Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For instance, there is an active quest for new theoretical physics based on String theory that could replace the standard model of particles.

  2. There is also documented material on its practical applications in several industrial contexts (Elmquist and Segrestin 2007; Ben Mahmoud-Jouini et al. 2006; Hatchuel and Weil 2003; Hatchuel et al. 2004, 2006; Gillier et al. 2010; Elmquist and Le Masson 2009).

  3. It can also be formulated as: “The class of objects x, for which a group of properties p1, p2, pk holds in K is non empty”.

  4. The literature about C–K theory discusses two ways to treat this issue: the class of “non-rubber tyres for ordinary cars” can be seen as a special kind of set, called C-set, for which the existence of elements is K-undecidable (Hatchuel and Weil 2009). This is the core idea of the theory and the most challenging aspect of its modelling. Clearly assuming “elements” of this C-set will be contradictory with the status of the concept, or we would have to speak of elements without any possibility to define them or to construct them. This is in contradiction to the classic elementarist approach of sets (see Jech, Dehornoy). It means that the propositions “C-set is empty” or “a C-set is non-empty” is K-undecided and only after design is done, we will be able to decide this question. Technically, Hatchuel and Weil suggest that C-sets could be axiomatized within ZF if we reject the axiom of choice and the axiom of regularity, as these axioms assume necessarily the existence of elements. More generally, in space C, where the new object is designed, the membership relation of Set theory has a meaning only when the existence of elements is proved. Hendriks and Kazakci (Hendriks and Kazakçi 2011) have studied an alternative formulation of C–K theory only based on first-order logic. They make no reference to C-sets, and they reach similar findings about the structure of design reasoning.

  5. It may be surprising that the inclusion relation becomes possible: it becomes possible only when the existence is proved.

  6. The idea of Design as Chimera forming can be traced back to Yoshikawa’s GDT (Yoshikawa 1985) (see the Frobird, p. 177) although the authors did not use the term chimera and the theoretical properties of such operations were not fully described in the paper.

  7. He has been awarded a Fields medal for this work.

  8. Properly speaking, ZF has infinitely many axioms: its axiomatization consists of six axioms and two axiom schemas (comprehension and replacement), which are infinite collections of axioms of similar form. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this remark.

  9. Such models of things are also present in design theories (see for instance the “entity set” in GDT (Yoshikawa 1981)).

  10. The two propositions of this type that gave birth to the forcing method are well known in set theory. The first one is “every set of nonempty sets has a choice function”; the second one is the existence of infinite cardinals that are intermediate between the cardinal of the integers and the cardinal of the reals also called the continuum hypothesis.

  11. Complete presentations of Forcing can be easily found in standard textbooks in advanced set theory (Kunen 1980; Jech 2002; Cohen 1966).

  12. Filters are standard structures in Set theory. A filter F is a set of conditions of Q with the following properties: nonempty; nestedness (if p < q and p in F then q is in F) and compatibility (if p, q are in F, then there is s in F such that s < p and s < q).

  13. G is not in M as soon as Q follows the splitting condition: for every condition p, there are two conditions q and q’ that refine p but are incompatible (there is no constraint that refines q and q’). Demonstration (see (Jech 2002), exercise 14.6, p. 223): Suppose that G is in M and consider D = Q\G. For any p in Q, the splitting condition implies that there q and q’ that refine p and are incompatible; so one of the two is not in G, hence is in D. Hence, any condition of Q is refined by an element of D. Hence, D is dense. So G is not generic.

  14. To give a hint on this strange property and its demonstration: Cohen follows, as he explains himself, the reasoning of Cantor diagonalization. He shows that the “new” real is different from any real g written in base 2 by showing that there is at least one condition in G that differentiates G and this real (this corresponds to the fact that G intersects Dg, the set of conditions that are not included in g).

  15. Forcing is a mathematical tool that can design new sets using infinite series of conditions. In real design, series of conditions are not always infinite.

  16. There are several forms of extensions in mathematics that cannot be even mentioned in this paper. Our claim is that Forcing, to our knowledge, presents the highest generality in its assumptions and scope.

  17. In a simulation study of C–K reasoning (Kazakçi et al. 2010) voids could be modelled, since knowledge was assumed to have a graph structure.

  18. One can also use the image of a “hole”. The metaphor of “holes” has been suggested by Udo Lindemann during a presentation about “Creativity in engineering” (SIG Design theory Workshop February 2011). It is a good image of the undecidable propositions, or concepts in C–K theory, that trigger a design process. Udo Lindemann showed that such “holes” can be detected with engineering methods when they are used to find Design ways that were not yet explored.

  19. Proof: for any dense subset D of C, there is a refinement of C k that is in D. But since C k is also in K, any refinement of C k is in K and cannot be in C. Hence C k is in D.

  20. The output of Forcing is not one unique new Set G, but a whole extended model N of ZF. The building of the extension model combines subsets of the old ground Model M and the new set G. Thus, new names have to be carefully redistributed so that an element M with name a gets a new name a’ when considered as an element of the new set. As a consequence of these preserving rules, the extension Set is well formed and obeys ZF axioms (Jech 2000).

References

  • 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 Denmark

  • 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 111–126

  • Blessing LT (2003) What is engineering design research? In: International conference on engineering design, Stockholm, Sweden

  • Braha D, Reich Y (2003) Topological structures for modelling engineering design processes. Res Eng Des 14(4):185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen PJ (1963) The independence of the continuum hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 50:1143–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen PJ (1964) The independence of the Continuum Hypothesis II. Proc Natl Acad Sci 51:105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen PJ (1966) Set theory and the continuum hypothesis. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (1993) Science and design methodology: a review. Res Eng Des 5(2):63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey D, Leifer LJ (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ January 2005:103–120

  • 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):136–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):106–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magaz 11(4):26–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero JS (1996) Creativity, emergence and evolution in design: concepts and framework. Know Based Syst 9(7):435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 2010

  • 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)

  • Gruber T (2009) Ontology. In: Liu L, Özsu T (eds) Encyclopedia of database systems. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A (2002) Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. J Manag Governance 5(3–4):260–273

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 14

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19(4):181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 245–257

  • 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 33–44

  • 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 12

  • 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, Croatia

  • 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 111–125

  • Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jech T (2002) Set theory. Springer monographs in mathematics, 3rd millenium edition, revised and expanded edn. Springer, Berlin

  • Kanamori A (1996) The mathematical development of set theory from cantor to cohen. Bull fo Symb Log 2(1):1–71

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 2009

  • Kazakçi AO, Tsoukias A (2005) Extending the C-K design theory: a theoretical background for personal design assistants. J Eng Des 16(4):399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Dubrovnik

  • Kunen K (1980) Set theory: an introduction to independence proofs. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, 102. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  • 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):217–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 6

  • Poincaré H (2007) Science and hypothesis. science and hypothesis was originally published in French in 1902 edn. Cosimo, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y (1995) A critical review of general design theory. Res Eng Des 7:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:1–22

  • Salustri FA (2005) Representing C-K theory with an action logic. In: Proceedings ICED ‘05, Melbourne, Australia

  • Schön DS (1990) The design process. In: Howard VA (ed) Varieties of thinking. Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center, Routledge, pp 110–141

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Stanford

  • 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)

  • Suh NP (1990) Principles of design. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Worral J, Currie G (1980) Imre Lakatos, the methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 35–57

  • Yoshikawa H (1985) Design theory for CAD/CAM integration. Annals CIRP 34(1):173–178

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng Y, Cheng GD (1991) On the logic of design. Des Stud 12(3):137–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 15:331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 15:341–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mines ParisTech Centre de Gestion Scientifique, 60 Boulevard Saint Michel, 75 272, Paris Cedex 06, France

    Armand Hatchuel, Benoit Weil & Pascal Le Masson

Authors
  1. Armand Hatchuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benoit Weil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pascal Le Masson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armand Hatchuel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hatchuel, A., Weil, B. & Le Masson, P. Towards an ontology of design: lessons from C–K design theory and Forcing. Res Eng Design 24, 147–163 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0144-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0144-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation