Evolution of Design Briefs: Expressions from Professional Design Practice

  • Mamata N. Rao
  • Prasad S. Onkar
  • Deepak John Mathew
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)


Professional design practice regards articulating design brief as an important step to begin a design project. Typically, the initial brief is given by the client to the designer/architect who may evolve the brief through several meetings with the client. Earlier research studies to understand design thinking have looked at the work of the designer with focus on ‘conceptualization in design’ with very few studies done to see the process of arriving at design briefs. This study aims to look at the process of clarifying design briefs in professional design practice. Our hypothesis is that a lot of early ideas for design solutions are established in the process of creating these design briefs. Designers from domains like Product, Interaction, Communication, Furniture and Architecture were interviewed in a semi-structured format, to understand the evolution of design briefs in their practices. In this study, it is observed that, designers set parameters in the briefing process itself which directs further design explorations and they tend to focus on primary generators in the design brief itself.


Design briefs Professional design practice Evolution of design briefs 


  1. 1.
    Schon, D.: Educating The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schon, D.: Designing: rules, types and worlds. Des. Stud. 9(3), 181–190 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eastman, C.M.: On the analysis of the intuitive design process. In: Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning. MIT Press, Cambridge (1970)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lawson, B.R.: Problem Solving in Architectural Design. University of Aston, Birmingham (1972)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lawson, B.R., Dorst, K.: Design Expertise. Architectural Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paton, B., Dorst, K.: Briefing and reframing: a situated practice. Des. Stud. 32(6), 573–587 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawson, B.R.: The cost and value of design. Architect. Res. Q. 1(summer), 82–89 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawson, B.R.: The Language of Space. Architectural Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levin, P.: Decision Making in Urban Design, Watford. Building Research Establishment, London (1966)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cross, N.: Design Thinking. Berg, Oxford (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darke, J.: The primary generator and the design process. Des. Stud. 3(3), 36–44 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rowe, P.: Design Thinking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawson, B.R.: Problem Solving in Architectural Design. University of Aston, Birmingham (1972)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lawson, B.R.: Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics 22(1), 59–68 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christiaans, H., Dorst, K.: Cognitive models in Industrial design engineering: a protocol study. In: Taylor, D.L., Stauffer, D.A. (eds.) Design Theory and Methodology—DTM92. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lawson, B., Dorst, K.: Design Expertise. Architectural Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maher M.L., Tang H.H.: Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res. Eng. Des. 1–37 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorst, K., Cross, N.: Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Des. Stud. 22(5), 425–437 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Srinivasan, V., Chakrabarti, A.: An integrated model of designing. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 10 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Helms, M.E, Goel, A.K.: Analogical problem evolution in biologically inspired design. In: Gero, J.S. (ed.) Design Computing and Cognition DCC’12, pp. 1–20. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawson, B.R.: What Designer’s Know. Architectural Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Worinkeng, E., Joshi, S., Summers, J.D.: An experimental study: analyzing requirement type influence on novelty and variety of generated solutions. Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov. 3(2), 61–77 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mamata N. Rao
    • 1
  • Prasad S. Onkar
    • 1
  • Deepak John Mathew
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of DesignIndian Institute of Technology HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations