Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:35:17.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of structuredness of problems in design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Sanjay Singh  and
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Sanjay Singh*
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
*
[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.

Design problems are wicked in nature. Wicked problems are difficult to understand, formulate and solve. The literature focuses mainly on the characteristics of wicked problems, very little is available to how wicked problems (synonymous to ill-structured) should be formulated to make them well structured. Assessment of wickedness can help designers formulate problems into well-structured. This work proposes a metric for (lack of) structuredness as a measure for the degree to which a design problem is ill-structured. A Delphi-based method as benchmark for validating the metric is also proposed.

Keywords

design processproblem solvingwickednessill-structuredstructuredness
Type
Human Behaviour and Design Creativity
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 1085 - 1094
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), 2024.

References

Guy Peters, B. (2018). "Policy Problems and Policy Design", New Horizons in Public Policy series. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786431356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). "Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation", Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L., and Chakrabarti, A., (2009), DRM, A Design Research Methodology, Springer, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2010). Managing the Brief for Better Design. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogers, T., Van Meel, J. J., & Van Der Voordt, T. J. m. (2008). "Architects about briefing: Recommendations to improve communication between clients and architects", Facilities, 26(3–4), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770810849454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, R. (1992). "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking", The MIT Press, Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchman, C. W. (1967). "Wicked problems", Management Science, 14(4), B141–B142. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1982). "Designerly ways of knowing", Design Studies, 3(4), 221– 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, Kees. (2003), "Exploring the Structure of Design Problems", International Conference on Engineering Design ICED' 03 Stockholm, August 19-21, 2003.Google Scholar
Dorst, Kees. (2011). “The core of design thinking and its application.” Design Studies 32(6): 521-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. L., Little, P., Orwin, E. J., & Spjut, E. (2009). Engineering design: A project-based introduction. John Wiley and sonsGoogle Scholar
Eder, W.E. (2008) "Theory of Technical Systems and Engineering Design Science – Legacy of Vladimir Hubka". Proceedings of the DESIGN 2008, the 10th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 21-24, 2008, pp 19-30.Google Scholar
Farrell, R., and Hooker, C. (2013), "Design, science and wicked problems", Australia Design Studies Vol 34 No. 6, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2305, November 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, Kaoru (1976). "Guide to Quality Control". Asian Productivity Organization.Google Scholar
Kees, Dorst, (2001). "Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution", Design Studies Vol 22 No. 5 September 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6Google Scholar
Koronis, G., Chia, P. Z., Siang, J. K. K., Silva, A., Yogiaman, C., et al. (2019). "An Empirical Study on the Impact of Design Brief Information on the Creativity of Design Outcomes with Consideration of Gender and Gender Diversity", Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 141(7), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4043207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinec, T., Škec, S., Perišić, M. M., Štorga, M. (2020). "Revisiting Problem-Solution Co-Evolution in the Context of Team Conceptual Design Activity", Applied Sciences, 10(18), 6303, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nidamarthi, S., Chakrabarti, A., and Bligh, T.P. (1997) "The Significance of Co-evolving Requirements and Solutions in the Design Process", Proceedings of International Conference in Engineering Design, Tampere, Vol 1, pp-227-230, 1997.Google Scholar
Chitu, Okoli, Suzanne D, Pawlowski, (2004). "The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications", Information & Management 42(1):15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering design: A systematic approach, Springer-Verlag, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Masson, Pascal, Weil, Benoit, Hatchuel, Armand. (2017), Design Theory- Methods and Organization for Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50277-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). "Briefing and reframing: A situated practice", Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, Horst W. J., and Webber, Melvis M.. (1984). ”Planning problems are wicked problems.” In development in Design Methodology, edited by Cross, Nigel, 135-44, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rittel, Horst, and Webber, Melvin (1973) “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 155-159. Also Reprint No. 86, The Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, California. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995) Product Design: Fundamental and Methods. 2 Edition, John Wiley& Sons Ltd., Chichester.Google Scholar
Addanki, S., Cremonini, R. & Penberthy, J.S. (1989), “Reasoning about Assumptions in Graphs of Models”, Proc. Int. Jnt. Conf. on AI, IJCAI-89, pp. 1432-1438.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A., (2011). "Assessing Design Creativity: Measures of Novelty, Usefulness and Design Creativity", Design Studies Journal (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002Google Scholar
Schroda, Finke (2000), The end is decided at the beginning, to analyze the requirements of construction orders; [PhD Thesis], TU Berlin.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973). "The structure of ill-structured problems", Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2003). Product design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Volkema, R. J. (1983). "Problem Formulation in Planning and Design", Management Science, 29(6), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.6.639CrossRefGoogle Scholar