Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:19:47.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching and Learning Design Methods: Facing the Related Issues with TRIZ

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Lorenzo Fiorineschi ,
Francesco Saverio Frillici  and
Federico Rotini

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 methods are claimed to support designers but, although they are largely taught in academia, their industrial uptake is still lacking. Many reasons have been identified about this flaw and some potential suggestions have been proposed and discussed in literature to overcome the problem. However, a further evidence is that although many students learn such methods from years, they partially or totally abandon the learned methods in their professional careers. This could partially explain the gap between academic and industrial diffusion of design methods. Literature provides suggestions for improving the learning experience of students but different didactical contexts may need more tailored solutions. The work shown in this paper exploits the problem solving potentialities of the TRIZ toolset to provide hints for improving a course focused on teaching a systematic conceptual design method. A set of suggestions has been obtained together some guidelines for applying the considered TRIZ tools to other didactical contexts.

Keywords

CreativityDesign educationDesign learningDesign methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 589 - 598
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

“40 Inventive Principles”. (2018), The TRIZ Journal, available at: https://triz-journal.com/40-inventive-principles-examples/ (accessed 10 October 2018).Google Scholar
Altshuller, G.S. (1984), Creativity as an Exact Science., Gordon and Breach Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Atman, C.J. and Bursic, K.M. (1996), “Teaching engineering design: Can reading a textbook make a difference?”, Research in Engineering Design - Theory, Applications, and Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 240–250.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Voute, E. (2018), “Design Methodology : Where Do You Go?”, International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar
Barak, M. (2013), “Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 316–333.Google Scholar
Becattini, N., Cascini, G. and Rotini, F. (2011), “Correlations between the evolution of contradictions and the law of identity increase”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 9, pp. 236–250.Google Scholar
Bell, S. (2010), “Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future”, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar
Björklund, T.A. (2013), “Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 135–160.Google Scholar
Van Boeijen, A., Daalhuizen, J., Van der Schoor, R. and Zijlstra, J. (2014), Delft Design Guide: Design Strategies and Methods, BIS Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cardella, M. (2007), “Engineering Design Processes : A Comparison of Engineering Design Processes : A Comparison of Students”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 359–379.Google Scholar
Cascini, G., Graziosi, S., Montagna, F. and Rotini, F. (2017), “On the Factors Affecting Design Education Within a Multi-Disciplinary Class”, Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D. and Leifer, L.J. (2005), “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Eder, W.E. (1998), “Design Modeling-A Design Science Approach (and Why Does Industry Not Use It?)”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 355–371.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L. (2018), “Abstraction framework to support students in learning creative conceptual design”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 616–636.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Frillici, F.S. and Rotini, F. (2018), “Enhancing functional decomposition and morphology with TRIZ: Literature review”, Computers in Industry, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 94 No. January, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Rotini, F. and Rissone, P. (2016), “A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional decomposition and morphology”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 438–468.Google Scholar
Frillici, F.S.F.S., Fiorineschi, L. and Cascini, G. (2015), “Linking TRIZ to conceptual design engineering approaches”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 131, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.421.Google Scholar
Frost, R.B. (1999), “Why Does Industry Ignore Design Science?”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301–304.Google Scholar
Gadd, K. (2011), TRIZ for Engineers: Enabling Inventive Problem Solving, John Wiley and sons, Inc, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470684320.Google Scholar
Geis, C., Bierhals, R., Schuster, I., Badke-Schaub, P. and Birkhofer, H. (2008), “Methods in Practice – a Study on Requirements for Development and Transfer of Design Methods”, DESIGN 2008 - 10th International Design Conference, pp. 369–376.Google Scholar
Gudur, R. (2016), “Challenges in teaching design thinking skills to novice design students”, International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
Guertler, M.R. (2018), “How to Design Methods for Application - Empirical Insights from Industry”, International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 1161–1172.Google Scholar
Henderson, D., Jaboklow, K., Daly, S., McKilligan, S. and Silk, E. (2018), “Comparing the Effects of Design Interventions on the Quality of Design Concepts as a Reflection of Ideation Flexibility”, Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC2018, Quebec City.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S., Warell, A., Hiort, V., Motte, D. and Larsson, A. (2014), “Design Methods and Factors Influencing their Uptake in Product Development Companies: a Review”, International Design Conference - DESIGN 2014, pp. 231–240.Google Scholar
Khomenko, N., De Guio, R., Lelait, L. and Kaikov, I. (2007), “A Framework for OTSM-TRIZ Based Computer Support to be used in Complex Problem Management”, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 30 No. 1/2, pp. 88–104.Google Scholar
Kirton, M.J. (1994), Adaptors and Innovators. Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Mantelet, F., Segonds, F. and Jean, C. (2018), “Additive creativity: An innovative way to enhance manufacturing engineering education”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1776–1784.Google Scholar
Northwood, M.D., Northwood, D.O. and Northwood, M.G. (2003), “Problem-Based Learning (Pbl): From the Health Sciences to Engineering to Value-Added in the Workplace”., Global J. of Engng. Educ., Vol. 7 No. 2.Google Scholar
Ozkan, O. and Dogan, F. (2013), “Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 161–192.Google Scholar
Pugh, S. (1991), Total Design. Integrated Methods for Succesfull Product Engineering, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Reiß, N.;, Albers, A.; and Bursac, N. (2017), “Approaches To Increasing Method Acceptance in Agile Product Development Processes”, Internation Conference on Engineering Design, ICED17, Vol. 4, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 435–444.Google Scholar
Salamatov, Y. (1999), TRIZ: The Right Solution at the Right Time: A Guide to Innovative Problem Solving, Insytec B.V.Google Scholar
Song, T. and Becker, K. (2014), “Expert Vs Novice Learner.Pdf”, International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), pp. 181–190.Google Scholar
Souchkov, V. (2007), “Breakthrough Thinking with TRIZ for Business and Management”, ICG T&C, available at: www.xtriz.com/TRIZforBusinessAndManagement.pdf.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T., Gu, P., Jin, Y., Lutters, D., Kind, C. and Kimura, F. (2009), “Design methodologies: Industrial and educational applications”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 543–565.Google Scholar
Wendrich, R. (2017), “Blow bits: Creative playgrounds, gamification and virtuosity with hybrid design tools and environments (hdte)”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 8 No. DS87-8, pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J. (2017), “Process models in design and development”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer London, No. July, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S. and Daly, S.R. (2016), “Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 45, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar