Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:03:06.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowing, reasoning and visualizing in industrial design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2013

Christian Woelfel ,
Jens Krzywinski  and
Frank Drechsel
Christian Woelfel
Affiliation:
Junior Professorship in Industrial Design Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Jens Krzywinski
Affiliation:
Junior Professorship in Industrial Design Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Frank Drechsel
Affiliation:
Junior Professorship in Industrial Design Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Industrial design processes can be described as human design problem solving, incorporating the acquisition, evaluation, production and transfer of specific knowledge. In this paper, we will describe the connection and interaction between visualization and reasoning during different stages of the design process. Thereby we focus on three early stages of this process: clarifying the task, concepting and designing an overall solution.

This paper provides a rather general description of design processes and more detailed remarks on design knowledge and design actions. It specifically focuses on design concepts as visual key elements in industrial design processes. We will address the importance of externalization and visualization as means for thinking and knowledge generation and transfer in industrial design in general.

The design process is described as an interplay of the parallel and iterative developments of three domains: knowledge, concept and design. In contrast to linear schemes, this paper proposes a design process scheme focusing on iterative circles and parallel processing possibilities. Industrial design knowledge will be described and compared to relevant knowledge in other disciplines, in particular, engineering design knowledge. We will describe the strong link between the designer's individual biographies, design knowledge and the outcome of design processes.

Design concepts will be discussed as extremely compact representations of core characteristics of the artifacts to be designed, serving as a guide to the design process.

Design actions as described in this paper are characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of thought and externalization processes. Different kinds of visualization are discussed in regard of their role in reasoning during industrial design processes.

This paper concludes by sketching two perspectives. One addresses the need for interdisciplinary research on new visualization tools with regard to human reasoning in design processes. The second one gives an impression of how visualization tools and methods of industrial design can supplement other disciplines.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 28 , Special Issue 3: Visualization, Visual Representation and Reasoning , September 2013 , pp. 287 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, S. P. 2006. Creating Pleasurable Interfaces: Getting from Tasks to Experiences. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://poetpainter.com/thoughts/file_download/7.Google Scholar
Bae, S.-H., Balakrishnan, R., Singh, K. 2008. ILoveSketch: As-natural-as-possible sketching system for creating 3D curve models. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Cousins, S. B. & Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (eds). ACM, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezing, A. N. 2006. Planung innovativer Produkte unter Nutzung von Design- und Ingenieurdienstleistungen. Shaker.Google Scholar
Bürdek, B. E. 2005. Design: History, Theory and Practice of Product Design. Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Cagan, J., Vogel, C. M. 2002. Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation From Product Planning to Program Approval. Financial Times Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D. 2007. About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design, 3rd edition. Wiley.Google Scholar
Cross, N. 2001. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. Wiley.Google Scholar
Cross, N. 2003. The expertise of exceptional designers. In Expertise in Design, Cross, N. & Edmonds, E. (eds). Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology, 23–35.Google Scholar
Desmet, P. M. A. 2008. Product emotion. In Product Experience, Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Hekkert, P. (eds). Elsevier, 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörner, D. 2002. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations, 11th edition. Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Dorst, K., Cross, N. 2001. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drechsel, F. 2008. Entwurfsmodell grafisch. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://technischesdesign.wcms-file3.tu-dresden.de/blog/?p=266.Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, J. 2005. The reality of design. In Design Process Improvement. A Review of Current Practice, Clarkson, J. & Eckert, C. (eds). Springer, 1–33.Google Scholar
Florida, R. L. 2005. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. HarperBusiness.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. 2003. The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues: History, Theory, Criticism 19(1), 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, M., Hartmann-Menzel, C. 2010. Improving Communication in Development Processes through Design. In Questions, Hypotheses & Conjectures, Chow, J., Jonas, W. & Jost, G. (eds). iUniverse, 46–49.Google Scholar
Hacker, W. 2005. Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische Regulation von Wissens-, Denk- und körperlicher Arbeit. Huber.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A., Weil, B. 2003. A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED03, Folkeson, A., Gralen, K., Norell, M. & Sellgren, U. (eds). The Design Society.Google Scholar
Jonas, W. 1995. Design als systemische Intervention: für ein neues (altes) ,,postheroisches” Designverständnis. In 17. designwissenschaftliches Kolloquium ,,Objekt und Prozeß”. Halle/S.Google Scholar
Jonas, W. 2004. Mind the gap!: on knowing and not-knowing in design. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from www.thebasicparadox.de.Google Scholar
Keinonen, T., Roope, T. (eds) 2006. Product Concept Design: A Review of the Conceptual Design of Products in Industry. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranke, G. 2008. Technisches Design: Integration von Design in die universitäre Ausbildung von Ingenieuren. Hut.Google Scholar
Krzywinski J. 2008. Design concept development in transportation design. In Undisciplined!: Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2008, Durling, D., Rust, C., Chen, L.-L., Ashton, P. & Friedman, K. (eds). Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. 2004. What Designers Know. Elsevier Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Elsevier Architectural Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 40(4), 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J. 2006. Everything But the Walls. Lars Müller Publishers.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. 2004. Introduction to this special section on beauty, goodness, and usability. Human-Computer Interaction 19(4), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Blessing, L., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.-H., Wallace, K. (eds) 2007. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd edition. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Press, M., Cooper, R. 2003. The Design Experience: The Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Reese, J. (ed.) 2005. Der Ingenieur und seine Designer: Entwurf technischer Produkte im Spannungsfeld zwischen Konstruktion und Design. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roozenburg, N. 1993. On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. Design Studies 14(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roozenburg, N. F. M., Eekels, J. 1995. Product Design Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley.Google Scholar
Rust, C. 2004. Design enquiry: tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design Issues: History, Theory, Criticism 20(4), 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachse, P. 2002. Idea materialis Entwurfsdenken und Darstellungshandeln: Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Skizzieren und Modellieren. Logos-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schifferstein, H. N. J., Hekkert, P. (eds) 2008. Product Experience. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Steinmeier, I. 1998. Industriedesign als Innovationsfaktor für Investitionsgüter: Ein Beitrag zum designorientierten Innovationsmanagement. Verlag Form.Google Scholar
Strickfaden, M. 2006. (In)tangibles: Sociocultural References in the Design Process Milieu. Doctoral thesis, Napier University.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, J. 2005. Die Vorgehensplanung Designprozess für Objekte der Technik: Mit Erläuterungen am Entwurf eines Ultraleichtflugzeuges. TUD Press.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, J., Schulze, E.-E. 2007. Evaluation of design knowledge: empirical studies and application of the results in product design education. In ConnectED International Conference on Design Education 2007, Sydney.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D. 2003. Product Design and Development, 3rd edition, internet edition. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
van Aken, J. E. 2005. Valid knowledge for the professional design of large and complex design processes. Design Studies 26(4), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W. 1995. Use of episodic knowledge and information in design problem solving. Design Studies 16(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W. 2006. The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von der Weth, R. 1994. Konstruieren: Heuristische Kompetenz, Erfahrung und individuelles Vorgehen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organizationspsychologie 38(12), 102–111.Google Scholar
von der Weth, R. 2001. Management der Komplexität: Ressourcenorientiertes Handeln in der Praxis. Huber.Google Scholar
Woelfel, C. 2008. How industrial design knowledge differs from engineering design knowledge. In New Perspectives in Design Education, Vol. 1, Clarke, A., Evatt, M., Hoghart, P., Lloveras, J. & Pons, L. (eds). Institution of Engineering Designers, The Design Society, 222–227.Google Scholar
Woelfel, C., Uhlmann, J. 2008. Designing aesthetic freeform objects: a course for industrial design engineering students. In New Perspectives in Design Education, Vol. 1, Clarke, A., Evatt, M., Hoghart, P., Lloveras, J. & Pons, L. (eds). Institution of Engineering Designers, The Design Society, 150–155.Google Scholar