ICoRD'13 pp 41-60 | Cite as

Advancing Design Research: A “Big-D” Design Perspective

  • Christopher L. Magee
  • Kristin L. Wood
  • Daniel D. Frey
  • Diana Moreno
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Advances in design research representations and models are needed as the interfaces between disciplines in design become blurred and overlapping, and as design encompasses more and more complex systems. A conceptual framework known as “Big-D” Design, as coined by Singapore’s newest national university (the Singapore University of Technology and Design or SUTD), may provide a meaningful and useful context for advancing design research. This paper is an initial examination of the implications for scientific design research on using this particular framework. As part of the analysis, the paper proposes a simplified decomposition of the broader concept in order to explore potential variation within this framework. It is found that many research objectives are better investigated when the broader design field is studied than in a singular category or domain of design. The paper concludes by recommending aggressive attempts to (1) arrive at a coherent set of terminology and research methodologies relative to design research that extend over at least all of technologically-enabled design and (2) perform epistemological and ontological studies of the relationship of engineering science and technologically-enabled design science as there is more overlap between them than is generally recognized.

Keywords

Design research Technologically-intensive design Heuristics Principles Design theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Robert W. Weisberg for many helpful comments on an earlier and partial draft. This work is supported by the SUTD-MIT International Design Center.

References

  1. 1.
    Wood KL, Rajesh Elara M, Kaijima S, Dritsas S, Frey D, White, CK, Crawford RH, Moreno D, Pey K-L (2012) A symphony of designiettes—exploring the boundaries of design thinking in engineering education. ASEE annual conference, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Magee CL, Leong PK, Jin C, Luo J, Frey DD (2012) Beyond R&D: what design adds to a modern research university. Int J Eng Educ 28:397–406Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Purao S, Baldwin CY, Hevner A, Storey V, Pries-Heje J, Smith B (2008) The sciences of design: observations on an emerging field. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pressman RS (2001) Software engineering : a practitioners approach, 5th ednGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Somerville I (2011) Software engineering, 9th ednGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McConnell S (2004) Code complete: a practical handbook of software constructionGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pilone D (2008) Head first software developmentGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braude EJ (2010) Software engineering: modern approachesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Vliet H (2008) Software engineering: principles and practiceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brooks FP (2010) The design of design: essays from a computer scientistGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dym CL, Little P (2009) Engineering design: a project-based introduction, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ulrich KT, Eppinger ST (1995) Product design and developmentGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Otto KN, Wood KL (2001) Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dieter GE, Schmidt LC (2008) Engineering designGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson J (2010) Basics architecture: architecture designGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Legendre GL (2011) Mathematics of space: architectural designGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman DA (2002) The design of everyday thingsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lidwell W (2010) Universal principles of design, revised and updated: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through designGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cross N (2008) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design, 4th edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ullman D (2009) The mechanical design process, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venturi R (1966) Complexity and contradiction in architecture. The Museum of Modern ArtGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thackara J (2005) In the bubble: designing in a complex world. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brawne M (1992) From idea to building: issues in architecture. Butterworth ArchitectureGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Addis W (2007) Building: 3,000 years of design engineering and construction. Phaidon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hughes TP (1983) Networks of power: electrification in western society, 1880–1930Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hughes TP (1998) Rescuing prometheusGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maier MW (1999) Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Syst EngGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Neufville RA, Scholtes S (2011) Flexibility in engineering designGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Weck OL, Roos D, Magee CL (2011) Engineering systems, meeting human needs in a complex technological world (Chap. 6)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simchi-Levi DS (2010) Operations rules: defining value through flexible operationGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hopp WJ, Spearman ML (2007) Factory physics, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boland R, Callopy F (2004) Managing as designingGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boland R, Callopy F, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2008) Managing as designing: lesssons for organization leaders from the design practice of frank gehry. Desig Issues 24(1):10–25Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    National Research Council study (1989) Materials science and engineering for the 1990s: maintaining competitiveness in the age of materials. In: Chaudhari P, Flemings MC (eds) National Academy Press, ISBN: 0-309-57374-2Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Magee CL (2010) The role of materials innovation in overall technological development. JOMGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Magee CL (2012) Toward quantification of the role of materials innovation in overall technological development. Complexity, 18:10–25Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Langer R, Tirrell DA (2004) Designing materials for biology and medicine. Nature 428:487–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ortiz C, Boyce MC (2008) Bio-inspired structural materials. Science 319:1053–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olsen GB (2000) Designing a new material world. Science 288:993–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ashby MF (1999) Materials selection in mechanical design, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Benson CL, Magee CL (2012) A framework for analyzing the underlying inventions that drive technical improvements in a specific technological field. Eng Manage Res 1:2–15Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Keese DA, Tilstra AH, Seepersad CC, Wood KL (2007) Empirically-derived principles for designing products with flexibility for future evolution. ASME international design technical conferencesGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tilstra AH, Backlund PB, Seepersad CC, Wood KL (2008) Industrial case studies in product flexibility for future evolution: an application and evaluation of design guidelines. ASME international design technical conferences DETC2008-49370, ASMEGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weaver J, Wood KL, Crawford RL, Jensen D (2010) Transformation design theory: a meta-analogical framework. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 10:013012-1–013012-11Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q 30:611–642Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inf Syst 5:313–335Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mooney DJ, Baldwin DF, Suh NP, Vacanti JP, Langer R (1996) Novel approach to fabricate porous sponges of poly(D, L-Lactic-co-glycolic acid) without the use of organic solvents. Biomaterials 17:1417–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bruet BF, Song J, Boyce MC, Ortiz C (2008) Materials design principles of ancient fish armor. Nat Mater 7:748–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Suresh S (2001) Graded materials for resistance contact deformation and damage. Science 292:2447–2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gao H, Ji B, Jager IL, Arzt E, Fratzl P (2003) Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: lessons from nature. Proc Nat Acad Sci (US) 100:5597–5600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kuehmann CJ, Olsen GB (2011) ICME: success stories and cultural barriers. In: Arnold S, Wong T (eds) Integrated computational materials engineering, ASMGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Han L, Grodzinsky AJ, Ortiz C (2011) Nanomechanics of the cartilage extracellular matrix. Annu Rev Mater Res 41:133–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gunther J, Ehrlenspeil J (1999) Comparing designers from practice and designers with systematic design education. Des Stud 20:439–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Paramasivam V, Senthil V (2009) Analysis and evaluation of product design through design aspects using digraph and matrix approach. Int J Interact Des Manuf 3:13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sorenson CG, Jorgenson RN, Maagaard J, Bertelsen KK, Dalgaard L, Norremark M (2010) Conceptual and user-centric design guidelines for a plant nursing robot. Biosyst Eng 105:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yilmaz S, Seiffert CM (2011) Creativity through design heuristics: a case study of expert product design. Des Stud 32:384–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wu JC, Shih MH, Lin YY, Shen YC (2005) Design guidelines for tuned liquid column damper for structures responding to wind. Eng Struct 27:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Galle P (1996) Design rationalization and the logic of design. Des Stud 17:253–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Joseph S (1996) Design systems and paradigms. Des Stud 17:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Berends J, Reymen I, Stultiens RGL, Peutz M (2011) External designers in product design processes of small manufacturing firms. Des Stud 32:86–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dorst K, Veermas PE (2005) John Gero’s function-structure-behavior model of designing: a critical analysis. Res Eng Des 16:17–26Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Magee CL, Thornton PH (1978) Design considerations in energy absorption by structural collapse. Soc Automot Eng Trans SAE 780434Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Matthews PC, Blessing LTM, Wallace KM (2002) The introduction of a design heuristics extraction method. Adv Eng Inform 16:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Suh NP (1998) Axiomatic system design. Res Eng Des 10:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wood KL, Jensen D, Singh V (2009) Innovations in design through transformation: a fundamental study of tRaNsFoRmAtIoN principles. ASME J Mech Des 131:8Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Frey DD, Herder PM, Wjnia Y, Subrahmaniam E, Katsikopoulos K, Clausing DP (2009) The pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 20:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Frey DD, Herder PM, Wjnia Y, Subrahmaniam E, Katsikopoulos K, de Neufville RA, Clausing DP (2010) Reply: the role of mathematical theory and empirical evidence. Res Eng Des 21:341–344Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hirtz J, McAdams DA, Sykman S, Wood KL (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. NIST technical note 1447Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Stone RB, Wood KL, Crawford RH (2000) A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Des Stud 21:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rajan PKP, van Wie M, Campbell MI, Wood KL, Otto KN (2005) An empirical foundation for product flexibility. Des StudGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hey J, Linsey J, Agogino AM, Wood KL (2008) Analogies and metaphors in creative design. Int J Eng Educ 24:283–294Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Qureshi A, Murphy JT, Kuchinsky B, Seepersad CC, Wood KL, Jensen DD (2006) DETC 2006-99583Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Weaver JM, Kuhr R, Wang D, Crawford RH, Wood KL, Jensen D, Linsey JD (2009) Increasing innovation in multi-function systems: evaluation and experimentation of two ideation methods for design. DETC 2009-86526Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rajan PKP, van Wie M, Campbell MI, Otto KN, Wood KL (2003) Design for flexibility—measures and guidelines. ICED03Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Moe RE, Jensen DD, Wood KL (2004) Prototype partitioning based upon requirement flexibility. DETC 2004-57221Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Weaver J, Wood KL, Jensen D (2008) Transformation facilitators: a quantitative analysis of reconfigurable products and their characteristics. DETC2008-49891Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Singh V, Skiles SM, Krager JE, Wood KL, Jensen D, Sierokowski R (2009) Innovations in design through transformation: a fundamental study of transformation principles. J Mech Des 131:081010-1–081010-18Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chrysikou EG, Weisberg RW (2005) Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem Cogn 31:1134–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Weisberg RW (2009) On ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking in creativity. In: Wood K, Markman A (eds) Tools for innovation, pp 23–47Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rowe PG (1987) Design thinkingGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Luo J, Olechowski AO, Magee CL (2012) Technologically-based design as a strategy for sustained economic growth. Technovation, to appearGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Magee CL, Frey DD (2006) Experimentation in engineering design: linking a student design exercise to new results from cognitive psychology. Int J Eng Educ 22(3):85–103 Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gill GR, Hevner AR (2010) A fitness-utility model for design science researchGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    MacCormack AD (2001) Product development practices that work: how internet companies build software. Sloan Manag Rev 42:75–84Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kim H (2010) Effective organization of design guidelines reflecting designer’s design strategies. In J Indus Erg 40:669–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Hevner AR, Ram S, March ST, Park J (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28:75–105Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    MacCormack AD, Rusnak R, Baldwin CA (2006) Exploring the structure of complex software designs: an empirical study of open-source and proprietary code. Manag Sci 52:1015–1030Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Venables JR (2010) Design research post Hevner et al: criteria, standards, guidelines and expectations. In: DESRIST proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Shaw M, Garlan D (1996) Software architecture: an emerging disciplineGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kuechler W, Vaishnavi V (2008) The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. J Des Res 7:1–16Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Poole S, Simon M (2007) Technological trends, product design and the environment. Des Stud 18:237–248Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Jarvinen P (2007) On reviewing of results in design research. In: ECIS, Proceedings of the fifteenth European conference on information systems, pp 1388–1397Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Indulska M, Recker JC (2008) Design science in IS research : a literature analysis. In: 4th biennial ANU workshop on information systems foundations, 2–3 Oct 2008Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rechtin E, Maier MW (2009) The art of system architecting, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Suh NP (1990) Principles of designGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Altshuller G (1984) Creativity as an exact scienceGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Sickafus E (1997) Unified structured inventive thinking: how to inventGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Davis AM (1995) 201 principles of software developmentGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electron Mag 8:38Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Koh H, Magee CL (2006) A functional approach for studying technological progress: application to information technology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73:1061–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Koh H, Magee CL (2008) A functional approach for studying technological progress: extension to energy technology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75:735–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    The TRIZ Journal is published regularly, see http://www.triz-journal.com/
  106. 106.
    Boothroyd G (2005) Assembly automation and product design, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight W (2002) Product design for manufacture and assembly, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Weisberg RW (2006) Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Christensen CB, Schunn CD (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: the case of engineering design. Mem Cogn 35:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Markman AB, Wood KL, Linsey JS, Murphy JT, Laux J (2009) Supporting innovation by promoting analogical reasoning. In: Markman AB, Wood KL (eds) Tools for innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 85–103Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Linsey JS, Wood KL, Markman AB (2008) Modality and representation in analogy. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 22:85–100Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Cross N (1984) Developments in design methodologyGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2006) Between ‘knowledge’ and ‘the economy’: notes on the scientific study of designs. In: Kahin B, Foray D (eds) Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Vincenti W (1990) What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical historyGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Friedman K (2003) Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Des Stud 24:507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Collins A, Josepjh D, Bielaczyc K (2004) Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. J Learn Sci 13(1):15–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Horvath I (2004) A treatise on order in engineering design research. Res Eng Des 15:155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Eder WE (2011) Engineering design science and theory of technical systems: legacy of vladimir hubka. J Eng Des 22(5):361–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ball P (2001) Life’s lessons in design. Nature 409:413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Dorst K (2008) Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Des Stud 29:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Galle P (2008) Candidate worldviews for design theory. Des Stud 29:267–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Farrell R, Hooker C (2012) The Simon-Kroes model of technical artifacts and the distinction between science and design. Des Stud 33:480–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Reich Y (2010) The redesign of research in engineering design. Res Eng Des 21:65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Andreasen MM (2011) 45 years with design methodology. J Eng Des 22(5):293–332MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher L. Magee
    • 1
  • Kristin L. Wood
    • 2
  • Daniel D. Frey
    • 3
  • Diana Moreno
    • 2
  1. 1.SUTD-MIT International Design Center CambridgeMA and Singapore MITCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.SUTD-MIT International Design Center CambridgeMA and Singapore SUTDDoverSingapore
  3. 3.SUTD-MIT International Design Center CambridgeMA and Singapore MITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations