Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choosing Effective Means: Awareness of Bias in the Selection of Methods and Tools

Handbook of Engineering Systems Design

  • 34 Accesses

Abstract

Designing for socio-technical engineering systems requires that professionals, stakeholders and end-users with diverse perspectives, experiences and expertise co-create in meaningful and goal-directed processes. Such efforts typically require substantial planning, staging, execution and managing, and an important part of that is the careful selection of effective methodology to support these activities. Methodology captures key procedural knowledge that is central to both education and practice. The selection of methods and tools is a critical first step in the process of using methodology and is prone to biases that might influence such decisions for the worse. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the state of the art on the selection of methodological means in engineering systems design and the broader design literature. We do so by focusing on five aspects: i) the method user; ii) method content; iii) method selection; iv) acquisition of new methods; and v) selection aid. To link theory to practice, we review how method selection is aided in 20 online design toolkits. Then, building on a taxonomy of thinking errors and biases in cognitive science, we identify relevant biases in choosing methodological means in engineering system design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Psychological Association (n.d.) Confirmation bias. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved October 29, 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/confirmation-bias

  • Andreasen MM (2003) Improving design methods’ usability by a mindset approach. In: Human behaviour in design. Springer, pp 209–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Avle S, Lindtner S, Williams K (2017) How methods make designers. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems – proceedings, vol 2017. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025864

  • Badke-Schaub P, Daalhuizen J, Roozenburg N (2011) Towards a designer-centred methodology: descriptive considerations and prescriptive reflections. In: The future of design methodology. Springer, pp 181–197

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blizzard JL, Klotz LE (2012) A framework for sustainable whole systems design. Des Stud 33(5):456–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt E, Binder T, Sanders EBN (2012) Tools and techniques: ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In: Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Taylor and Francis, pp 145–181. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108543

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Braun T, Lindemann U (2003) Supporting the selection, adaptation and application of methods in product development. In: DS 31: proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th international conference on engineering design, Stockholm, pp 629–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Daalhuizen JJ (2014) Method usage in design: how methods function as mental tools for designers. Delft University of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Daalhuizen J, Cash P (2021) Method content theory: towards a new understanding of methods in design. Des Stud 75:101018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daalhuizen J, Person O, Gattol V (2014) A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method. Des Stud 35(2):133–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daalhuizen J, Timmer R, van der Welie M, Gardien P (2019) An architecture of design doing: a framework for capturing the ever-evolving practice of design to drive organizational learning. Int J Des 13(1):37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard P (2017) Instruments of inquiry: understanding the nature and role of tools in design. Int J Des 11(1):21

    Google Scholar 

  • De Weck OL, Roos D, Magee CL (2011) Engineering systems: meeting human needs in a complex technological world. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst K (2008) Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Des Stud 29(1):4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernzer M, Birkhofer H (2002) Selecting methods for life cycle design based on the needs of a company. In: Design 2002: proceedings of the 7th international design conference, vols 1 and 2, pp 1305–1310

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey DD, Dym CL (2006) Validation of design methods: lessons from medicine. Res Eng Des 17(1):45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke K, Kramer J, Roschuni C (2016) An exploratory study of the discovery and selection of design methods in practice. J Mech Des 138(10). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034088

  • Gericke K, Eckert C, Campean F, Clarkson PJ, Flening E, Isaksson O, Kipouros T, Kokkolaras M, Köhler C, Panarotto M (2020) Supporting designers: moving from method menagerie to method ecosystem. Des Sci 6:e21. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.21

  • Haberfellner R, Nagel P, Becker M, Büchel A, von Massow H (2019) Systems engineering. Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IDEO (2003) Method cards. https://www.ideo.com/post/method-cards

  • Kunrath K, Cash P, Kleinsmann M (2020) Designers’ professional identity: personal attributes and design skills. J Eng Des 31:297–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Mesa B, Thompson G (2003) Exploring the need for an interactive software tool for the appropriate selection of design methods. In: DS 31: proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th international conference on engineering design, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Mesa B, Thompson G (2006) On the significance of cognitive style and the selection of appropriate design methods. J Eng Des 17(4):371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500274100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer MW, Norman D (2020) Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji J Des Econ Innov 6(1):13–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelius T, Eisenmann M, Doellken M, Hergl M, Matthiesen S (2019) Improving decision making by teaching debiasing approaches-motivating engineering students with reflection. In: Eriksson Y, Paetzold K (eds) Human Behaviour in Design (pp. 35–46). München, Germany: Universitätsbibliothek der Universität der Bundeswehr München

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikander JB, Liikkanen LA, Laakso M (2014) The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Des Stud 35(5):473–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin JG (2019) Behavioral economics of the mind on design: identity, bias, and more. She Ji J Des Econ Innov 5(4):376–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Schønheyder JF, Nordby K (2018) The use and evolution of design methods in professional design practice. Des Stud 58:36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE (2009a) Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: is it time for a tri-process theory? In: In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, pp 55–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0003

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE (2009b) What intelligence tests miss: the psychology of rational thought. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300142532

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trauer J, Wöhr F, Eckert C, Kannengiesser U, Knippenberg S, Sankowski O, Zimmermann M (2021) Criteria for selecting design process modelling approaches. Proc Des Soc 1:791–800. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boeijen A, Daalhuizen J, Zijlstra J (2020) Delft design guide: perspectives, models, approaches, methods. BIS Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kuijk J, Daalhuizen J, Christiaans H (2019) Drivers of usability in product design practice: induction of a framework through a case study of three product development projects. Des Stud 60:139–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermaas P (2016) A logical critique of the expert position in design research: beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation. Des Sci 2:e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2016.6

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Jaap Daalhuizen & Björgvin Hjartarson

Authors
  1. Jaap Daalhuizen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Björgvin Hjartarson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaap Daalhuizen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, DTU- Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Anja Maier

  2. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, DTU- Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Josef Oehmen

  3. Philosophy Department, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

Appendix: Overview of Online Toolkits

Appendix: Overview of Online Toolkits

#

Name

Publisher

Publisher type

Link

1

Service Design Tools

Oblo.design, Master in Service Design, Service Innovation Academy

Research and teaching

https://servicedesigntools.org

2

Usability.gov

U.S. General Services Administration

Government

https://www.usability.gov

3

HI toolbox

Hyper Island

Business school

https://toolbox.hyperisland.com

4

DESIGN KIT

IDEO

Design agency

https://www.designkit.org/methods

5

PROJECT OF HOW

Project How

Community

https://projectofhow.com/methods/

6

Biomimicry toolbox

Biomimicry Institute

NGO/Non-profit

https://toolbox.biomimicry.org

7

Design Sprints

Google

Tech company

https://designsprintkit.withgoogle.com

8

Innovation toolbox

University of Copenhagen

University

https://innovationenglish.sites.ku.dk/metoder/

9

theDesignExchange

theDesignExchange – UC Berkley and MIT

University

https://www.thedesignexchange.org/design_methods

10

UCDtoolbox

Tristan Weevers

Research and teaching

https://ucdtoolbox.com/browse-methods/

11

Circular design guide

IDEO

Design agency

https://www.circulardesignguide.com/methods

12

Design method toolkit

MediaLAB Amsterdam and Digital Society School

University

https://medialabamsterdam.com/toolkit/

13

Design Method Finder

Hochschule für Gestaltung (University of Applied Sciences) in Schwäbisch Gmünd – (Valentin Fischer, Wolfram Nagel, Marcel Ottmann and Tino Weiß)

Non-profit

https://www.designmethodsfinder.com

14

All about UX

Allaboutux.org

Community

http://www.allaboutux.org

15

18F Methods

18F – United States government

Government

https://methods.18f.gov

16

Design practice methods

RMIT university

University

http://www.designpracticemethods.rmit.edu.au

17

Usability Body of Knowledge

User Experience Professionals’ Association

 

http://www.usabilitybok.org/methods

18

UX Methods Bank

UX Mastery & Co

Community

https://uxmastery.com/resources/techniques/

19

Open design kit

An open community platform

Community

http://opendesignkit.org

20

DIY toolkit

NESTA

Design agency

https://diytoolkit.org/tools/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Daalhuizen, J., Hjartarson, B. (2022). Choosing Effective Means: Awareness of Bias in the Selection of Methods and Tools. In: Maier, A., Oehmen, J., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_25-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_25-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Choosing Effective Means: Awareness of Bias in the Selection of Methods and Tools
    Published:
    06 January 2023

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_25-3

  2. Choosing Effective Means: Awareness of Bias in the Selection of Methods and Tools
    Published:
    10 May 2022

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_25-2

  3. Original

    Choosing Effective Means
    Published:
    11 February 2022

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_25-1

Search

Navigation