Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 147–163 | Cite as

Towards an ontology of design: lessons from C–K design theory and Forcing

  • Armand Hatchuel
  • Benoit Weil
  • Pascal Le Masson
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper we present new propositions about the ontology of design and a clarification of its position in the general context of rationality and knowledge. We derive such ontology from a comparison between formal design theories developed in two different scientific fields: Engineering and Set theory. We first build on the evolution of design theories in engineering, where the quest for domain independence and “generativity” has led to formal approaches, likewise C–K theory, that are independent of what has to be designed. Then we interpret Forcing, a technique in Set theory developed for the controlled invention of new sets, as a general design theory. Studying similarities and differences between C–K theory and Forcing, we find a series of common notions like “d-ontologies”, “generic expansion”, “object revision”, “preservation of meaning” and “K-reordering”. They form altogether an “ontology of design” which is consistent with unique aspects of design.

Keywords

Design theory Innovation Ontology Programming theory 

References

  1. Agogué M, Cassotti M, Kazakçi A (2011) The impact of examples on creative design: explaining fixation and stimulation effects. paper presented at the international conference on engineering design, ICED’11, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben Mahmoud-Jouini S, Charue-Duboc F, Fourcade F (2006) Managing Creativity Process in Innovation Driven Competition. In: Verganti R, Buganza T (eds) 13th International Product Development Management Conference, Milan, 2006. EIASM & Politecnico di Milano, pp 111–126Google Scholar
  3. Blessing LT (2003) What is engineering design research? In: International conference on engineering design, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Braha D, Reich Y (2003) Topological structures for modelling engineering design processes. Res Eng Des 14(4):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen PJ (1963) The independence of the continuum hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 50:1143–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen PJ (1964) The independence of the Continuum Hypothesis II. Proc Natl Acad Sci 51:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen PJ (1966) Set theory and the continuum hypothesis. Addison-Wesley, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross N (1993) Science and design methodology: a review. Res Eng Des 5(2):63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey D, Leifer LJ (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ January 2005:103–120Google Scholar
  10. Elmquist M, Le Masson P (2009) The value of a ‘failed’ R&D project: an emerging evaluation framework for building innovative capabilities. R&D Manag 39(2):136–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elmquist M, Segrestin B (2007) Towards a new logic for front end management: from drug discovery to drug design in pharmaceutical R&D. J Creat Innov Manag 16(2):106–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finger S, Dixon JR (1989) A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Res Eng Des 1:51–67 (part I) and 121–137 (Part II)Google Scholar
  13. Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magaz 11(4):26–36Google Scholar
  14. Gero JS (1996) Creativity, emergence and evolution in design: concepts and framework. Know Based Syst 9(7):435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giacomoni G, Sardas J-C (2010) P.L.M et gestion des évolutions de données techniques: impacts multiples et interchangeabilité restreinte. In: Systèmes d’Information et Management, 2010Google Scholar
  16. Gillier T, Piat G, Roussel B, Truchot P (2010) Managing innovation fields in a cross-industry exploratory partnership with C-K design theory. J Product Innovation Management Accepted (to be published)Google Scholar
  17. Gruber T (2009) Ontology. In: Liu L, Özsu T (eds) Encyclopedia of database systems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatchuel A (2002) Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. J Manag Governance 5(3–4):260–273Google Scholar
  19. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach to innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory. In: ICED’03, August 2003, Stockholm, Sweden, p 14Google Scholar
  20. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19(4):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2004) C-K Theory in practice: lessons from industrial applications. In: Marjanovic D (ed) 8th International design conference, Dubrovnik, 18th–21st May 2004, pp 245–257Google Scholar
  22. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2006) The design of science based-products: an interpretation and modelling with C-K theory. In: Marjanovic D (ed) 9th International design conference, Dubrovnik, 15th–18th May 2004, 2006. pp 33–44Google Scholar
  23. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Reich Y, Weil B (2011) A systematic approach to design theories using generativeness and robustness. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, Technical University of Denmark, 2011. p 12Google Scholar
  24. Hendriks L, Kazakçi AO (2010) A formal account of the dual extension of knowledge and concept in C-K design theory. Paper presented at the International design conference—Design 2010, Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendriks L, Kazakçi AO (2011) Design as imagining future knowledge, a formal account. In: Grossi D, Minica S, Rodenhäuser B, Smets S (eds) Logic and interactive rationality. pp 111–125Google Scholar
  26. Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jech T (2002) Set theory. Springer monographs in mathematics, 3rd millenium edition, revised and expanded edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Kanamori A (1996) The mathematical development of set theory from cantor to cohen. Bull fo Symb Log 2(1):1–71MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kazakçi A, Hatchuel A (2009) Is “creative subject” of Brouwer a designer? -an Analysis of Intuitionistic mathematics from the viewpoint of C-K design theory?. In: International conference on engineering design, ICED’09, Stanford CA, 24–27 August 2009, 2009Google Scholar
  30. Kazakçi AO, Tsoukias A (2005) Extending the C-K design theory: a theoretical background for personal design assistants. J Eng Des 16(4):399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kazakçi A, Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2010) Simulation of design reasoning based on C-K theory: a model and an example application. Paper presented at the international design conference—Design 2010, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunen K (1980) Set theory: an introduction to independence proofs. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, 102. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Le Masson P, Hatchuel A, Weil B (2011) The interplay between creativity issues and design theories: a new perspective for design management studies? Creat Innov Manag 20(4):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mabogunje A, Leifer LJ (1997) Noun phrases as surrogates for measuring early phases of the mechanical design process. In: 9th international conference on design theory and methodology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, September 14-17, Sacramento, CA, 1997. p 6Google Scholar
  35. Poincaré H (2007) Science and hypothesis. science and hypothesis was originally published in French in 1902 edn. Cosimo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Reich Y (1995) A critical review of general design theory. Res Eng Des 7:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Shai O, Subrahmanian E (2010) A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting ASIT within C-K Theory. J Eng Des:1–22Google Scholar
  38. Salustri FA (2005) Representing C-K theory with an action logic. In: Proceedings ICED ‘05, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  39. Schön DS (1990) The design process. In: Howard VA (ed) Varieties of thinking. Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center, Routledge, pp 110–141Google Scholar
  40. Shai O, Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Subrahmanian E (2009) Creativity Theories and Scientific Discovery: a Study of C-K Theory and Infused Design. In: International conference on engineering design, ICED’09, 24–27 August 2009, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharif Ullah AMM, Mamunur Rashid M, Tamaki Ji (2011) On some unique features of C–K theory of design. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol (in press)Google Scholar
  42. Suh NP (1990) Principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Worral J, Currie G (1980) Imre Lakatos, the methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Yoshikawa H (1981) General design theory and a CAD system. In: Sata T, Warman E (eds) Man-machine communication in CAD/CAM, proceedings of the IFIP WG5.2-5.3 Working Conference 1980 (Tokyo). Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 35–57Google Scholar
  45. Yoshikawa H (1985) Design theory for CAD/CAM integration. Annals CIRP 34(1):173–178MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeng Y, Cheng GD (1991) On the logic of design. Des Stud 12(3):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeng Y, Gu P (1999a) A science-based approach to product design theory: part 1: formulation and formalization of design process. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 15:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeng Y, Gu P (1999b) A science-based approach to product design theory: part 2: formulation of design requirements and products. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 15:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armand Hatchuel
    • 1
  • Benoit Weil
    • 1
  • Pascal Le Masson
    • 1
  1. 1.Mines ParisTech Centre de Gestion ScientifiqueParis Cedex 06France

Personalised recommendations