Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:55:21.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Design: Effects of a Morphological Approach for Different Students and Professionals

Part of: Collaborative Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Wim Zeiler

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.

In connection with a design research project for professional in the Dutch building industry, an educational project was developed, the multidisciplinary master project Integral Design, to prepare our Master students better for their professional life. The concept of an earlier developed integral design workshop for professionals was implemented within the start-up workshop of our masters’ project integral design. The frame work of the approach is described as well as the positive effects on the collaboration between the design team members from different disciplines as result of the morphological approach of the Integral Design method. This method was also applied during workshops in different courses about design methodology As basically the same set-up for the workshop was used this allowed us to compare the results of the different students and analyse them. During the different workshop series the effects on the outcome of the conceptual phase of the design process has been investigated. The results of this analysis are presented in the paper and showed some remarkable similarities as well as some differences among the different student groups.

Keywords

Collaborative designCommunicationDesign methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 179 - 188
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) 2019

References

Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M. and Blessing, L.T.M. (2003), “understand the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
de Bont, K., Zeiler, W. and van der Velden, J. (2016), “Integral Design method to support nZEB design: a real project experiment,” Proceedings Clima 2016, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
Björklund, T.A. (2013), “initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices,” Design Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 135–160.Google Scholar
CIBSE (2016), “RIBA president wants ‘frank debate’ on supply chain conflict, CIBSE Journal January 2016.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2013), “The design thinking approaches of three different groups of designers based on self reports,” Design Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 454–471.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, T., Kuittinen, M., Ruuska, A. and Jung, N. (2015), “Reducing embodied carbon during the design process of buildings,” Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Ho, C-H (2001), “Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: difference between novices and experts,” Design Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S. (2018), “Shaping products: Difference between expert and novice industrial designers,” Proceedings Design 2018,Google Scholar
Kanters, J., Horvat, M. and Dubois, M. (2014), “Tools and methods used by architects for solar design,” Energy Buildings, Vol. 68 No. part C, pp. 721–731.Google Scholar
Karlessi, T., Kampelis, N., Kolokotsa, D., Santamouris, M., Standardi, L., Isidori, D. and Cristalli, C. (2016), “The concept of smart and nZEB buildings and the integrated design approach, Proceedings International High-Performance Built Environment – A Sustainable Built Environment,” Procedia Engineering, Vol. 180, pp. 1316–1325.Google Scholar
Kiernan, L., Ledwith, A. and Lynch, R. (2017), “How design education can support collaboration in teams,” Proceedings E&PDE, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Kiernan, L., Ledwith, A. and Lynch, R. (2019), “Comparing the dialogue of experts and novices in interdisciplinary teams to inform design education, international Journal of Technology and Design Education, published online January 23th 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-089495-8Google Scholar
Kok, B.N.E., Slegers, K. and Vink, P. (2016), “Are seat design processes of students similar to those of professionals?,” Work, Vol. 54, pp. 1001–1007.Google Scholar
Kovacic, I. and Filzmoser, M. (2014), “Designing and Evaluation Procedures for Interdisciplinary BIM Use – An Explorative Study, Engineering Project Organization Conference Devil's Thumb Ranch, July 29–31, Colorado, US.Google Scholar
Kovacic, I., Filzmoser, M. and Denk, F. (2014), “interdisciplinary Design: Influence of Team Structure on project Success, proceedings 27th IPMA World Conress,” Procedia – Social and behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 549–556.Google Scholar
Knotten, V., Svalestuen, F., Hansen, G.K. and Laedre, O. (2015), “Design management in the building process – A review of current literature,” Proceedings 8th Nordic conference on Construction Economics and Organization, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 21, pp. 120–127.Google Scholar
Linden, V., van der Dong, H. and Heylighen, A. (2016), “Capturing architect's designerly ways of knowing about users: Exploring an ethnographic approach, Proceedings DS 2016, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Mosely, G., Wright, N. and Wrigley, C. (2018), “Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 27, pp. 177–189.Google Scholar
Quanjel, E.M.C.J. (2013), “Collaborative Design support, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Savanović, P. (2009), “Integral design method in the context of sustainable building design, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Seidel, V.P. and Fixson, S.K. (2013), “Adopting Design Thinking in Novice Multidisciplinary Teams: The Application and Limits of Design Methods and Reflexive Practices,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 19–33.Google Scholar
Self, J.A. and Back, J.S. (2017), “Interdisciplinarity in design education: understanding the undergraduate student experience,” International Journal Technology Design Education, Vol. 27, pp. 459–480.Google Scholar
Shroyer, K., Lovins, T., Turns, J., Cardella, M.E. and Atman, C.J. (2018), “Timescales and ideaspace: An examination of idea generation in design practice,” Design Studies, Vol. 57, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
Sola, E., Hoekstra, R., Fiore, S. and McCauley, P. (2017), “An investigation of the State of creativity and Critical Thinking in Engineering Undergraduates,” Creative Education, Vol. 8, pp. 1495–1522.Google Scholar
Zeiler, W. (2015), “Integral design: the new roles for architect and engineers for developing nearly zero energy buildings,” Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar
Zeiler, W. (2017), “Design Handbook, A methodical framework, Noordhoff Uitgevers, Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar