Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T18:31:49.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PhD Research Learning in Product Architecture Design

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Olga Sankowski ,
Kevin Otto ,
Seung Ki Moon  and
Dieter Krause
Olga Sankowski*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology;
Kevin Otto
Affiliation:
Aalto University;
Seung Ki Moon
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University
Dieter Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology;
*
Contact: Sankowski, Olga, Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design, 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 field of design research has been expanding into a wide diverse range of multidisciplinary topics. It takes substantial time for young researchers to attain a cumulative overview of state of the art on ever more complex methodologies. Teaching doctoral candidates in summer schools is an approach being taken by the design society to support them attaining an immersed understanding of a chosen research field as well as to help them formulate their own line of research. The aim for a new researcher is to form exchanges and collaborations with other researchers. The 'International Summer School on Product Architecture Design - PAD 2018' was such an effort, where 17 international PhD researchers and three international faculties met for a week and explored research in product architecture through hands-on exercises. We surveyed the researchers for effectiveness of the summer school and found that structure and concept of the summer school was effective for providing a background baseline of state of the art. We found there was a significant but less impact on individual participant´s research. We have yet to understand if the creation of collaborations among participants will occur.

Keywords

PhD summer schoolProduct architectureDesign learningDesign methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 549 - 558
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

Altbach, P.G. (2004), “The United States: present realities and future trends”, In: Sadlak, J. (Ed.), Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and prospects, UNESCO, Bucharest, pp. 259–277.Google Scholar
Blessing, L. and Andreasen, M.M. (2005), “Teaching engineering design research”, Engineering Design. Theory and practice: A symposium in honour of Ken Wallace, Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge, pp. 32–41.Google Scholar
Carron, L. (2013), “The changing PhD: How can higher education institutions prepare science PhDs for alternate careers”, In Progress. http://inprogressjournal.net/archives/current-issue-2/the-changing-phd-how-can-higher-education-institutions-prepare-science-phds-for-alternate-careers/Google Scholar
Eppinger, S. D. and Browning, T. R. (2012), Design structure matrix methods and applications, MIT press, London, England.10.7551/mitpress/8896.001.0001Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, Vancouver, Canada, August 21-25, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
Hackl, J. and Krause, D. (2017), “Towards an Impact Model of modular Product Structures“, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), August 21-25, 2017, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
Hähnel, S. and Schmiedel, S. (2016), Promovierende in Deutschland, Destatis. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/BildungForschungKultur/Hochschulen/Promovierende.html (13.12.2018).Google Scholar
Hanna, M., Schwede, L.-N. and Krause, D. (2018), “Model-based consistency for design for variety and modularization”, 20th International DSM Conference (DSM 2018), Trieste, Italy, pp. 239–248.Google Scholar
Hölttä-Otto, K., Niutanen, V., Eppinger, S., Browning, T. R., Stowe, H. M., Lampinen, R. and Rahardjo, A. (2018), “Design sprint for complex system architecture analysis”. Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC2018), August 26-29, 2018, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
Hüfner, K. (2004), “Germany”, In: Sadlak, J. (Ed.), Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and prospects, UNESCO, Bucharest, pp. 51–61.Google Scholar
Kehm, B.M. (2004), “Developing Doctoral Degrees and Qualifications in Europe: Good Practice and Issues of Concern –A Comparative Analysis”, In: Sadlak, J. (Ed.), Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and prospects, UNESCO, Bucharest, pp. 279–298.Google Scholar
Kehm, B.M. (2005), “Forces and forms of change: Doctoral education in Germany within the European framework”, International conference on “Forces and Forms of Change in Doctoral Education Internationally” organised by CIRGE, University of Washington, August (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Keitsch, M. M. (2012), “The nordcode network: a scandinavian approach to doctoral education in design”, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering & Product Design Education (E&PDE12) Design Education for Future Wellbeing, Antwerp, Belguim, September 6-9, pp. 705–710.Google Scholar
Kim, S. and Moon, S.K. (2017), “Sustainable platform identification for product family desig”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 567–581. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.073.Google Scholar
Krause, D., Beckmann, G., Eilmus, S., Gebhardt, N. and Jonas, H. (2014), “Integrated development of modular product families: a methods toolkit”, In: Simpson, T.W., Jiao, J.R., Siddique, Z. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (Ed.), Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6.Google Scholar
Margolin, V. (2010), “Doctoral education in design: problems and prospects”, Design Issues, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00031.Google Scholar
Üreten, S. and Krause, D. (2017), “Discursive vs. intuitive - An experimental study to facilitate the use of design catalogues”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 9: Design Education, Vancouver, Canada, August 21–25, pp. 99–108.Google Scholar
van de Schoot, R., Yerkes, M. A., Mouw, J. M. and Sonneveld, H. (2013), “What took them so long? Explaining PhD delays among doctoral candidates”, PloS one, Vol. 8 No. 7, p. e68839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068839.Google Scholar
Vanderford, N.L. (2012), “Broadening PhD Curricula”, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 113–114. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2091Google Scholar
Wankat, P.C. and Oreovicz, F.S., (2015), Teaching engineering, Purdue University Press.Google Scholar