Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:58:25.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reframing the Design Process: Integrating Goals, Methods and Manifestation into the Co-Evolution Model

Part of: Design Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Rosa Storm ,
Jeffrey van Maanen  and
Milene Gonçalves

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 their early years of education, design students may experience difficulties in reframing design problems. Since reframing is linked to creativity, this may be problematic. While there are some models available to describe the reframing process, it is yet unclear how they are supporting design students. This study concerned the development and test of a framing model based on co-evolution transitions, through a two-part study: interviews with expert designers and workshops followed by group interviews with novices. The resulting model offers a way of thinking and a way of working, based on the fluidity of the design process. This study yielded two major insights. Firstly, students tend to perceive the problem space to be fixed once they defined it, even if they discovered disparate information along the way. Secondly, the developed model provides students with guidance and confidence in dealing with complex problems. Our results have a considerable impact on design education, as it is important to reinforce to design students that both the problem and solution understanding are fluid, and this model provides initial steps to help designers structuring their process.

Keywords

Design methodologyDesign educationCreativityCo-EvolutionHuman behaviour in design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 359 - 368
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

Akin, Ö. and Akin, C. (1996), “Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyperacclamation (A-h-a-!)”, Design Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 341–361.Google Scholar
Almendra, R. and Christiaans, H. (2011), “Design students’ perception of their own design process”. 4th World congress on design research, Proceedings of the IASDR 2011, Delft, 2011, Roozenburg, N., Chen, L. L. and Stappers, P. J. (Eds.), Delft.Google Scholar
Benammar, K. (2012), Reframing: The art of thinking differently. Boom uitgevers Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Birks, M. and Mills, J. (2015), Essentials of grounded theory. Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed., pp 1–15). SAGE, London.Google Scholar
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2001), Focus groups in social research. SAGE, London.Google Scholar
Cash, P. and Gonçalves, M. (2017), “Information-triggered Co-evolution: A Combined Process Perspective”. In Christensen, B. T., Ball, L. J. and Halskov, K. (Eds.), Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation (pp. 501–520). CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Christiaans, H. (1992), “Creativity in design”. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1997), “Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example”, Design Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 427–455.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004), “Expertise in design: an overview”. Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. (427–441).Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J. J. (2014), “Method Usage in Design: How methods function as mental tools for designers.” PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dix, A. and Gongora, L. (2011), “Externalisation and Design”, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, New York, NY, USA: ACM, (pp. 31–42).Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”. Design studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”. Design studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1997), “Capturing indeterminism: representation in the design problem space”. Design Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 441–455.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2014), “What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation”. Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006), “How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability”. Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 24.Google Scholar
Hey, J. H., Joyce, C. K. and Beckman, S. L. (2007), “Framing innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases”. Journal of Design Research, Vol. 6 No. 1-2, pp. 79–99.Google Scholar
Kim, J. and Ryu, H. (2014), “A Design Thinking Rationality Framework: Framing and Solving Design Problems in Early Concept Generation”, Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 29 No. 5-6, pp. 516–553.Google Scholar
Maher, M. L. and Poon, J. (1996), “Modeling design exploration as co-evolution”. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2002), “Qualitative interviewing”. Qualitative research & evaluation 54 methods (3rd ed., pp. 339–418). SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Oehlberg, L., Lau, K. and Agogino, A. (2009), “Tangible interactions in a digital age: Medium and graphic visualization in design journals”. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 23, pp. 237–249.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2009), The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE, London.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2012a). First cycle coding methods. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed., pp. 58–186). SAGE, London.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2012b). Second cycle coding methods. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed., pp. 207–245). SAGE, London.Google Scholar
Saunders, M.N. (2007), Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1983), The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1988), “Designing: Rules, types and worlds”. Design Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 181–190.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. and Bergin, R. (2006), “Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews”. Qualitative market research: An international Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 26–37.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F. and Henze, L. (2016), “Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams”. Design Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1960), “A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences”, Synthèse, Vol. 12, 287–301.Google Scholar
Van Boeijen, A., Daalhuizen, J., Zijlstra, J. and Van der Schoor, R. (2013), The Delft Design Guide. BIS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Widdows, R., Hensler, T. A. and Wyncott, M. H. (1991), The focus group interview: a method for assessing users’ evaluation of library service.Google Scholar
Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T. and Ball, L. J. (2013), “Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design”. Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 515–542.Google Scholar