Modelling co-evolution in design practice

Co-evolution is considered as a key characteristic of designing. Several authors have described design thinking processes as the co-evolution of design problem and design solution. Its theoretical grounding is, however, still in an early stage. In this paper, we aim to bring the concept further by studying a real life design meeting of an architect and a client. We developed a model of how co-evolution in a multi-party setting might work, consisting of the problems as perceived by the architect and client, the solutions as perceived by the architect and client, and relations between those. A co-evolution episode starts with introducing an underdeveloped design-solution pairing from the perspective of the initiating actor and ends with summing up the discussion and/or agreeing on the decisions taken. The developed model was used to look in detail at the utterances in three co-evolution episodes and then refined by adding a intermediate space concerning the "use" of the building and the application of boundary objects that mediates between problem and solution spaces in interactions between designer and client.

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

[2]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Scaling the quality of teammates' mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons , 2005 .

[3]  Frido Smulders,et al.  Team mental models in innovation: means and ends , 2007 .

[4]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  An ethnographic perspective on engineering design , 1988 .

[5]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[6]  Robert K. Kazanjian,et al.  Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: A Sensemaking Perspective , 1999 .

[7]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Design Problems and Design Paradoxes , 2006, Design Issues.

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

[9]  Daniel H. Kim The Link between individual and organizational learning , 1997 .

[10]  Ch Kees Dorst,et al.  Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account , 2002 .

[11]  Frido Smulders,et al.  TOWARDS A CO-EVOLUTION MODEL OF THE NPD-MANUFACTURING INTERFACE , 2007 .

[12]  Frido Smulders,et al.  Get synchronized: Bridging the gap between design and volume production , 2006 .

[13]  G Lodewijks Present Research at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands , 1995 .

[14]  A. Lewin,et al.  Prolegomena on Coevolution: a Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms , 1999 .

[15]  K. Klein,et al.  Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy , 2006 .

[16]  S Harfield,et al.  On design ‘problematization’: Theorising differences in designed outcomes , 2007 .

[17]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function — Behaviour — Structure Framework , 2004 .

[18]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Towards a Co-Evolution of the Npd-Manufacturing Interface , 2007 .

[19]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries , 2001 .

[20]  D. Dougherty Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms , 1992 .