See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/314207036
Design methods
Working Paper · June 2016
CITATIONS READS
0 29
1 author:
Hajo Schilperoort
Eindhoven University of Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
FlexBuilding-AdaptaBuilding View project
Transition management View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hajo Schilperoort on 03 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Design methods 1/4
Design methods
ir. Hajo Schilperoort
[Link]@[Link]
1.1 Linear design process
Van Aken and Andriessen (2011) – amongst many others - describe the subsequent steps and stages of the "classic"
linear design process: first a need is observed and validated; then the problem is analyzed; then the design requirements
are defined; design studies and sketches are made; a conceptual design is made; and the design is detailed and justified.
This finally results in a conclusive design. The authors clarify that this process is not always actually run through
sequentially, since that is often impossible and almost always inefficient. The sequential direction is valid, but in
between there are iterations (i.e. going back into the process, because new insights have shown there is more work to do
there before one can proceed) and explorations (i.e. moving ahead in the process to explore what is needed there).
Need Problem Design Design studies Conceptual Design details
recognition analysis requirements and sketches design and
and validation specification justification
Table 1: Linear design process as described by a.o. Van Aken and Andriessen (2011)
1.2 Cyclical-iterative design process
Figure 1: Cyclical-iterative product development from model to mockup to prototype to product (Eekhout 1997, Smit 2008).
Eekhout (1997) describes a cyclical-iterative design development process that can be used for tasks that cannot rely on
©2016 Hajo Schilperoort
Design methods 2/4
routine, because a clear idea of what will be found down the road is lacking. The approach applies to new, extensive,
complex and experimental projects, where transparency is limited at the start. The iterative method offers the flexibility
to change even the approach and the principles, if the evaluation of a previous step shows flaws at that level. The design
is developed through a process of guided trial and error, with a prominent role for monitoring, evaluation and
reconsideration (Eekhout 1997, Smit 2008).
1.3 Problem-solution matrices
Complex and multi-disciplinary design problems can benefit from first making a General Morphological Analysis
(GMA). Ritchey (1998) defines morphology as “the study of form or pattern, i.e. the shape and arrangement of parts of
an object, and how they con-form to create a whole”. In case of a design problem, the analysis is about systematically
breaking down the problem into sub-problems and finding (sub-)solutions for them. GMA is “a method for investigating
the totality of relationships contained in multidimensional non-quantifiable problem complexes” (Ritchey 1998). In a.o.
the construction industry, this method can be employed to arrive at a broadly informed design concept, as an alternative
for too hastily launching a narrowly informed design concept (e.g. architectural idea only), that may not be the best one
to go ahead with, since other requirements have not been investigated and considered at its birth (Savanovic 2009).
The first step of the analysis is to break down the top-level problem into sub-problems. This can be repeated several
times to reach more elementary levels. They go below each other in the left column of a morphological matrix. The
problems may be ranked and prioritized. The next step is to make an inventory of all thinkable sub-solutions for these
sub-problems, using either readily available solution knowledge a/o new creative thinking. These go in the rows behind
the sub-problems. They can be by effectiveness and efficiency. At this point a cross-consistency assessment (CCA) can
be performed, ruling out pairs that are practically incompatible. This gives the Solution Space. The final step then is to
look for meaningful and powerful combinations of sub-solutions. After synthesis/integration they give birth to a first
broadly-informed, integral conceptual solution (Zwicky 1966, Savanovic 2009, Ritchey 2011).
Figure 2: Morphological matrix with a (nested) break down of problems (left column) and solutions (rows).
Combinations of sub-solutions lead to are RE-combination in knowledge space (K-space), or an integral IDea
in concept space (C-space) (REF XXXX). Transformed ideas can also be input in the matrix (Zwicky 1966,
Savanovic 2009, Ritchey 2011).
©2016 Hajo Schilperoort
Design methods 3/4
1.4 Problem-solution networks
Fioreneschi (2016) sees two problems in Functional Decomposition and Morphology (FDM) approaches (e.g. General
Morphological Analysis). He argues first of all that the functional structure of a problem depends on the solutions that
are considered, and the other way around. This creates a mix of results at different levels and answering to different
structures. Second, he argues that FDM approaches limit creativity, because the designer(s) must make assumptions
regarding some system features, even before acquiring all necessary information. General Morphological Analysis for
one, may try to oversee too much at once from the start.
Fioreneschi (2016) therefor proposes to use Problem-Solution Networks. PSN organizes three types of design searches:
solution generation, problem understanding and solution evaluation. It explores various lines of thinking in parallel, in
which problems and solutions alternate and follow each other. The complexity is reduced because there is a preferred
order determined in which sub-problems or groups of rules are to be addressed (Medland 2010).
Figure 3: The Problem-Solution Network (PSN). Pb = problem. PS = problem solution. Design problems are formulated as "How to
[verb]-[noun]?" type of questions. (Fiorineschi 2016)
©2016 Hajo Schilperoort
Design methods 4/4
References
• Eekhout, M. (1997). POPO. Of ontwerpmethoden voor bouwproducten en bouwcomponenten.
• Fiorineschi, L. et al. (2016). A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional
decomposition and morphology.
• Medland, A.J. et al. (2010). A decomposition strategy for conceptual design.
• Ritchey, T. (1998). General morphological analysis. A general method for non-quantified modelling.
• Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked Problems - Social Messes: Decision support Modelling with Morphological
Analysis.
• Savanovic, P. (2009). Integral design method in the context of sustainable building design. Closing the gap
between design theory and practice.
• Smit, M. (2008), Naar een cyclisch iteratief ontwerpproces en ontweropomgeving.
• Van Aken, J.E. & Andriessen, D. (ed.) (2011). Handboek ontwerpgericht wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
• Zwicky, F. (1966). Entdecken, erfinden, forschen im morfologischen Weltbild.
Further reading:
• Heller, J. E., A. Schmid, M. Löwer, and J. Feldhusen (2014). The Dilemma of Morphological Analysis in
Product Concept Synthesis – New Approaches for Industry and Academia.
©2016 Hajo Schilperoort
View publication stats