Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:00:32.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MAPPING AND ENHANCING DESIGN STUDIES WITH PSI META-THEORETIC DESIGN FRAMEWORK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Yoram Reich  and
Eswaran Subrahmanian
Yoram Reich*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Eswaran Subrahmanian
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Reich, Yoram, Tel Aviv University, School of Mechanical Engineering, Israel, [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.

Design research as a field has been studied from diverse perspectives starting from product inception to their disposal. The product of these studies includes knowledge, tools, methods, processes, frameworks, approaches, and theories. The contexts of these studies are innumerable. The unit of these studies varies from individuals to organizations, using a variety of theoretical tools and methods that have fragmented the field, making it difficult to understand the map of this corpus of knowledge across this diversity.

In this paper, we propose a model-based approach that on the one hand, does not delve into the details of the design object itself, but on the other hand, unifies the description of design problem at another abstraction level. The use of this abstract framework allows for describing and comparing underlying models of published design studies using the same language to place them in the right context in which design takes place and to enable to inter-relate them, to understand the wholes and the parts of design studies.

Patterns of successful studies could be generated and used by researchers to improve the design of new studies, understand the outcome of existing studies, and plan follow-up studies.

Keywords

Research methodologies and methodsDesign theoryCase study
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2007 - 2016
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Badke-Schaub, P., & Frankenberger, E., 1999. Analysis of design projects. Design Studies, 20(5), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J., 2009. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology, 9(1), 59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bekius, F., & Meijer, S., 2018. The redesign process of the timetable for the Dutch railway sector: a theoretical approach. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 8(4), 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekius, F., & Meijer, S., 2019. The redesign process of the timetable for the Dutch railway sector: a theoretical approach. Presented at the workshop on Design Theory, Design Society Special interest group in Design Theory, Jan 28–29, Paris, 2019.Google Scholar
Breiner, S., Jones, A. & Subrahmanian, E., 2019. Categorical models for process planning. Computers in Industry, 112, 103124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breiner, S., Subrahmanian, E. & Jones, A., 2018. Categorical foundations for system engineering. In Disciplinary convergence in systems engineering research (pp. 449–463). Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, E., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2014). Steepest-first exploration with learning-based path evaluation: uncovering the design strategy of parameter analysis with C–K theory. Research in Engineering Design, 25(4), 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Roy, U., & Saltz, J. S. (2019). Towards an integrated process model for new product development with data-driven features (NPD 3). Research in Engineering Design, 1–19.Google Scholar
Lundmark, S., 2018. Design project failures: Outcomes and gains of participation in design. Design Studies, 59, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolin, V. (2010). Doctoral education in design: problems and prospects. Design Issues, 26(3), 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C. A. (2012). Reflections on diversity in design research. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(8), 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersson, A. M., & Lundberg, J. (2018). Developing an ideation method to be used in cross-functional inter-organizational teams by means of action design research. Research in Engineering Design, 29(3), 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y. (2017). The principle of reflexive practice. Design Science, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y., Hatchuel, A., Shai, O., & Subrahmanian, E. (2012). A theoretical analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting and improving ASIT within C–K theory. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y., & Subrahmanian, E. (2019, July). The PSI network model for studying diverse complex design scenarios. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1283–1292). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reich, Y., & Subrahmanian, E. (2020). The PSI Framework and Theory of Design. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, L. (2008). An evolving map of design practice and design research. interactions, 15(6), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shai, O., Reich, Y., Hatchuel, A., & Subrahmanian, E. (2013). Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C–K theory. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaked, A., & Reich, Y. (2020). Improving Process Descriptions in Research by Model-Based Analysis. IEEE Systems Journal.Google Scholar
Sitton, M., & Reich, Y. (2019). ESE framework verification by MBSE. IEEE Systems Journal, 13(3), 2108–2117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivak, D., 2017. Categories as mathematical models. Categories for the Working Philosopher, 381–401.Google Scholar
Schønheyder, J. F., & Nordby, K., 2018. The use and evolution of design methods in professional design practice. Design Studies, 58, 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnenwald, D. H. (1995). Contested collaboration: A descriptive model of intergroup communication in information system design. Information Processing & Management, 31(6), 859–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanian, E., Lee, C. and Granger, H. (2015). Managing and supporting product life cycle through engineering change management for a complex product. Research in Engineering Design, 26(3), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar