solving: Erica de Vries. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 1994. 155 pp. ISBN 090-386-0014-3 paperback , 1995 .

[120]  John Zeisel,et al.  Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research , 1981 .

[121]  P. Gove Webster's Third New International Dictionary , 1986 .

[122]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Formalising Design Exploration as Co-Evolution , 1996 .

[123]  M. P. J. Stevens,et al.  System level modelling for hardware/software systems , 1998, Proceedings. 24th EUROMICRO Conference (Cat. No.98EX204).

[124]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Designing Engineers , 1994 .

[125]  C. H. Dorst,et al.  Describing Design - A comparison of paradigms , 1997 .

[126]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Natural intelligence in design , 1999 .

[127]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Design as practiced , 1996 .

[128]  Pedro R. D'Argenio,et al.  Algebras and Automata for Timed and Stochastic Systems , 1999 .

[129]  Cees van Kemenade,et al.  Recombinative evolutionary search , 1999 .

[130]  S. Sivaloganathan,et al.  A Survey of Design Philosophies, Models, Methods and Systems , 1996 .

[131]  John S. Gero,et al.  An evolutionary process model of design , 1992 .

[132]  G. S. Alʹtshuller,et al.  And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving , 1996 .

[133]  Isabelle Reymen Improving design processes through structured reflection : case studies , 2001 .

[134]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .