Applying the proto-theory of design to explain and modify the parameter analysis method of conceptual design

This article reports on the outcomes of applying the notions provided by the reconstructed proto-theory of design, based on Aristotle's remarks, to the parameter analysis (PA) method of conceptual design. Two research questions are addressed: (1) What further clarification and explanation to the approach of PA is provided by the proto-theory? (2) Which conclusions can be drawn from the study of an empiricallyderived design approach through the proto-theory regarding usefulness, validity and range of that theory? An overview of PA and an application example illustrate its present model and unique characteristics. Then, seven features of the proto-theory are explained and demonstrated through geometrical problem solving and analogies are drawn between these features and the corresponding ideas in modern design thinking. Historical and current uses of the terms analysis and synthesis in design are also outlined and contrasted, showing that caution should be exercised when applying them. Consequences regarding the design moves, process and strategy of PA allow proposing modifications to its model, while demonstrating how the ancient method of analysis can contribute to better understanding of contemporary design-theoretic issues.

[1]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Innovations in Design Through Transformation: A Fundamental Study of Transformation Principles , 2009 .

[2]  Marco Panza,et al.  Classical Sources for the Concepts of Analysis and Synthesis , 1997 .

[3]  Ehud Kroll,et al.  Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis , 2013 .

[4]  Gaspard Monge.  Application de l'analyse a la géométrie, a l'usage de l'école impériale polytechnique , 1809 .

[5]  Kees Dorst,et al.  The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application , 2011 .

[6]  John Clarkson,et al.  Models of designing , 2005 .

[7]  Benoit Weil,et al.  Steepest-first exploration with learning-based path evaluation: uncovering the design strategy of parameter analysis with C–K theory , 2014 .

[8]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design , 2003 .

[9]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  Engineering Design A Systematic Approach , 2016 .

[10]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  C-K design theory: an advanced formulation , 2008 .

[11]  James Wang.  The Importance of Aristotle to Design Thinking , 2013, Design Issues.

[12]  Bo T. Christensen,et al.  Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design , 2013 .

[13]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  The Method of Analysis , 1974 .

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

[15]  Denis Cavallucci.  TRIZ, the Altshullerian approach to solving innovation problems , 2002 .

[16]  Michael Otte,et al.  Analysis and Synthesis in Mathematics , 1997 .

[17]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting and improving ASIT within C–K theory , 2012 .

[18]  James O Prochaska,et al.  A discussion with James O. Prochaska, PhD. Interview by Paul E. Terry. , 2012, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[19]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  The Aristotelian Proto-Theory of Design , 2014 .

[20]  Ernest G. Cravalho,et al.  Technological Innovation in Education and Industry , 1980 .

[21]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Engineering design synthesis : understanding, approaches and tools , 2002 .

[22]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  The two pillars of design theory: Method of analysis and rhetoric , 2013 .

[23]  Sridhar S. Condoor,et al.  Innovative Conceptual Design: Theory and Application of Parameter Analysis , 2001 .

[24]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Design process improvement : a review of current practice , 2005 .

[25]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes , 2006 .

[26]  J. William Helton,et al.  An introduction to design , 1998 .

[27]  P. Singer.  Galen: selected works , 1997 .

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

[29]  C. W. Tate.  Solve it. , 2005, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[30]  Michael H. G. Hoffmann,et al.  Problems with Peirce's Concept of Abduction , 1999 .

[31]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Augmenting the house of quality with engineering models , 2018 .

[32]  Offer Shai,et al.  Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C–K theory , 2012, Research in Engineering Design.

[33]  Lucienne Blessing,et al.  An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design , 2014 .

[34]  J. Christopher Jones,et al.  Design methods: Seeds of human futures , 1970 .

[35]  A. M. M. Sharif Ullah,et al.  Logical interaction between domain knowledge and human cognition in design , 2008, Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag..

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

[37]  Sridhar S. Condoor,et al.  Innovative Conceptual Design by Ehud Kroll , 2001 .

[38]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function - Behaviour - Structure Framework , 2002, AID.

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

[40]  M. Einhorn.  Art as Innovation , 2002 .

[41]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design : Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples , 2011 .

[42]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified , 1990 .

[43]  R. Robinson.  THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Its Geometrical Origin and its General Significance , 1976 .

[44]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  The proto-theory of design : the method of analysis of the ancient geometers , 2007 .

[45]  Mieke Bal,et al.  CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: , 2019, Charles Peirce's Theory of Scientific Method.

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

[47]  A. Cauchy.  Cours d'analyse de l'École royale polytechnique , 1821 .

[48]  Kevin Forsberg,et al.  Visualizing Project Management , 1996 .