Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 351–373 | Cite as

Steepest-first exploration with learning-based path evaluation: uncovering the design strategy of parameter analysis with C–K theory

  • Ehud KrollEmail author
  • Pascal Le Masson
  • Benoit Weil
Original Paper

Abstract

The parameter analysis method of conceptual design is studied in this paper with the help of C–K theory. Each of the fundamental design activities—idea generation, implementation of the idea as hardware and evaluation—is explained and defined as a specific sequence of C–K operators. A case study of designing airborne decelerators is used to demonstrate the modeling of the parameter analysis process in C–K terms. The theory is used to explain how recovery from an initial fixation took place, leading to a breakthrough in the design process. It is shown that the innovative power of parameter analysis is based on C-space “de-partitioning” and that the efficient strategy exhibited by parameter analysis can be interpreted as steepest-first, controlled by an evaluation function of the design path. This logic is explained as generalization of branch-and-bound algorithms by a learning-based, dynamically evolving evaluation function and exploration of a state space that keeps changing during the actual process of designing.

Keywords

Design theory Conceptual design C–K theory Parameter analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author is grateful to the chair of “Design Theory and Methods for Innovation” at Mines ParisTech for hosting him for furthering this research. This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation under Grant No. 546/12.

References

  1. Condoor S, Kroll E (2008) Parameter analysis for the application of the principle of direct and short transmission path: a valve-actuator design case study. J Eng Des 19:337–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross N (2004) Expertise in design: an overview. Des Stud 25:427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud 22:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dym CL, Brown DC (2012) Engineering design: representation and reasoning, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elmquist M, Segrestin B (2007) Towards a new logic for front end management: from drug discovery to drug design in pharmaceutical R&D. Creat Innov Manag 16:106–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eris O (2006) Insisting on truth at the expense of conceptualization: can engineering portfolios help? Int J Eng Ed 22:551–559Google Scholar
  8. Gero J, Kannengiesser U (2004) The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Des Stud 25:373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillier T, Piat G, Roussel B, Truchot P (2010) Managing innovation fields in a cross-industry exploratory partnership with C–K design theory. J Prod Innov Manag 27:883–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatchuel A (2001) Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. J Manag Gov 5:260–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C–K theory. In: Proc 14th Int Conf Eng Des (ICED’03), Stockholm, pp 109–124Google Scholar
  12. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C–K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2011) Teaching innovative design reasoning: how concept–knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 25:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillier FS, Lieberman GJ (2005) Introduction to operations research, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kazakçi AO, Hatchuel A, Weil B (2008) A model of CK design theory based on term logic: a formal CK background for a class of design assistants. In: Proc 10th Int Des Conf (Design 2008), DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroll E (2011) Structured concept development with parameter analysis. In: Proc Int Conf Eng Des (ICED’11), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroll E (2013) Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis. Res Eng Des 24:165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroll E, Koskela L (2012) Interpreting parameter analysis through the proto-theory of design. In: Proc 12th Int Des Conf (Design 2010), DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  21. Kroll E, Condoor SS, Jansson DG (2001) Innovative conceptual design: theory and application of parameter analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawson B (2005) How designers think: the design process demystified, 4th edn. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Masson P, Weil B (2013) Design theories as languages of the unknown: insights from the German roots of systematic design (1840–1960). Res Eng Des 24:105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2010) Strategic management of innovation and design. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Li YT, Jansson DG, Cravalho EG (1980) Technological innovation in education and industry. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Linsey JS, Tseng I, Fu K, Cagan J, Wood KL, Schunn C (2010) A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. J Mech Des 132:041003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maher ML, Tang HH (2003) Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res Eng Des 14:47–63Google Scholar
  28. Pahl G, Badke-Schaub P, Frankenberger E (1999) Résumé of 12 years interdisciplinary empirical studies of engineering design in Germany. Des Stud 20:481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhunsen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearl J (1984) Heuristics: intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  31. Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Shai O, Subrahmanian E (2012) A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting and improving ASIT within C–K theory. J Eng Des 23:137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roozenburg NFM (1993) On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. Des Stud 14:4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russell SJ, Norvig P (1995) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Shai O, Reich Y (2004a) Infused design: I theory. Res Eng Des 15:93–107Google Scholar
  35. Shai O, Reich Y (2004b) Infused design: II practice. Res Eng Des 15:108–121Google Scholar
  36. Shai O, Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Subrahmanian E (2013) Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C–K theory. Res Eng Des 24:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon HA (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire CB, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 161–176Google Scholar
  38. Smith G, Richardson J, Summers J, Mocko GM (2012) Concept exploration through morphological charts: an experimental study. ASME J Mech Des 134:051004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tomiyama T, Gu P, Jin Y, Lutters D, Kind Ch, Kimura F (2009) Design methodologies: industrial and educational applications. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58:543–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ullah AMMS (2005) A fuzzy decision model for conceptual design. Syst Eng 8:296–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ullah AMMS, Rashid MM, Tamaki J (2012) On some unique features of C–K theory of design. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 5:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber C (2005) CPM/PDD—an extended theoretical approach to modelling products and product development processes. In: Proc 2nd German-Israeli symp advances in methods and systems for development of products and processes, TU Berlin/Fraunhofer IPK, Berlin, pp 159–179Google Scholar
  43. Wiltschnig S, Christensen BT, Ball LJ (2013) Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design. Des Stud 34:515–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Aerospace EngineeringTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.CGS - Centre de gestion scientifique (Management Science Lab)MINES ParisTech, PSL Research UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations