Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:18:16.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CURRENT CHALLENGES AND SOLUTION APPROACHES IN EMPIRICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN RESEARCH – A WORKSHOP FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Part of: Design Theory and Research Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Üreten ,
M. Eisenmann ,
T. Nelius ,
E. Garrelts ,
D. Krause  and
S. Matthiesen
S. Üreten*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
M. Eisenmann
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
T. Nelius
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
E. Garrelts
Affiliation:
University of Stuttgart, Germany
D. Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
S. Matthiesen
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
*
*[email protected]

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.

The requirements on validity for studies in design research are very high. Therefore, this paper aims at identifying challenges that occur when setting up studies and suggests solution strategies to address them. Three different institutes combining their experience discussed several studies in a workshop. Resulting main challenges are to find a suitable task, to operationalise the variables and to deal with a high analysis effort per participant. Automation in data evaluation and a detailed practical guideline on studies in design research are considered necessary.

Keywords

research methodologies and methodsdesign methodsengineering designempirical study designconcept map
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 61 - 70
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Birkhofer, H. et al. (2002), “Why Methods Don't Work and How to Get them to Work”, Engineering design in integrated product development: Design methods that work; Proceedings of the 3rd international seminar and workshop held in University of Zielona Góra, 10th-12th October 2002, Zielona Góra, Poland, R. Rohatyński, Zielona Góra, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer London, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Stanković, T. and Štorga, M. (2016), “An introduction to experimental design research”, In: Cash, P., Stanković, T., Štorga, M. (Eds.), Experimental Design Research, Springer, Cham, pp. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33781-4_1Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2011), “The use of methods by advanced beginner and expert industrial designers in non-routine situations: a quasi-experiment”, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 15 No. 1/2/3, pp. 54 -70. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2011.043661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinar, M. et al. (2015), “Empirical studies of Designer Thinking: Past, Present, and Future”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 21101.1–21101.13. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilmus, S. et al. (2012), “Evaluating a methodical approach for developing modular product families in industrial case studies”, DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 837–846.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, DS 87-7 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, 21-25 August 2017, Vancouver, Canada, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
Jänsch, J. (2007), Akzeptanz und Anwendung von Konstruktionsmethoden im industriellen Einsatz: Analyse und Empfehlungen aus kognitionswissenschaftlicher Sicht [PhD Thesis], Produktentwicklung und Maschinenelemente, Technical University of Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Marxen, L. and Albers, A. (2012), “Supporting Validation in the Development of Design Methods”, DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 1009–1018.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S. and Nelius, T. (2018a), “Eye tracking study on successful micro-strategies by design engineers for the synthesis-driven analysis of technical systems”, Proceedings of TMCE 2018, 7-11 May, 2018, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, University of Technology, Delft, pp. 295–304.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S. and Nelius, T. (2018b), “Managing Assumptions during Analysis-Study on successful Approaches of Design Engineers”, DS 91: Proceedings of NordDesign 2018, 14-17 August 2018, Linköping, Sweden, The Design Society, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Nelius, T. and Matthiesen, S. (2019), “Experimental Evaluation of a Debiasing Method for Analysis in Engineering Design”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Cambridge University Press, pp. 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, A., Elena, M.-V. and Summers, J. (2019), “A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Design Prompts in Supporting Experimental Design Research”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Cambridge University Press, pp. 2755–2764. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, K. (1994), Konstruieren mit Konstruktionskatalogen, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17467-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckpaul, A., Kriltz, A. and Matthiesen, S. (2014), “Using Eye Tracking to Understand the Engineering Designers’ Behaviour in Synthesis Driven Analyzing Processes - Experiences in Study Design”, Analyzing Cognitive Processes During Design: Proceedings of the HBiD 2014, ETH Zurich, Product Development Group, Zurich.Google Scholar
Üreten, S. et al. (2017), “Continuing Education and Personalization of Design Methods to Improve their Acceptance in Practice – An Explorative Study”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 60, pp. 524–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.01.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üreten, S. et al. (2019), “A Concept Map for Design Method Experiments in Product Development - A Guideline for Method Developers”, DS 98: Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X (DFX 2019), 18-19 September 2019, Jesteburg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.35199/dfx2019.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üreten, S. and Krause, D. (2017), “Discursive vs. intuitive - An experimental study to facilitate the use of design catalogues”, DS 87-7 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, 21-25 August 2017, Vancouver, Canada, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 99–108.Google Scholar
Wallace, K. (2011), “Transferring Design Methods into Practice”, In: Birkhofer, H. (Ed.), The Future of Design Methodology, Springer, London, pp. 239–248.10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar