Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T19:16:34.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DESIGNING IN COMPLEXITY: HOW SOLUTION CONJECTURES INFORM PROBLEM EXPLORATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Wenlin Zhang  and
Jin Ma
Wenlin Zhang*
Affiliation:
Tongji University
Jin Ma
Affiliation:
Tongji University
*
Zhang, Wenlin, Tongji University, College of Design and Innovation, China, People's Republic of, wenlindesign@hotmail.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Engineering designers seek to explore ‘real’ problems that must be solved across design processes. This exploration might be challenging in complex problem situations. An effective way of encouraging design exploration is conjecture-based problem exploration—informing problem re-interpretation by potential solutions. However, little evidence indicated how this process unfolds, especially in complex problem situations. This study addresses this question by articulating the underlying cognitive mechanism of conjecture-based problem exploration. Situated in a creative design practice that tackles real-world, complex problem situations, we employ grounded theory to conduct qualitative coding of interview transcripts and documents elicited from ten multidisciplinary graduate students. We developed a three-phase process model to explain conjecture-based problem exploration: (1) triggering through analogizing, inspiring, evaluating, and questioning; (2) transitioning to problem space expansion; and (3) resulting in problem focus adjustment incrementally or radically. Our explanation contributes to design theory building and encourages engineering designers to embrace a dynamic view of design problems when addressing complexity.

Keywords

Design processDesign cognitionCo-evolutionComplexityConjecture-based problem exploration

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1153 - 1162
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Atman, C.J., Adams, R.S., Cardella, M.E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S. and Saleem, J. (2007), “Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijl-Brouwer, M. van der. (2019), “Problem framing expertise in public and social innovation”, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.01.003Google Scholar
Cash, P. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Vol. 56, pp. 84–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P. and Goncalves, M. (2017), “Information-triggered co-evolution: A combined process perspective”, In: Christensen, B.T., Ball, L.J. and Halskov, K. (Ed.), Analysing design thinking: Studies of cross-cultural co-creation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315208169-27Google Scholar
Chan, J. and Schunn, C. (2014), “The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A.L. (2014), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th Edition), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Blackwell, A. and Clarkson, P.J. (2006), “Graphic elicitation: Using research diagrams as interview stimuli.” Qualitative Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1993), “A history of design methodology”, In: DeVries, M.J., Cross, N. and Grant, D.P. (Ed.), Design Methodology and Relationships with Science, Springer Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2007), Designerly ways of knowing, Springer, London, UK.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004), “Expertise in design: An overview”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, S.R., McKilligan, S., Studer, J.A., Murray, C.K. and Seifert, L.M. (2018), “Innovative solutions through innovated problems”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 34 No. 2(B), pp. 695–707.Google Scholar
Dankfort, Z.S., Roos, L. and Goncalves, M.G. (2018), “Inspiring co-evolution moves and creativity in design teams”, The Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity, Bath, UK, January 31st–February 2nd, 2018, pp. 395–402.Google Scholar
Darke, J. (1979), “The primary generator and the design process”, Design Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2019), “Co-evolution and emergence in design”, Design Studies, Vol. 65 No. C, pp. 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0954-1810(96)00047-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25–32. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/20159839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, K.K., Yang, M.C. and Wood, K.L. (2016), “Design principles: Literature review, analysis, and future directions”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 138 No. 10, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983), “Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
Jin, Y. and Chusilp, P. (2006), “Study of mental iteration in different design situations”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, C. and Cross, N. (2006), “Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B.R. (1979), “Cognitive strategies in architectural design”, Ergonomics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.W., Daly, S.R., Huang-saad, A., Rodriguez, G. and Seifert, C.M. (2020), “Cognitive strategies in solution mapping: How engineering designers identify problems for technological solutions”, Design Studies, Vol. 71 No. C, pp. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.100967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), “The science of ‘muddling through’”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-017066-4.50015-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, P. and Scott, P. (1994), “Discovering the design problem”, Design Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)90020-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, C.C. (2015), “The relationship between student design cognition types and creative design outcomes”, Design Studies, Vol. 36 No. C, pp. 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M. and Poon, J. (1996), “Modelling design exploration as co-evolution”, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00323.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinec, T., Škec, S., Perišíc, M.M. and Štorga, M. (2020), “Revisiting problem-solution co-evolution in the context of team conceptual design activity”, Applied Sciences (Switzerland), Vol. 10 No. 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP10186303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D.A. and Stappers, P.J. (2015), “DesignX: Complex socio-technical systems”, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.002Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1973), “The structure of ill structured problems”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 4, pp. 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007), “A leader's framework for decision making”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 11, pp. 68.Google ScholarPubMed
Storm, R., van Maanen, J. and Goncalves, M. (2019), “Reframing the design process: Integrating goals, methods and manifestation into the co-evolution model”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, Delft, The Netherlands, August 5–8, 2018, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studer, J.A., Daly, S.R., McKilligan, S. and Seifert, C.M. (2018), “Evidence of problem exploration in creative designs”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0890060418000124CrossRefGoogle Scholar