HAL Id: hal-01633021https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01633021

Submitted on 10 Nov 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Design theory: a foundation of a new paradigm fordesign science and engineering

Armand Hatchuel, Pascal Le Masson, Yoram Reich, Eswaran Subrahmanian

To cite this version:Armand Hatchuel, Pascal Le Masson, Yoram Reich, Eswaran Subrahmanian. Design theory: a foun-dation of a new paradigm for design science and engineering. Research in Engineering Design, SpringerVerlag, 2018, 29 (1), pp.5-21. �10.1007/s00163-017-0275-2�. �hal-01633021�

- 1 -

DESIGN THEORY: A FOUNDATION OF A NEW PARADIGM FOR DESIGN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

ArmandHatchuel(1),PascalLeMasson(1),YoramReich(3),EswaranSubrahmanian(2)(1)ChairofDesignTheoryandMethodsforinnovation,MINESParisTech–PSLResearchUniversity,CGS–i3UMRCNRS9217Correspondingauthor:pascal.le_masson@mines-paristech.fr-tel:+33140519221(2)CarnegieMellonUniversity(3)Tel-AvivUniversity,SchoolofMechanicalEngineeringPascalLeMassonandEswaranSubrahmanianarethetwoco-chairsoftheDesignTheorySIGoftheDesignSociety.ArmandHatchuelandYoramReicharethetwofoundingco-chairsoftheDesignTheorySIGoftheDesignSociety.

Abstract

Inrecentyears,theworksonDesignTheory(andparticularlytheworksoftheDesignTheorySIGoftheDesignSociety)havecontributedtoreconstructthescienceofdesign,comparableinitsstructure,foundationsandimpacttoDecisionTheory,OptimizationorGame Theory in their time. These works have reconstructed historical roots and theevolution of design theory, conceptualized the field at a high level of generality anduncovered theoretical foundations, in particular the logic of generativity, the “design-oriented”structuresofknowledge,andthelogicofdesignspaces.Theseresultsgivetheacademicfieldofengineeringdesignanecologyofscientificobjectsandmodels,whichallowsforexpandingthescopeofengineeringeducationanddesigncourses.TheyhavecontributedtoaparadigmshiftintheorganizationofR&Ddepartments,supportingthedevelopment of new methods and processes in innovation departments, and toestablishing new models for development projects. Emerging from the field ofengineering design, design theory development has now a growing impact in manydisciplines and academic communities. The research community may play significantroleinaddressingcontemporarychallengesifitbringstheinsightsandapplicabilityofDesignTheorytoopennewwaysofthinkinginthedevelopinganddevelopedworld.

Keywords:

Generativity,designtheory,decisiontheory,knowledgestructure,socialspaces

- 2 -

DESIGN THEORY: A FOUNDATION OF A NEW PARADIGM FOR DESIGN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

1 INTRODUCTION Thevalueofdesignistodaylargelyrecognizedespeciallyinitscurrentmanifestationofdesign thinking.Nevertheless therearerecurrentdebateson its logics, its foundationsand even its contemporary value as seen in professional forums such as LinkedIn.Dealingwithdesign is difficult due to its fragmentation intodifferentprofessions, theneedtoresist thedriftscreatedbyscientific fashions(LeMassonetal.2013),andtheneedtofitcontinuouslychangingenvironments.Therehasbeenarecognitionofthelackofunityandidentityofthefield–forinstance,Margolin(2010)(Margolin2010)statedthat research in design “remains equally cacophonous and without a set of sharedproblematics.”

“Asetofsharedproblematics”ispreciselywhatdesigntheory1asafieldofstudyaimstodefine, or more precisely, to design! As we see later, addressing any design issuerequires a groupof actorsoperating in aparticularmanner. Consequently, to addressthisneedorevendefineitbeforehand,theDesignSocietyestablishedaDesignTheory(DT)SpecialInterestGroup(SIG)almosttenyearsago.Sinceitsfounding,workonthissubject has accelerated, evolved and matured. This paper makes a synthesis of theprogressof thecollectiveendeavorofmembersof theDTSIG. It isnota reviewofallstudiesonthesubject;inthissense,itisnotcomprehensive.Asdesigntheoryisatthecoreofmanydesign fields– industrialdesign, engineeringdesign, architecturedesignandothers, theworkpresented, couldcontribute to themalso.Further,weshowhowdesigntheorycancontributetothefoundationsofdesignasanewparadigmfordesignscienceandengineering.

Tosetthecontextofthispaper,wefirstpresentthebriefhistoryoftheDTSIGandsomeofitsresults.TheDTSIGoftheDesignSocietyhaditsfirstmeetinginParisin2008witha littlemore than twentyparticipants fromseven institutions.Eightmeetings later, in2015, the DT SIG attractedmore than one hundred participants from 35 institutions.Currently, there aremore than300people connected to the SIG community. Since itsinception, the SIG operation has been led by a group of people deliberating at leastannuallyaboutitspastandfutureobjectivesandoperation.TheSIGhasbeenopenedtopeoplefromvariousdisciplinesandcommunitiesincludingnotmembersoftheDesignSocietyinordertoexpanditsdiversityandreachout.Thesepeoplehavebeeninvitedtoeasetheirentrancetothegroup.UnderstandingthecontextoftheSIGiscriticalfortworeasons.First,thecoreworkondesigntheoryinvolvesdesigningtheories;consequently,ifwedeveloptheoreticalunderstandingaboutdesign,weshoulduseitourselves.Itwillturnout tobe that the SIG startedandhasbeenevolved toprecisely support thekeyingredients underlying design thatwewill subsequently termontology of design (i.e.,

1Wedonotdefinewhatdesigntheoryasafieldofstudyisinthispaper,orwhatadesigntheoryis.Wealsodonotpreciselystatewhatitmeansfordesigntheorytofunctionasanewparadigmforscience.Weassumeintuitiveinterpretationsoftheseimportantconceptsandleavetherestforfutureelaboration,includingbyothermembersofthecommunity.Wealsodonotconductaphilosophicalanalysisofthe(im)possibilityorover-generalityofdesigntheoryaswebaseourpaperonsignificantbodyofworkthatdemonstratesthepossibilityandvalueofdesigntheory.

- 3 -

generativity, splitting condition, and social spaces); in this way, the SIG has beenpracticingwhatwe preach (Reich, 2017). Second, and related to the first, the contexttells readers which infrastructure is necessary to attempt a comprehensive study ofdesigntheoryincasetheywishtoengageinsuchwork.

Initsdeliberationsandpublications,theDTSIGhasfocusedondifferentdesigntheories,theirhistory,theirphilosophicalfoundations,theirformalmodelsandtheirimplicationsfor design research, for society and for industry. In particular, the DT SIG re-visitedclassicdesign theories (e.g.,Aristotle,Vitruvius,Germansystematicdesign,GDT,Suh’sAxiomaticdesign,andmodernistdesign)anddiscovereddesigntheoriesinotherfields(e.g.,rhetoric,settheory).Thesestudieshavealsoledtoanextensiveassessmentoftherelationships between theories. For example, the explorations have established thatwhendealingwithmathematics-basedtheories,therecenttheories,andparticularlyC-Ktheory, are integrative of past theories and could serve as a platform for thedevelopment of new theories. There have been efforts to propose new theories orextension of theories, such as C-K/Ma (C-K theory and matroids), C-K and categorytheory, newparameter analysis, infused design and others. The design of the SIG hasenabled collaborations outside the design community (e.g., collaborations withmanagement, philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, history, physics, andmathematics). Ineffect, theDTSIGhasgrownasasocialspace forexplorations inandsharingofeffortsindesigntheory.

Anydesignactivity, includingthatofdesigntheory, involvescreatingnewterminologyto discuss it. This terminology is required to create common vocabulary, cognitiveartifacts,tofacilitatecommunicationandsensemakingaboutthenewpropertiesofthenew design (Subrahmanian et al. 2013). Similarly, this paper makes use of newvocabulary (presented in italic) developed or elaborated at the SIG in its journey.Examples or simple definitions are offered in the text butmore detailed descriptionsappearinthereferencesliterature.

ThecreationandsustenanceoftheSIGhasbeenmadepossiblebytheconstantsupportof industrial companies by funding the chair of Design Theory and Methods forInnovation (Airbus, Dassault Systèmes, Ereie, Helvetia, Nutriset, RATP, Renault, ST-Microelectronics, SNCF, Thales, and Urgo). This support underlines that manycompanies – a spectrum of big corporate firms, small start-ups, or SMEs, in diverseindustrial sectors – mobility services, aeronautics, automotive industry, energymicroelectronics,healthcare,software–arekeenlyinterestedinthechangingidentityofobjects,2ofsystems,andofvalues inoursocietiesandour industries(LeMassonetal.2010b). These companies have expressed the need for a design theory, as a body ofknowledgeandprinciples,tobeabletoinventorganizations,methodsandprocessesforcontemporaryissuesininnovation(Hatchueletal.2015).Thisechoestheemergenceof‘design thinking’ as a slogan across engineering, sciences and management following2The identity of object is defined through the perception of people organizing theword intocategories of cognitive artifacts. Simplistically, it could be done by a set of properties orfunctionsthatpeoplecommonlyassociatewiththeobjectbutitcouldbemorecomplicatedthanthat(Subrahmanianetal.2013).Forexamplea"phone"usedtobecharacterizedbyitsfunctionof facilitating voice communication. Today, a "cellular phone" has very different identity thanearly cellular phones, marking its radical change of identify. Similarly, Uber started with theidentity of a sharing economybrand, turning into a disruptive taxi company, andmoving fasttowardsautomatedmobilityinaformantitheticaltoitsoriginalidentity.

- 4 -

needs to organize more innovative design processes (see for instance the HarvardBusiness Review issue on Design Thinking – sept. 2015; see also (Brown andMartin2015))3.

In the past years, members of the SIG published approximately 80 papers on designtheory in leading journals such as Journal of Engineering Design, Research inEngineering Design, Creativity and Innovation Management, Journal of CreativeBehavior,andothers.Inthispaper,wedonotgiveadetailedoverviewoftheentiretyofthisbodyofwork,norarewetryingtopresentindetailaparticulardesigntheory.Ourattemptistostatetheoreticalclaimsaboutwhatisrequiredofaparticulardesigntheoryforwhichthereisampleevidenceinthereferredliterature.Consequently,wedonotofferhere new evidence but rely on previous studies and here provide a synthesis of coreideas.Wewillfocusonwhatthesedesigntheorypapersrevealasanontologyofdesign(part 1), and we will then show the consequences of this framing for the academicresearchondesign(part2),andfordesigninindustry(part3).

It is clear thatabroadandcentral topic suchasdesign theory, elicitsmanyquestionslikeadominoeffect;forexample,whatistheroleofdesigntheoryindesignscience?Candesign theory be too abstract to be useful? Can logical inference such as induction orabductionbeconsideredasdesign?Isanalogy,metaphor,orblendingformsofdesign?Orwhatiscreativity?Eachsuchquestiondeservesaseparatestudy.Someoftheissueshavebeentouchedbythereferencedliteratureandothersareopen.Wehopethattheideaspresentedwillsprungnewstudiesincludingusingtheconceptspresentedheretoanalyzeoldandnewclaimsaboutdesignandrelatedtopicsinmoreprecision.

2 DESIGN THEORY: A CLARIFICATION OF AN ONTOLOGY OF DESIGN Inorder tounderstandwhat thenatureof design is,whatdifferentiates it fromotheractivities, and subsequently to support it, we need to engage in design theory and amajoroutcomeofsuchworkwouldbetheontologyofdesign.

2.1 ExtendingclassicalmodelsofthoughtThe significant body of current work on design theory helps clarify the ontology ofdesign–seeforinstancethespecialissueonDesignTheoryinResearchinEngineeringDesign(LeMassonetal.2013).Thequestionofontologyraisesbasicissues.Forinstance,whatisadesigntask?Paradoxicallyitisfarfromself-evident–adesign“brief”(totakethe word of industrial designers) is more than a problem – it is evenmore than ill-definedorwickedproblem.Forexample,“Smartobjectsforwell-being,”“greenaircraft,”“resilient robots,” and “lowcost cars,” are in effectonlypropositionsonartefacts thatare desirable but partially unknown. They are highly underdetermined both from aframingandsolutionseekingperspectives.

Ifso,whatisthescientificidentityofdesign(ortheidentityoftheobjectdesign)?Letustakeanexample.Supposethatthebrief is: “reduce20%ofthecostsofarefrigerator.”Thenewdesigncanbedonebyoptimizing:optimizespecifications,optimizeconceptualmodels, embodiments, components, supply chain, production, etc. In this optimizationprocess, if “unknown” is limited to theuncertaintyon thevalueofwell-knowndesign3Notethatdesignthinkingistodayaparticulardesignpracticethatinsistsonprototypinganduserknowledge.Designtheorycorrespondstoascientificprogramthatcanaccountforthelogicandperformanceofdesignthinkinginspecificcases,see(LeMassonetal.2014).

- 5 -

parameters,thenadaptiveplanningwillberequiredtoovercometheuncertainty.Inthisoptimizationprocess,thegoalistoreduceuncertainty–hencedesignappearsasaformofdecisionmakingunderuncertainty.

Ifwechange the “unknown” tobe theexplorationofunknowndesignparameters, thesearch includes exploring new scientific results, new components and technologicalprinciples.Inthisprocess,theunknownhastobestructuredandelaboratedforittobegenerative.The strengthanduniquenessofdesign is in itsgenerativity4: the ability toconceptualize and create non-existent alternatives. Design being an act to change thestateoftheworldincludingwithnewunknownalternativesrequiresadesigntheorytoaccountforgenerativity.Weclaimthatgenerativityisanessentialontologicalpropertyofdesignthatprovidesitwithauniquescientificidentity.

2.2 ThecaseforGenerativityinanontologyofdesignWiththesimpleexamplebelowwecontrastthetwotypesofunknownsindesign,notinoppositiontoeachother,buttomakethecasethattheontologyofdesign,thescienceofdesign, should cover the entire spectrum from decisionmaking to include the strongcondition of generativity. Consequently, design has some of its roots in well-knownformalmodels such as decisionmaking under uncertainty (Savage 1972;Wald 1950;Raïffa 1968), problem solving (Simon 1969, 1979, 1995) and combinatorics (e.g.,planning,graph theory).However,design theorycannotbe limited to thesemodelsastheyonlyaddressthefirstformofunknownwheretheparametersareknownwithinaproblem framing; and there are no unknown parameters leading to changes in theparameterset.

Letusillustratetheissuewiththreesimple“anomalies”withtraditionalformalmodels:

1-The“raincoat-hat”anomalyindecisionunderuncertainty

Derived from Wald and Savage’s work on decision theory under uncertainty, Raïffadevelopeddecisiontheoryunderuncertainty(Raïffa1968).Givenasetofalternatives,thestatesofnatureandthebeliefsonthesestatesofnature,itispossibletocomputetheexpected utility of each alternative and choose the best one. This is the basis for thetechniques of investment evaluation and decision and for portfolio management. Forinstance, in case of choosing the best accessory to go out for a walk, the decisionalternativesare“choosearaincoat”(d1)vs.“chooseahat”(d2);thestatesofnatureare“sunnyweather”vs.“rain”;theaprioriprobabilitiesonthestatesofnatureare50%for“sunnyweather” and 50% for “rainyweather;” and the utility forwalking in the rainwitharaincoatis100,forwalkingintherainwithahatis10,forwalkinginthesunwitharaincoatis10,andforwalkinginthesunwithahatis100.Thebeautyofthetheoryofdecision making under uncertainty is its ability to identify the “optimal” decision(maximizetheexpectedutility)andtocomputethevalueofanewalternative(d3)thatenablestoreduceuncertaintyonthestatesofnaturetakingintoaccountthereliability

4Notethatasweexplainlater,generativity isdifferentfromthegeneralnotionofanabilitytogenerateor create. It has cleardefinition aswell as formaldescription that couldbe found inreferences such as (Hatchuel et al. 2011a; Hatchuel et al. 2013b). This definition makes ourgenerativitydifferentfromtheword'generative'thatisusedingenerativedesigngrammarsorevenindifferentdisciplinessuchasgenerativegrammarinlinguistics.

- 6 -

ofanewinformation(hencetheutilityoflisteningtoweatherforecastbeforegoingoutforawalk,knowingthatweatherforecastarereliable4timesoutof5).

Ananomalyemergeswhentheissueisnottofindtheoptimalalternativeamongknownonesbuttogenerate(todesign)anewalternativesuchas“analternativethatisbetterthanaraincoatintherainandbetterthanahatinthesun.”This“alternative”ispartiallyunknown(assuchitisnotanalternativeasd1,d2ord3)andstillitispossibletobuildonit: ithasavalue foraction!For instance itcanpushtoexploreonuses inmobility,ontextiles, onprotectingagainst rain, etc. It is evenpossible to computeelementsof thevalue of this solution – not as a result but as a target: to be acceptable, the valuedistribution of the solution should be, for instance, 100 in each case. Decision theoryunder uncertainty cannot account for this kind of situation. Design theory needs toaddressthisanomalouscaseofdesignbehaviorwithrespecttodecisiontheory.

2-The“barometer”problem

The work on problem solving and on algorithms to construct solutions to complexproblemswentasfarasfindingalgorithmsthatplaychessbetterthanthebesthumanbeing – on May 11th 1997, Deep Blue software won world Chess champion GaryKasparov.But letusconsider the following “problem.”Thestorysays that, foranoralexam,aphysicsprofessorasked the followingquestion toayoungstudent (said tobeNils Bohr, which is actually not true and not important for our point): “how can wemeasure the height of a tall building using a barometer?” The professor expected asolution based on the relationship between Pressure and Altitude. And recent AIalgorithm would probably be able to find that relation and use it for measuring theheightofthebuilding(seerecentsuccessofIBMWatsonsoftwareatJeopardygame).

Incontrast,thestudentproposedmanyothersolutionslike:“Takethebarometertothetopofthebuilding,attachalongropetoit, lowerthebarometertothestreetandthenbringitup,measuringthelengthoftherope.Thelengthoftheropeistheheightofthebuilding.”Or: “take thebarometer to thebasementandknockonthesuperintendent'sdoor. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: "Mr.Superintendent,hereIhaveafinebarometer.Ifyoutellmetheheightofthisbuilding,Iwill give you this barometer.” The “problem”waswell-framed and should have beensolvedinadirectway,relyingonknownlawsandconstraints.Butthestudentactuallyignored the implicit directives embedded in the instrument and consequently,addressed the “problem:” “measure the height of a tall building using a barometer –withoutmeasuringpressure.”Fromaproblemsolvingperspective,headdsaconstraint(“withoutmeasuringpressure”)anddesignsanexpandedsolutionspace that reliesonpropertiesoftheobjectsthatareoutoftheframeoftheproblem:thebarometerisnotonlyasystemtomeasurepressure,italsohasamass,ithasavalue,etc.Ininnovationaswell, the innovator will play on neglected dimensions of objects or even invent newdimensionsofobjects,changingtheiridentities–likesmartphonefunctionsthatarenotlimitedtophonecalls.Thisexampleisananomalyfromaproblemsolvingperspectivethatneedstobeaccountedforinadesigntheory.

3-The“Escher-Lego”

Theworksincombinatoricshaveledtomastermoreandmorecomplexcombinations,for instance, through AI, expert systems, neural networks or evolutionary algorithms.These models combine elements of solutions into comprehensive solutions; they

- 7 -

evaluate each solution according to an objective function and depending on theperformance, they recombine the elements of solutions. Just like problem solving ordecision making, these models are heavily used in industry (e.g., image or speechrecognition,orcontemporaryCRMthroughtargetedads).Inthismodel,Legoappearsasthearchetypeofthecombinationlogic–allblockscanbecombinedanditispossibletoevaluatethefinalsolution.Legobuildingcanbemoreorlessefficientoreven“original:”the combinations aremoreor less sophisticated, refined, etc., inside the algebraof allpossible combinations. This idea is embodied in product concept or architecturegeneration (Ziv-AvandReich,2005)orgenerative languagessuchas shapegrammarsandpatternsespeciallyinarchitecture(StinyandGips1972;Flemming1987).

Playing with this “Lego” paradigm, the Swedish photograph Erik Johansson has beenrevisitingM. C. Escher ‘impossible construction’ (Figure 1). In particular, he created ashapethatisdonewithLegoblocksbutisimpossiblewith(physical)Legoblocks.Thispicture illustrates in a very powerful way the limit of the combinatorics models forinnovation:inaworldofLego,manycombinationsarepossible,buttheinnovatormightgo beyond such combinations by creating something that is made with Lego but isbeyondall the(physical)combinationsofLego. Innovationcanbe like this:combiningoldpiecesofknowledgesoastocreateanartifactthatisofcoursemadeofknownpiecesbut goes beyond all combinations of the known pieces by breaking the rules ofcomposability. The problem has been transformed, allowing for new avenues ofgenerativity. Here again, this example seems clearly beyond classical combinatorics –butdesigntheoryshouldbeabletoaddressit.

Figure 1: Escher Lego - Erik Johansson

In theabovethreeexamples,we illustrate theneed forabasicrequirement fordesigntheory:designtheoryhastoextendclassicalmodelsofthoughtondesigningtoaccountfor these anomalies.We claim that design theory contains decision, problem solving,observation,perception,yetinaninteraction,notinopposition,withanotherlanguage,alanguageofemergence,ofunknowness,ormoregenerallyof“desirableunknowns.”

Usualmodels of thought such as decisionmaking, problem solving and combinatoricsarecharacterizedbyanoptimizationrationale,byintegratedknowledgestructuresandbya“closedworld”assumption.Clarifyingtheontologyofdesignessentiallyconsistsofanswering:a)whatisthisrationalethatencompassesoptimizationbutgoesbeyondit–(Generativity); b) what is the knowledge structure that encompasses integratedknowledgestructuresbutgoesbeyondthem(Splittingcondition);c)what isthesocialspacethatencompasses“closedworld”assumptionbutgoesbeyondit(SocialSpaces).

- 8 -

The work done on design theory in the last decades to address these three pointsarrivedatanontologyofdesignthatisintegrative.

2.3 Definingandmodellinggenerativity:arationaleforanextendedDesigntheory

The literature on innovative design has long been trapped in the opposition betweendecision theory (e.g., optimization, programming, or combinatorics) and creativitytheory(ideation), i.e.,rigorousandformalreasoningontheonehandvs.psychologicalphenomenaontheotherhand.

Design theory todayprecisely enables toovercome these classical oppositions.Designtheory shows that design is about another capability, which is neither decision, norcreativity.Designisaboutgenerativitywhichisdefinedasthecapacitytogeneratenewpropositions that are made of known building blocks but are still different from allpreviously known combinations of these building blocks (Hatchuel et al. 2013b).Generativityisdifferentfromdecisionanddifferentfromcreativity:

- Regardingdecisionmaking:generativity isdifferentfromthebasicreasoningindecision making and programming, namely deduction – precisely because theissueistoaccountfortheemergenceofapropositionthatcannotbeobtainedbydeductionfromknownbuildingblocks(seetheworksonthelimitsofSimonianapproachofdesign(Schön1990;Dorst2006;Hatchuel2002;vonFoerster1991;Rittel1972).Notethatgenerativityisalsodifferentfromabduction:Letusstartwith Peirce’s definition of abduction as in the Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy(SEoP,2017):

ThesurprisingfactCisobserved,ButifAweretrue,Cwouldbeamatterofcourse;HencethereisreasontosuspectthatAistrue.

OneoftheobservationsofPeirce’sabductionisthatitdidnotinventahypothesisbut adoptedahypothesis5. Peircewas agnostic aboutwhere thehypotheses,A,came fromandwasprimarilyaddressingscientific theories.However,design isnotaboutexplaininganew fact; it is aboutaddressingaproblemoftenoutsidethepurviewofwhatistypicallydone.Peirce’snotionofabductionisnotsufficientfor understanding the complexity involved in designing or fromwhere new orunknownobjectscamefrom.Intheirattempttocreatealogicofdesign(ZengandCheng 1991), also make the case that problem-solution interaction requires arecursivelogicthatisbeyondanyofthetraditionalformsofreasoningincludingabduction as was proposed by Lionel March (1964). A compelling summaryagainst the rationalist and cognitivist thinking alone is provided by Gedenryd(1998);hisargumentisthattheyaredirectedattheintra-mentalcognitivemodel(deduction, inductionandabduction)that ignoresthe interactive inquirythat is

5Thiscouldbethereasonwhyabductionworksfordiagnosiswhereoneadoptsahypothesisorasetofhypothesesinidentifyingthecauseofthesymptomsandisconfirmedorrefutedbytheavailable and new evidence. For comprehensive treatment of abduction and diagnosis see(JosephsonandJosephson,1996).

- 9 -

integral to design. Further elaboration of this topic is beyond the scope of thepaper.6

- Generativityisalsodifferentfromcreativity(LeMassonetal.2011).Creativityisaboutideation,andideationwithinexistingbodiesofknowledge.Inideation,onemayhaveaverycreativeideaononeobject–“aFerrarithatlookslikeanUFO”–without having the knowledge to generate this idea. Generativity includes alsothe capacity to create one or several entities that fit with the creative idea.Generativity includes knowledge creation and inclusion of independentknowledgefromoutsidethecurrentknownknowledge(henceresearch).Italsoincludes the impact of a new entity on the others, and more generally, thenecessaryknowledge re-ordering that is associatedwith theemergenceofnewentities. Generativity includes ideation whereas ideation does not includegenerativity.7

Design theoryactually studies thevarietyof formsofgenerativity (fora synthesis see(Hatchuel et al. 2011a)). It has been shown that the historical development of designtheoryin19thand20thcenturyischaracterizedbyaquestforincreasedgenerativity(LeMassonandWeil2013).Thestudyof formalmodelsofdesign theory suchasGeneraldesign Theory (Tomiyama and Yoshikawa 1986; Yoshikawa 1981; Reich, 1995),axiomatic design (Suh 1978, 1990), coupled design process (Braha and Reich 2003),infuseddesign(ShaiandReich2004a,b)orC-Kdesigntheory(HatchuelandWeil2003;Hatchuel andWeil 2009) have also shown that they can all be characterized by theircapacitytoaccountforaformofgenerativity.Thetheorieshaveprogressivelyevolvedtobecomeindependentfromprofessionallanguagesandprofessionaltraditions;e.g.,thetheoriesarevalidfortechnicallanguage,aswellasfunctionalone,oremotionalone,andtheiruniversalityenablestointegratetheconstantevolutionsofthesespecificlanguages.They rely on abstract relational language such as “proposition,” “concept,” “desire,”“neighborhood,” “duality,” etc. The generativity grows from one “new” point in acomplex topological structure to the generation of new propositions with a genericimpact–i.e.,newdefinitionofthings,newcategories,new“styles,”andnewvalues.Thetheories step out of the combinations and enable to rigorously change the definitionsandthereferences.

C-Ktheory isone illustrationofgenerativityas thecentral theoreticalcoreofadesigntheory (Hatchuel et al. 2013b). In C-K theory, design is modelled as the generativeinteractionbetween two logics of expansion: theknowledge space is the spacewherepropositions with a logical status expand (through learning, exploration, scientificexperiment, deduction, social assessment, etc.); and the concept space is the spacewherelinguisticconstructsindesignthatarepartiallyunknownscanalsobestructuredin a rational way (with a specific structure – tree structure created by the partitionoperations;relyingonsemanticoperationssuchas“livingmetaphors”(Ricoeur1975)).Both spaces are expansive, both spaces “generate” and “test” – butnotwith the same

6But see recent attempts to define abduction in away that ismore akin to design (Kroll andKoskela2017).7We contend thatmodels of analogy such as those presented in (Goel 2013) that lead to thecreation of new objects and their elaboration have generative power. Consequently, differentanalogical inferencescouldbeevaluatedon theirgenerativity, rather thanon theircapacity tocreatenovelty,valueandsurprisethatarecontextdependent.

- 10 -

logic. And the two expansive processes are intertwined in C-K interactions. ConceptsleadtoknowledgeexpansionsandKnowledgeleadstoconceptsexpansions.

Actually this generic core is present in all models of design theory. For instance thesystematic approach of engineering design (Pahl et al. 2007) consists in expandingknowledge (knowledge on existing objects and phenomena: knowledge on functionalmodels,onconceptualmodels,onembodimentmodels,onmachineelements,etc.)andexpanding the alternatives on the still unknown and emerging object (alternatives onfunctionaldefinitionoftheemergingobject,ontheconceptualdefinitionoftheemergingobject,etc.).Notethatthisimpliesadoublemeaningoffunctionallanguage(functionsoftheknownobjectsandfunctionsoftheunknownobject)thatexplainsformalissueswithfunctions(Vermaas2013).ThesamegenerativeprocessappearsinFunction-Behavior-Structure model (Dorst and Vermaas 2005; Gero 1990) or in Zeng’s product designtheory (Zeng and Gu 1999a, b), whichmodels evolutionary design processes. Severalstudieshave analyzed indetail the generative core indesignmodels andmethods, bycastingthesemethodsandmodelsinformaldesigntheoryframework–seeforinstance(Shaietal.2013;Krolletal.2014;Shaietal.2009b;Reichetal.2010).

The underlying hypothesis of design as generative is embedded in the n-dimensionalinformation modeling project (n-dim). The project was conceived with design ascreation of, interactions between, and use of sublanguages and knowledge structuresarisingfromwithinandacrossdomainsandtheirevolutionarymapping.Theunderlyingknowledgestructuresaremobilizedinthecreationofanewtheoryoftheartifactwithanewsetofunknowns(Reichetal.1999;Monarchetal.1997;Subrahmanianetal.1997).Then-dimapproach,byvirtueofsupportingdesignknowledgestructuring,providedasubstrateforgenerativityfromconceptiontorealizationoftheartifact.

Generativityappearsasauniquefeatureofdesigntheory.Thishascriticalconsequencesforresearch:ithelpsusanswerthecriticalquestionofthevalidityofdesigntheory.Isadesign theory true or false? The answer is the same as in every science: a relativityprinciple isnecessary toestablish truth. Inphysics, theoryofNewtonianmechanics istrue for relatively low speed (relatively to the speed of light). For design theory, therelativityprincipleisthedegreeofgenerativityofadesignprocess.Adesigntheorycanbe true for processes with limited generativity and false for higher degree, true forroutinizeddesign and false for innovativedesign.Anddesign theories canbeorderedfollowing their degree and formof generativity. Still no one knows today if there is alimittogenerativity!8

In industry, one could be tempted to say that strong generativity is rather at thebeginningofindustrialprojectsofnewproductdevelopmentandlowgenerativityisattheendofnewproductdevelopmentprocesses.Stillthisassessmentcanbediscussedina long-term perspective: it appears that social networks and groups began with lowcollective generativity and were able to invent such sophisticated organizations likeengineering departments, design departments or research labs (in the 19th and 20thcentury) to increase the overall generativity of a society (LeMasson andWeil 2013).And today, some industrial partners begin to consider that they need design theories8Notethatthereisnovaluejudgementherebuttheobservationthatdifferenttheoriesneedtobe scoped well and could be evaluated based on their generativity. There is no attempt todiscount any theory as different theoriesmay be better in particular cases, similarly to othermethods(Reich,2010).

- 11 -

that fit with high generativity levels or they realize that social and institutionalgenerativity is critical inaddition todisciplinaryknowledgegenerativity (Meijeretal.,2015;ReichandSubrahmanian,2015,2017).

2.4 Splittingcondition:Knowledgestructuresindesignandthevalueofindependence

Theworksongenerativityasacoreofdesignreasoningledtoasurprisingresult:thereis a formal condition of generativity. We tend to think that generativity is onlyconstrained by cognitive fixations and does not depend on knowledge structures. Butmodels of design theory have led to clarify that the generation of new propositionsobeys a formal condition. This condition was initially identified by mathematiciansstudying Forcing,which is amodel of the design of newmodels of sets in set theory(Cohen 1963, 2002;Hatchuel et al. 2013b). They have shown that Forcing enables tocreatenewsetsandnewmodelsofsetsbyextensionofknownmodelsofsets,andthereisa formalcondition for thesenewsets tobedifferent fromeveryalreadyknownset.The structure of knowledge related to the initialmodel of a set has to follow the so-called“splittingcondition”(Jech2002;Dehornoy2010;LeMassonetal.2016).

Informally, splitting conditionmeans that a new proposition is different from all thealready known propositions if there is no determinism and no modularity in theknowledgestructure.Thisactuallycorrespondstotwocriticalpropertiesofaknowledgestructureindesign:

- Nodeterminismmeansthatthenewdesignisnotdirectlydeterminedbyinitialknowledge – or: design is not limited to “know how,” it requires “newknowledge.”

- No modularity means that the new design is not a modular instance of olddesigns–or:designisnotlimitedtoLego;itrequires“newconcepts.”

Thesplittingconditioncanbeinterpretedasa“negative”condition:withouta“splittingcondition”intheknowledgestructure,thereisnogenerativity.Notethatsuchconditionisaclassicpropertyofformalmodelsofthought;forexample,indecisiontheory,rulesand domain specific scoped ontologies are the necessary conditions for runningalgorithmsandbuildingdecisionfunctions.

But the splitting condition can also be interpreted in amore “positive”way: one canimagine providing the designer with a knowledge structure9that meets the splittingcondition. Generativity increases when determinism is broken (a new independentalternative is created) and modularity is broken (adding the previously “modular”component isnot indifferentanymore, it createssignificantdifferences, it createsnewindependences).This creationof favorablenewknowledge structures is illustratedbythen-dim approach to design support systems (Subrahmanian et al. 2003; Dias et al.

9Knowledge structure here is meant to signify a body of knowledge that heretofore is notintegrated.Forexample,userinteractionstudiesbringnewknowledgestructurestointeractivesoftwaredesign.

- 12 -

2003; Reddy et al. 1997; Reich et al. 1999) or the logic of biomimetic for stimulatingcreation(FreitasSalgueiredoandHatchuel2016).10

Moregenerally,splittingconditionunderlinesthevalueofindependencesinaknowledgestructure:propositions thatcannotbededuced frompastonesandcanaddsignificantdimensionstoanartefact.Splittingconditionoffersacompletelynewwaytounderstandwhat knowledge structure is: the value of knowledge is not only in rules, ontologies,variants,algebraandintegratedstructures;itisalsointheindependencesinknowledgestructures.

Note that the value of independences is quite contradictory with the usual commonsense coming from information theory. In information theory, one expects that avariable Xwill enable to learn on a variable Y – hence one expects that Y and X arestrongly correlated.Or, conversely: in information theory, if X andY are independent,then itmeans that X does not bring any information on Y hence X is useless to Y. Incontrast, splitting condition actually corresponds to the fact that if X and Y areindependentthenXcanbringsignificantoriginalinformationtodesignanewY.

This curious conditionof generativityhas interesting industrial applications. ConsiderPlumpynut–aproductdevelopedbyNutriset,aninnovativedesigncompanyinFrance.ThisproductsavedmillionsofchildreninAfrica.Itwasatruebreakthroughbecauseitwaspreparedinsuchawaythatthechildcouldbefedwithoutthehelpofanynurseordoctor. This breakthrough was made possible by connecting three knowledge areas:nutrition (knowledge on malnutrition disease), user-driven analysis, and food-processing expertise. Three knowledge areas that were initially independent and thedesignerswereabletoconnectthemontoasingleartifact(Agoguéetal.2015b).Giventhatsuchindependentknowledgeusuallyresidewithdifferentprofessionals,improvedgenerativityleadstofavoringextendedparticipationindevelopmentprojects(Reichetal.1996).

Orconsiderthedesignof technologies,which isanareathat isstillpoorlyunderstoodtoday: the design of a technology that is generic consists in linking previouslyindependentapplicationareas.Oneofthemostwell-knowngenerictechnologiesisthesteamengine;whatisthespecificbreakthroughthatmadeitbecomegeneric?Itwasnottheuseof steam (itwasalreadyknownbyNewcomen in early18th century) andnoteven the separate condensationchamber inventedbyWatt in1763 to improve the socalled "pumping engine" for mining. The breakthrough was a cinematic mechanism,inventedin1784,thatenabledthetransformationoflinearmovementintoarotaryonethatwasinventedinordertoconnectsteamenginetothewholemachinetoolindustry(andlatertootherapplicationsareas)(LeMassonetal.2015a;LeMassonetal.2015b).Hence, this example shows how design consists of changing independences inknowledgestructures.

Theanalysisandevolutionof independence inknowledgestructures isoneof thekeyparameters to understand the critical basis of breakthrough technological projects(Lenfleetal.2016).10Biomimicry is a recent area that builds upon at least two distinct disciplines such asengineering andbiology and allows the creation of newknowledge structures to bridge them(Goeletal.2015;CohenandReich2016).ItwasshownthatDesignTheorysuchasC-Ktheoryisastrongsupporttoteachingbiomimicryinengineering(Nageletal.2016).

- 13 -

Finally, the lessonof the splitting condition is,more generally, that design is not onlyabout idea generation but also is about knowledge structures. This observation hasdirect implications for teaching:dowe teach “splitting”knowledge inour engineeringcourses?Doweteachhowtoenablea“splittingstructure”instudents’knowledgebase?

2.5 Socialspacesindesign:thethirdelementoftheontologyTheengineofgenerativitycombinedwithknowledgestructuresfollowingthesplittingconditions imply a strong design capacity and, hence, a significant dynamics of thedesignedartefacts.Thisobservationhasbeenconfirmedbyrecentmeasurementsoftheevolutionof functionaldefinitionofconsumerproductssuchasmobilephone,vacuumcleaner, ironorGPSnavigation systems (seeFigure 2 extracted fromElQaoumi et al.,2017).Thesetrendswerederivedbyusingdatafromconsumerreportarchives,whichregularlystudythemainfunctionalcharacteristicsofaproduct,fromaconsumerpointofview.Asonewouldexpect,overtimethefunctionsofasmartphoneevolvestrongly;since the firstmobile phone comparative test in 1996,more than 110 new functionshaveemerged.Hence the “identity”of themobilephone, theproperties thatmake theobject'amobilephone'anddistinguishitfromothers,fromtheconsumerpointofview,hassignificantlyevolved.Moresurprisingly,thesamephenomenonistrueforGPS,andiron or vacuum cleaner. As observed, the nature of contemporary design dynamics isclearly “visible” on contemporary objects. Note that this observation stronglycontradicts one of the most classical hypotheses of orthodox economics, namelyLancaster'shypothesisthataproducttypekeepsthesamefunctions(onlythelevelandcombinationsweresupposedtoevolve)(Lancaster,1966a;Lancaster,1966b;ElQaoumi,elal.,2017).

Figure 2: Cumulative number of new functional characteristics that a product type acquires over time, for

4 types of products, based on the data from the archives of French Consumer Report “Que Choisir” – source: (El Qaoumi et al., 2017)

Thesegenerativityphenomenaarenot limitedtoproducts; thedesign logicextendstotechnologies, includingchemicalengineering(Potieretal.2015), livingorganismsandecosystems (Berthet et al. 2012), laws, regulations, software, psychological therapies(Imholz and Sachter 2014) and, even to institutions (LeMasson et al. 2012b). Aswehave noted, design includes design of knowledge structures and since knowledgestructuresaredeeplylinkedtosocialrelations,itimpliesthatdesignincludesthedesignof new social spaces as identified by (Reich and Subrahmanian 2015, 2017).We canconcludethatgenerativityinobjectsandevolvingknowledgestructuresarenecessarilyrelatedtospecificsocialstructures.Withthetwofirstelementsofanontologyofdesign–generativityandindependenceinknowledgestructure–followsanontologyofdesign

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

IronVacuumCleanerMobilephoneGPS

- 14 -

spaces.Thisontologyincludessocialandinstitutionalstructuresthatspanthevarietyofcontextswheredesigntakesplace; itallowsrepresentingsituationswheredesignfailsand those where it succeeds with respect to the two other ontological elements. Incontrast,anontologyofdecision theory leads tospecificsocial structures thatassumeintegratedknowledgestructuresleadingtostabilizedrigidinstitutionswhoseevolutionis constrained by path dependence. Any ontology based on generativity andindependences in knowledge structures requires open forms of social spaces andextendedparticipation.Compositionofsocialspacesthathaveindependentknowledgesourcessatisfytheontologicalconceptindesigntheory:“Splitting.”

Asaconsequence,designhelpsustorethinksocialfiguressuchasconsumer,technicalcolleges and, institutions. They can now be characterized by their generativity andindependence in knowledge structures! This is illustrated by the extraordinaryorganizationof the InternationalTechnologyRoadmap forSemiconductor (ITRS).Thisinstitution has organized the whole semiconductor industry ecosystem (chipsetsdesigners,manufacturers, technology suppliers, research labs, universities, etc.) to beabletofollowMoore’slawformorethanthelasttwentyyears.Surprisinglyenough,itisa completely open organization, the “roadmaps” are free and open, available toeverybody, the organizational logic is never based on choice and selection oftechnological alternatives – as underlined by one organizational motto “we are notpicking winners or losers.” In ITRS there are strong organizational and institutionalrules.Theserules,insteadofprovokingfamous“lock-in”effects,areallorientedtowards“unlocking”(LeMassonetal.2012b).

Theexamplealsounderlinesthatdesigntheoryishetero-disciplinary:asarticulatedbyReich and Subrahmanian at the 2014 Design Theoryworkshop of the Design TheorySpecial Interest Group. Further, their claim that design is “multi-scale” and “multi-phenomena,”crossingthebordersbetweenmateriality,social,economicsisincompletecoherencewith the (historically) perceived features of design, sinceVitruvius and thedebateson the statusof architects,designersandengineers in society. In spiteof thisinherentcomplexity,itisimportanttoaligntechnologyorproductknowledgestructureswith the social space and the institutional rules and cultures to create the rightecosystemforsuccessfuldesign(ReichandSubrahmanian2015).Intherecentworkonmeasuring theeconomiccomplexityofcountries, (HidalgoandHausmann2009)useameasureofthecomplexityoftheproductsproducedbyacountrytoconcludethatthepropensitytocreatecomplexproducts(Generativity)isdeterminedbytheavailabilityofindependent breadth of knowledge structures (Splitting condition) and socialcapabilities and institutional structures (Social Spaces). This observation supports theproposition of this paper thatGenerativity,SplittingConditionandtheSocialSpaces asontologicalelementsofadesigntheoryprovideuswithabasicunderstandingofdesignat different scales from an individual to a firm to a country. Further, with theseontologicalelements,weshouldbeabletoanalyzethemethodsindesignandpolicyfortheirgenerativity(Hatchueletal.2011a).

Toconclude:theworkreportedinthelastdecadeshasenabledustoclarifytheontologyof design (Figure 3). The rationale of design is generativity, and it extends theoptimizationrationale;characterizationofindependenceofknowledgestructures,goesbeyondthe issueof integratedknowledgestructures(oneof thecriticalconditions fordecisionmaking, programming or problem solving); the open social spaces of designthat canbe themselvesdesigned thereby requiringdesign toembracean “openworld

- 15 -

assumption,” going beyond the decision social spaces that rely on a “closed worldassumption.”

Figure 3: the ontology of design as an extension of the ontology of decision-optimization

Thisontologycallsforsomecomments:

- Thisontologyleadstoaclaimfordesign:designisauniquesciencethathas,asaparadigm,thestudyofgenerativity.

- Designextendsthehistoricalparadigmofdecisionmaking.Itpavesthewaytoasecond generation of works that may investigate the models of decisionprocessesthatsupportgenerativity.

- In this ontology, design issues like “robustness,” “system engineering,”“conceptualdesign,”or“modularity,”canbeaddressedrelyingonthe“relativity”principleofdesign,namelysupportofmoreorlessgenerativity.Atalowlevelofgenerativity,theseissuesareaddressedinadecisionframeworkandatahigherlevels of generativity, these issues will be addressed with more generativemodelsofdesigntheory.Forinstance,modularityissuescanbeaddressedwithagiven set of modules; or research onmodularity can consist of designing newmoduleswith specific properties enhancing generativity. For instance, one canstudythestabilityandinvariantsofagivenengineeringsystem;oronecanstudyhow an engineering system can generate new objects and shapes. In the lattercase, it appears that usual features of engineering systems (e.g., complexity,unpredictability, self-organization, networks and polycentricity, active andintelligent agents) can be made to follow the splitting condition, so that anengineeringsystemmightactuallyenableastronggenerativity.

Wenowturntoananalysisofwhattheproposedontologyofdesignbringstothedesignsciencecommunity.Wefirstanalyzetheimplicationsofdesigntheoryforacademiaandthentheimplicationsofdesigntheoryforindustry.

3 IMPLICATIONS OF ADVANCES IN DESIGN THEORY FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND INDUSTRY

3.1 DesigntheoryforacademicresearchDesigntheorycontributestothefoundationofanewparadigmforresearchinscience,artandengineering.

1-Connectingdifferenttraditionsandacademicfields(art,science,engineering)

- 16 -

Generativity and splitting condition might seem very abstract but they still lead totheoretical predictions.One could look at thedomains that seem themore generativeandseewhethertheyfollowthesplittingcondition.Wheredoesgenerativityappearinoursocieties?Forinstance,letustaketherecentstudyofpracticesofteachingartandindustrial design at Bauhaus, being one of themost famous industrial design schoolsthat has influenced contemporary pedagogy in industrial design. The predictionwas:given the demonstration of generativity by Bauhaus students, one might expect thatcourses enabled students to acquire a knowledge structure that follows the splittingcondition.Thevalidityofthishypothesiswasillustratedin(LeMassonetal.2016).ThepapershowsthatBauhausprofessorssuchasKleeorIttentaughthighlyabstractdesigntheoryandknowledgestructurestoallowthegenerationof“newstylesforthesocietyoftheirage.”Thepaperalsoshowsthat,bycontrast,thepedagogyofengineeringdesigninthatperiodoftimefocusedon“non-splitting”knowledgestructures,preciselytopreventthe constant revision of the definition of objects and to preserve a stable algebra ofmachines.

Relying on contemporary design theory it was possible to also identify the logic ofgenerativityinengineeringdesignandengineeringscience(LeMassonandWeil2013).It appears that engineering design theory frees the engineering designer from fixatedrelationships between functions and organs. Performance, functions, use cases, andspecifications are languages to formulate unknown combinations and hence promotegenerativeprocesses.Ontheotherhand,knowledgestructureisregularlyre-orderedtointegrateconceptualchangesortoallowconstantregenerationwithlimitedre-ordering(Dias et al. 2003). The organization of machine elements, organs and, engineeringmodelsarereviewed,revised,andevolvedregularly.

Design theory connects industrial design and engineering design. It also connectsscientificdiscovery.Asitiswell-knownincontemporaryepistemology,thereisnodirectlinkbetweenobservationsanddiscoveries–designtheoryhelpstodescribehow,inthisinterplaybetweendiscoveryandobservations,newconceptsaredesigned(Hatchueletal.2013a;Shaietal.2009a;Reichetal.2008).

As a consequence, contemporary design theory strengthens research that studygenerativityinscience,artand,engineering.

2-Opennewtheory-drivenexperimentalprotocols

A second consequenceof advances indesign theory is the increased capacity to buildtheory-driven experimental protocols.Without clear theoretical framework, there is adangerofgeneralinconclusivenessinexperimentation–thiswasforinstancethecaseinthe multiple experiments conducted to know whether examples tend to fix or de-fixideationprocesses.Basedondesigntheory,researcherswereabletoformulatespecifichypotheses(fixingexampleistheoneformulatedbyrestrictivedesignreasoningwhilede-fixing example is the one formulated by expansive design reasoning), providedtechniques to enrich the scope of experiments to arrive at a clear conclusive results(Agoguéetal.2014).

Moregenerally,designtheoryhasexplainedand/orcouldhavepredictedalargevarietyof phenomena and enabling experimentingwith them. For instance, Taura,Nagai andcolleagues tested how concept blending and dissimilarity corresponded to differentforms of creativity (Nagai et al. 2008; Taura and Nagai 2013). Eris characterized

- 17 -

experimentallyatypeofquestionthatappearedasspecifictodesignactivity–namelygenerative design questions (Eris 2003, 2004). Mabogunje and Leifer worked on theemergenceofnewnounsbyrecordingnoun-phraseindesignexercises(MabogunjeandLeifer1997).Designtheoryalsohelpstoformulatehypothesesandfollowexperimentsbasedonspecifictypesofmedialike“non-verbal”media(sketching)(Brunetal.2015;Tversky2002).Experimentsconfirmedthedifferencesresultingfromspecific formsofdesignreasoningbetweendesignprofessions(SavanovicandZeiler2007;Agoguéetal.2015a).Inbrainstormingexperiments,designtheorypredictsthelowgenerativepowerofbrainstorming:theorypredictsthatthequantityofideasisnotrelatedtooriginalityandqualityasoriginalityisalsoK-dependent;italsopredictsthatfocusingonde-fixingconcepts generates more new knowledge and hence more original ideas and designvaluecomesfromtheconsistentuseofthisnewknowledge(Kazakçietal.2014).

3-Stimulatenewconnectionswithcontemporarymathematicsandlogic

Athirdconsequenceofadvancesindesigntheoryistostimulatenewconnectionswithcontemporarymathematicsandlogic.Workshavebeendoneondesignandlogic,basedonthenotionofimaginativeconstructivism(HendriksandKazakçi2010,2011;Kazakçi2013);ondesignandmodelsofindependencelikematroid(LeMassonetal.2015a;LeMassonetal.2015b);ondesignandsettheory,showingthatthereisageneraldesigntheorywithinsettheorycalledForcing(HatchuelandWeil2007;Hatchueletal.2013b);andondesignandcategorytheory(Giesaetal.2015,BreinerandSubrahmanian2016).This led to novel results on generative functions (forcing, fractality…), to newapproaches of system engineering (Kokshagina 2014), to the notion of theinterdisciplinaryengineeringknowledgegenome(ReichandShai2012),etc.

In addition, a bootstrapping effect was demonstrated showing how independentknowledgestructuresfromengineeringandmathematicsarebroughttogethertoallowthemutualgenerationinacyclicmannerofnewconceptsandtheorems,andalsonewproductssuchasfoldabletensegritystructures(Reichetal.2008).

Today advances in design theory open new spaces for work on design and machinelearning,ondesignanddeepneuralnetworks,ondesignandnovelty-drivenalgorithm,on design and new Operation Research, etc. Hence, design theory provides newfoundationsforconstructivedialogwithcontemporarymathematicsandlogic.

4-Stimulatenewconnectionswithsocialsciences

The identification of the ontology of design provides the dimensions to direct thesociological, anthropological, organizational, epistemological and linguistic studies ofdesign.Thesestudieswouldcontributetounderstandingtheconditionsforgenerativitymeasured against splitting conditions and the social spaces at different levels. Forexample,thesestudieswouldhelpdesigningexperimentwith,andcreatenewmethodsfor,gaming,crowdsourcing,andopensourcemodels; theywillhelpmapthesocial tothesplittingconditionintheknowledgestructures,toevaluatingthegenerativity.

The PSI framework (Reich and Subrahmanian 2015; 2017) is an initial structure forenhancing these studies in a similar spirit to that of Elinor Ostrom’s study of socialstructures and rules for governance of common pool resources (natural communityresourcesforests,lakes,etc.)(Ostrom1990).Shehascalledforengineeringapproachesto studying economics and governance. Her work in developing a grammar for the

- 18 -

designoftheseinstitutionsisnotveryfarfromthetheoryofmachinesbyRedtenbacher(Ostrum,2009).However,thecaseofnon-commonpoolresourcesthatdealswithotherprivateandpublicartifacts,thevarietyofparametersthatcancreatethepossibilityforgenerativity is larger. Building on Ostrom’s works, some authors have proposed thenotion of “common unknown” to extend the logic of common resources to designsituations(Berthet2013;LeMassonandWeil2014).Exploringthedimensionsoftheseparameters and their inter-relationship both empirically and computationally wouldallowustopredictthepropensityforgenerativityacrossallspeciesofdesign.Currentlythese ideas arebeing explored in severalprojectswithEuropean industry to enhanceparticipation of a larger set of independent knowledge to the design process throughgaming and simulation. The goal is to explore both types of unknowns along alldimensionstoenhancetheirgenerativity(Meijeretal.2015).

Ithasbeenshownthatthelogicoftheunknownandgenerativityistodayattheheartoffirm’sstrategy(Hatchueletal.2010)andorganization(Hatchueletal.2006;Börjessonetal.2014),aswellaseconomicgrowth(HatchuelandLeMasson2006;LeMassonetal.2010a).Thesestudieshaveledtoproposeatheoryofthefirmbasedonfirm’scapacitytoaddresstheunknowncollectively(SegrestinandHatchuel2008,2011).

Hence,designtheoryappearstodayasawaytoenrichtheacademicfieldofdesignbyproviding new foundations to discuss with design professions like art and industrialdesign,engineeringdesignandscientists;italsoenablesconnectingdesignresearchersto mathematics and logic and social sciences; and it opens new theory-drivenexperimental protocols. But design theory is not only useful for scholars; it alsocontributestothefoundationsforarenewalofthescienceandengineeringparadigminindustryandineducation.

3.2 DesigntheorytomanagegenerativityinindustryToseehowdesigntheorycontributestothemanagementofgenerativityinindustry,werefertothejointworkwithsomeofindustrialsponsors.Basedontheresearchresultsondesign theory, theywere able to invent neworganizations, newmethods andnewprocesses(seealso(AgoguéandKazakçi2014;Hatchueletal.2015;Defouretal.2010;Meijer et al. 2015; Reich and Subrahmanian 2015). This led them to get impressiveindustrialresults–oneillustrationisgivenbythefactthatsomeofthemgotalsoprizesliketheRedDotawardfortheirinnovativeproducts(Figure 4).

Figure 4: Two reddot design awards won by industrial partners sponsoring research on design theory

(Thales cockpit, reddot design award winner 2013; Renault Twizy, reddot design award best of the best 2012)

- 19 -

Theconsequencesofapplyingdesigntheoryinindustrialorganizationshavebeeninthedevelopment of new organizationalmethods and processes for industry. A sample ofexamples showhowdesign theory contributed to change and improve the evaluationmethods:theevaluationof innovativedesignprojects(ElmquistandLeMasson2009),andtheevaluationandpositioningofaportfolioofinnovativedesignprojects(Agoguéet al. 2012; LeMasson et al. 2012b). How design theory has helped to position andimprove existing design methods and processes are illustrated for example in ASIT(Reich et al. 2010), parameter analysis (Kroll et al. 2014), project managementtechniques(Lenfle2012)and,CADtools(Arrighietal.2015a,b).Designtheorywasalsoused to develop breakthrough methods for new innovative design processes. Forexample,KCP,amethod,derivedfromC-Ktheoryovercomesthelimitsofbrainstormingor participative seminar in monitoring large groups in innovative design processes(Elmquist and Segrestin 2009;Hatchuel et al. 2009).More recently, newmethods forpatentdesignhavebeendevelopedbasedondesigntheory(Felketal.2011;Kokshaginaet al. 2014). Design theory provides a basis to characterize innovative designorganizationsincompanies(Hatchueletal.2006;Hatchueletal.2010;LeMassonetal.2010b) or new collective forms of action like colleges (Le Masson et al. 2012b; LeMassonetal.2012a)andarchitectsof theunknown(Agoguéetal.2013;Agoguéetal.2016).

Anotherexampleofthesedevelopmentsisgivenbytheworkonseriousgames.RelyingondesigntheoryandthePSIframework,theauthorswereabletotransformaseriousgameintoagenerativegame,whichenablestochangetheproduct(P),theSocialspace(S)andtheinstitutions(I)(Meijeretal.2015;Agoguéetal.2015b).

4 CONCLUSION: DESIGN THEORY – ENABLING FURTHER RESEARCH Aswehaveshown,inrecentyears,thebodyofworkonDesignTheory(andparticularlythe contributions of the Design Theory SIG community of the Design Society) hascontributed to the reconstruction of a science of design, comparable in its structure,foundationsandimpacttoDecisionTheory,OptimizationorGameTheoryintheirtime.Thesestudiesbyreconstructinghistoricalrootsandtheevolutionofdesigntheoryhave:

§ unified the field at a high level of generality and uncovered theoreticalfoundations,inparticularthelogicofgenerativity,

§ characterized “design-oriented” structures of knowledge following the splittingconditionand

§ identified the logic of design spaces in social spaces that goes beyond theproblemspacecomplexity.

The results presented in this paper give the academic field of engineering design anecologyofscientificobjectsandmodelsthathavecontributedaparadigmaticshiftintheorganizationofR&Ddepartmentsandinnovationcenters,infirmsthathaveadoptedtheexpandeddesigntheoreticalperspective.Theresultspresented furtherallowbuildingadvancedcoursesandeducationmaterial(see for instance (Le Masson et al. 2017)). They are being taught today in differentcountries (e.g., France, Sweden, US, UK, Israel, Tunisia, Japan) in various contexts:engineering schools, management schools, business schools, design curricula,entrepreneurship schools, and universities. The impact of these educational practiceshasbeenreportedinseveralstudies(Hatchueletal.2008;Dymetal.2005;Hatchueletal.2011b;Nageletal.2016);Recentexperimentsbasedonacognitiveperspectivehave

- 20 -

shown that theoretically grounded approach to teaching, significantly increases thecapacityofstudentstoresistfixation(AgoguéandCassotti2012).

Emergingfromthefieldofengineeringdesign,developmentsindesigntheoryhashadagrowingimpactinmanydisciplinesandacademiccommunities.Designtheoryhasandcontinues tohavean impact inseveralacademic fields,suchascreativityresearch(LeMasson et al 2011; Hatchuel et al 2011), data mining and knowledge management(Ondrus,Pigneur2009;Poelmansetal2009;Goria2009),historyofengineeringdesign(Le Masson & Weil 2010a; 2010b), psychology and cognition (Hatchuel et al 2011;Agogué et al, 2011), ecology (Berthet, Bartignolle and Segrestin, 2012; Berthet et al2012), philosophy (Schmid, 2009; Schmid, Mambrini-Doudet & Hatchuel, 2011), andeconomics(Colasse&Nahkla,2011).Forthedesigncommunity,designtheorycanbeavehicleforinteractionwithothercommunities,suchasDesignComputingandCognition(DCC), the European Academy of Design (plenary conference on Design Theory byArmand Hatchuel in 2015), the Euram Academy of Management (that includes a fulltrack on design paradigm in management since three years), International ProductDevelopmentManagementConferenceandR&DManagementConferencethatwelcomepapers based on design theory, Project Management Institute, and the InternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineering.

Designtheoryalsoopensnewcollaborationsbeyondresearchdonewithengineersandindustrial designers. Recent collaborative research with entrepreneurs andentrepreneurshipprogramssuchas theChalmersSchoolofEntrepreneurship(Agoguéetal.2015c)isillustrative.Furthercollaborationsarebeingpursuedwithscientistsanddesigners of scientific instruments (collaboration onHerschel experiment,with INRA,withCERN,withtheCenterofDataScience,withtheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnologies(NIST).

Theclaimswemakeinthispaperarestrong.Asaculminationofworkovercloseto10years of SIG existence that rests onmany years before, bymany people fromdiversedisciplines.Wefeeltheclaimsarewarranted.Furthermore,strongclaimsmakeiteasyfor other researchers to test them or object to them by conducting experiments ordevelopingnewtheories.Trueprogressrequiresclearclaimsthatcouldbechallenged.Weinvitedesignresearcherstodopreciselythis.11

Inaskingresearcherstochallengeourclaims,weacknowledgethattherearelimitationstoourresults.Forexample,withrespecttoForcing;thereareopenissuesonForcinginmathematicsandwedonotclaimit is theonlywaytobegenerative.Wedonotclaimanyspecialstatusofanyofthetheoriesmentionedinthisresearchsummary.Wedonoteven claim special status about the ontology of design. Rather, it is a synthesis oftheoretical and empiricalwork that led to its evolutionover the10 years of the SIG’sexistenceanditmaycontinuetoevolveinthefuture.

The design community may play a significant role in addressing contemporarychallengesifitbringstheinsightsandapplicabilityofDesignTheorytoopennewwaysof thinking in the developing and developed world. And of course, in this effort to11Inthis invitation,wearebeingconsistentwithourproposedontologyofdesign,adheringtotheprincipleofreflexivepractice(Reich2017).Developingbetterdesigntheoriescanarisefromdiverseindependentknowledgethatmaycomefromopeningthesocialspaceofpeopleinvolvedinthegenerationofnewtheories.

- 21 -

develop design theory for the community, one can keep in mind the basic questionscoming fromdesign theory tocharacterizea “designoriented”communitysuchas thedesign society and the design theory SIG of the Design Society: are we generative?Whereisindependenceinourknowledgestructures?Areweanopenspace?

Acknowledgments

Wethankthereviewersofthispaperfortheirusefulcommentsthathavehelpedmakingthepaperbetter.TheDesignTheorySIGacknowledgesthesupportoftheDesignSocietyandtheindustrialsponsors.Wealsothankalltheparticipantsintheworkshopsoverthelast10years.

References

AgoguéM,BerthetE,FredbergT,LeMassonP,SegrestinB,StötzelM,WienerM,YstromA(2016)Explicating theroleof innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”:Acontingencyapproach.JournalofStrategyandManagement9(2).

AgoguéM,CassottiM(2012)Theory-drivenexperiments:modelingandtestingfixationandstimulationeffectsoncreativity.Paperpresentedatthe5thParisWorkshopoftheDesignTheorySIG,Paris,,30thjanuary2012,

Agogué M, Kazakçi A (2014) 10 years of C-K theory: a survey on the academic andindustrial impacts of a design theory. In: Chakrabarti A, Blessing L (eds) AnAnthologyofTheoriesandModelsofDesign.Philosophy,APproachesandEmpiricalExplorations.Bangalore,pp219-235.doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1

AgoguéM,KazakçiA,HatchuelA,LeMassonP,WeilB,PoirelN,CassottiM(2014)Theimpact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and stimulationeffects.JournalofCreativeBehavior48(1):1-12.

AgoguéM, LeMasson P, Dalmasso C, HoudéO, CassottiM (2015a) Resisting classicalsolutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers. Journal ofPsychologyoftheAesthetics,CreativityandtheArts(accepted).

Agogué M, Le Masson P, Robinson DKR (2012) Orphan Innovation, or when path-creation goes stale: missing entrepreneurs or missing innovation? TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement24(6):603-616.

Agogué M, Levillain K, Hooge S (2015b) Gamification of Creativity: Exploring theUsefulnessofSeriousGamesforIdeation.CreativityandInnovationManagement24(3):415-429.

Agogué M, Lundqvist M, Williams Middleton K (2015c) Mindful Deviation throughCombining Causation and Effectuation: A Design Theory-Based Study ofTechnologyEntrepreneurship.CreativityandInnovationManagement24(4):629-644.

AgoguéM,YströmA,LeMassonP (2013)Rethinking theRoleof Intermediariesasanarchitectofcollectiveexplorationandcreationfoknowledgeinopeninnovation.InternationalJournalofInnovationManagement17(2):24.

ArrighiP-A, LeMassonP,WeilB (2015a)Addressing constraints creatively: hownewdesignsoftwarehelpssolvethedilemmaoforiginalityandfeasibility".CreativityandInnovationManagement24(2):247-260.

ArrighiP-A,LeMassonP,WeilB(2015b)Managingradicalinnovationasaninnovativedesignprocess:generativeconstraintsandcumulativesetofrules.CreativityandInnovationManagement24(3):373-390.

- 22 -

BerthetE(2013)Contributionàunethéoriedelaconceptiondesagro-écosystèmes.Fondsécologiqueetinconnucommuns.MINESParisTech)AgroParisTech,Paris

BerthetE,BretagnolleV,SegrestinB(2012)Introductionofsemi-perennialforagecropsin an intensive cereal plain to restore biodiversity: a need for collectivemanagementJournalforSustainableAgriculture.

Börjesson S, Elmquist M, Hooge S (2014) The challenges of innovation capabilitybuilding:learningfromlongirudinalstudiesofinnovationeffortsatRenaultandVolvoCars.JournalofEngineeringandTechnologyManagement31:120-140.

Braha D, Reich Y (2003) Topologial structures for modelling engineering designprocesses.ResearchinEngineeringDesign14(4):185-199.

Brown T, Martin RL (2015) Design for Action Harvard Business Review September2015:55-64.

Brun J, LeMasson P,Weil B (2015) Analyzing the generative effects of sketcheswithdesign theory: sketching to foster knowledge reordering. In: InternationalConference on Engineering Design, Milan, 2015. p Reviewers'favorite awardICED'15

Cohen P (1963) The independence of the Continuum Hypothesis. Proceedings of theNationalAcademyofScience50:1143-1148.

Cohen P (2002) The discovery of Forcing. RockyMountain Journal ofMathematics 32(4):1071-1100.

CohenYH,ReichY (2016)BiomimeticDesignMethod for InnovationandSustainability.Springer,

DefourM,DelaveauC,DupasA(2010)Avionique.Destechnologiesinnovantesauservicesdesplusbellesréussitesaéronautiques.GallimardLoisirs,Paris

DehornoyP(2010)Théorieaxiomatiquedesensembles. In: EncyclopeadiaUniversalis.EncyclopaediBritannica,Paris,pCorpus

Dias WPS, Subrahmanian E, Monarch IA (2003) Dimensions of order in engineeringdesignorganizations.DesignStudies24(4):357-373.

DorstK(2006)DesignProblemsandDesignParadoxes.DesignIssues22(3):4-17.Dorst K, Vermaas PE (2005) John Gero’s Function-Behaviour-Structure model of

designing:acriticalanalysis.ResearchinEngineeringDesign16(1-2):17-26.Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey D, Leifer LJ (2005) Engineering Design Thinking,

Teaching,andLearning.JournalofEngineeringEducationJanuary2005:103-120.ElQaoumi,K.,LeMasson,P.,Weil,B.,andÜn,A.(2017).TestingEvolutionaryTheoryof

HouseholdConsumptionBehaviorinthecaseofNovelty–Productcharacteristicsapproach.JournalofEvolutionaryEconomcs,(accepted)pp.

Elmquist M, Le Masson P (2009) The value of a ‘failed’ R&D project: an emergingevaluation framework forbuilding innovativecapabilities.R&DManagement39(2):136-152.

Elmquist M, Segrestin B (2009) Sustainable development through innovative design:lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm.InternationalJournalofAutomotiveTechnologyandManagement9(2):229-244.

Eris O (2003) Asking generative questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism indesign thinking. In: International Conference on Engineering design, ICED'03,Stockholm,2003.

Eris O (2004) Effective Inquiry for Innovative Engineering design. Kluwer AcademicPublisher,Boston

FelkY,LeMassonP,WeilB,HatchuelA(2011)Designingpatentportfoliofordisruptiveinnovation - a new methodology based on C-K theory. In: International

- 23 -

ConferenceonEngineeringDesign,ICED'11, Copenhagen,TechnicalUniversityofDenmark,2011.p12

FlemmingU(1987)MoreThantheSumofParts:TheGrammarofQueenAnneHouses.EnvironmentandPlanningB:PlanningandDesign14(3):323-350.

FreitasSalgueiredoC,HatchuelA(2016)Beyondanalogy:Amodelofbio-inspirationforcreativedesign.AIEDAM30(SpecialIssue02):159-170.

GedenrydH(1998)Howdesignerswork-makingsenseofauthenticcognitiveactivities,PhD Thesis, University of Lund, Sweden.http://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/4819156/1484253.pdf, accessedSeptember1,2017.

Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design.AIMagazine11(4):26-36.

Goel AK (2013) A 30-year case study and 15 principles: implications of an artificialintelligence methodology for functional modeling. Artificial Intelligence forEngineeringDesign,AnalysisandManufacturing27(03):203-215.

GoelAK,McAdamsDA,StoneRB(2015)Biologicallyinspireddesign.Springer.HatchuelA (2002)TowardsDesignTheoryandexpandable rationality: theunfinished

programofHerbertSimon. JournalofManagementandGovernance5(3-4):260-273.

HatchuelA,LeMassonP(2006)Growthofthefirmbyrepeatedinnovation:towardsanew microeconomics based on design functions. In: 11th InternationalSchumpeterSociety,Nice-Sophia-Antipolis,France,2006.p18

Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Reich Y, Weil B (2011a) A systematic approach of designtheories using generativeness and robustness. In: International Conference onEngineering Design, ICED'11, Copenhagen, Technical University of Denmark,2011a.p12

Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2006) Building Innovation Capabilities. TheDevelopment of Design-Oriented Organizations. In: Hage J, Meeus M (eds)Innovation, Science and Industrial Change, the Handbook of Research. OxfordUniversityPress,New-York,pp294-312

HatchuelA,LeMassonP,WeilB(2008)Learningtofacetheunknownandtheemergent:a project-based critical learning perspective. In: European Academy ofManagement,Ljublana,2008.p19

Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2009) Design Theory and Collective Creativity: aTheoreticalFrameworktoEvaluateKCPProcess.In:InternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign,ICED'09,24-27August2009,StanfordCA,2009.

HatchuelA,LeMassonP,WeilB(2011b)TeachingInnovativeDesignReasoning:HowC-K Theory Can Help to Overcome Fixation Effect. Artificial Intelligence forEngineeringDesign,AnalysisandManufacturing25(1):77-92.

HatchuelA,LeMassonP,WeilB,AgoguéM,KazakçiAO,HoogeS(2015)Mulitpleformsof applications and impacts of a design theory - ten years of industrialapplicationsofC-Ktheory.In:ChakrabartiA,LindemannU(eds)ImpactofDesignResearchonIndustrialPractice-Tools,technology,andTraining.Springer,Munich,pp189-209

Hatchuel A, Reich Y, Le Masson P, Weil B, Kazakçi AO (2013a) Beyond Models andDecisions:SituatingDesignthroughgenerativefunctions.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign,ICED'13,Séoul,Korea,

HatchuelA,StarkeyK,TempestS,LeMassonP(2010)StrategyasInnovativeDesign:AnEmergingPerspective.AdvancesinStrategicManagement27:3-28.

- 24 -

HatchuelA,WeilB(2003)Anewapproachtoinnovativedesign:anintroductiontoC-Ktheory.In:ICED'03,August2003,Stockholm,Sweden,2003.p14

HatchuelA,WeilB(2007)DesignasForcing:deepeningthefoundationsofC-Ktheory.In:InternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign,Paris,2007.p12

Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Research inEngineeringDesign19(4):181-192.

HatchuelA,WeilB,LeMassonP(2013b)Towardsanontologyofdesign:lessonsfromC-KDesigntheoryandForcing.ResearchinEngineeringDesign24(2):147-163.

HendriksL,KazakçiAO(2010)Aformalaccountofthedualextensionofknowledgeandconcept in C-K design theory. Paper presented at the International designconference-Design2010,Dubrovnik,Croatia,

Hendriks L, Kazakçi AO (2011) Design as Imagining Future Knowledge, a FormalAccount. In: Grossi D, Minica S, Rodenhäuser B, Smets S (eds) Logic andInteractiveRationality.pp111-125

Hidalgo CA, Hausmann R (2009) The building blocks of economic complexity.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences106(26):10570-10575.

ImholzS,SachterJ(eds)(2014)Psychology'sDesignScience.CommonGroundPublishing,Champaign,IL

JechT(2002)SetTheory.SpringerMonographsinMathematics,3rdmilleniumedition,revisedandexpandededn.Springer,Berlin

Josephson JR, Josephson SG (1996) Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy,technology.CambridgeUniversityPress,

Kazakçi AO (2013) On the imaginative constructivist nature of design: a theoreticalapproach.ResearchinEngineeringDesign24(2):127-145.

Kazakçi AO, Gillier T, Piat G, Hatchuel A (2014) Brainstorming vs. Creative DesignReasoning: A Theory-Driven Experimental Investigation of Novelty, Feasibilityand Value of Ideas. Paper presented at theDesignComputingandCognition'14,London,UK,

Kokshagina O (2014) Risk Management in Double Unknown: Theory, Model andOrganizationfortheDesignofGenericTechnologies.MINESParisTech,Paris

Kokshagina O, Le Masson P, Weil B, Cogez P (2014) Innovative field exploration &associatedpatentportfoliodesignmodels.Paperpresentedat the IDMME2014,Toulouse,France,

KrollE,LeMassonP,WeilB(2014)Steepest-firstexplorationwithlearning-basedpathevaluation:uncoveringthedesignstrategyofparameteranalysiswithC–Ktheory.ResearchinEngineeringDesign25:351-373.

KrollE,KoskelaL(2017)Studyingdesignabductioninthecontextofnovelty,ICED'17,Vancouver,Canada,2017.

Lancaster KJ (1966a) Change and innovation in the technology of consumption.AmericanEconomicReview56:14-23.

Lancaster KJ (1966b) A New Approach to Consumer Theory. The Journal of PoliticalEconomy74(2):132-157.

LeMassonP,AggeriF,BarbierM,CaronP(2012a)Thesustainablefibresofgenerativeexpectationmanagement: The “buildingwith hemp” case study. In: BarbierM,Elzen B (eds) System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design PracticestowardsTransitionsforSustainableAgriculture.INRAEditions,Paris,pp226-251

LeMassonP,DorstK,SubrahmanianE(2013)DesignTheory:history,stateoftheartsandadvancements.ResearchinEngineeringDesign24(2):97-103.

- 25 -

Le Masson P, Hatchuel A, Kokshagina O, Weil B (2015a) Generic technique and thedynamicsoftechnologies:usingmatroidanddesigntheorytodesigntechniqueswithsystemic impact. In: InternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign,Milan,2015a.

LeMassonP,HatchuelA,WeilB(2010a)ModelingNovelty-DrivenIndustrialDynamicswithDesignFunctions:understandingtheroleoflearningfromtheunknown.In:13thInternationalSchumpeterSociety,Aalborg,Denmark,2010a.p28

LeMasson P, Hatchuel A,Weil B (2011) The Interplay Between Creativity issues andDesignTheories: a newperspective forDesignManagement Studies?CreativityandInnovationManagement20(4):217-237.

LeMassonP,HatchuelA,WeilB(2016)DesigntheoryatBauhaus: teaching“splitting”knowledge.ResearchinEngineeringDesign27(April2016):91-115.

LeMassonP,WeilB(2013)Designtheoriesaslanguagesfortheunknown:insightsfromthe German roots of systematic design (1840-1960). Research in EngineeringDesign24(2):105-126.

LeMassonP,WeilB(2014)Réinventerl'entreprise: lagestioncollégialedesinconnuscommunsnonappropriables.In:SegrestinB,RogerB,VernacS(eds)L'entreprise,pointaveugledusavoir.Scienceshumaines,Paris,pp238-253

LeMassonP,WeilB,HatchuelA(2010b)StrategicManagementofInnovationandDesign.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge

LeMassonP,WeilB,HatchuelA (2017)DesignTheory-MethodsandOrganizationforInnovation.SpringerNature.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50277-9

LeMasson P,Weil B, Hatchuel A, Cogez P (2012b)Why aren’t they locked inwaitinggames? Unlocking rules and the ecology of concepts in the semiconductorindustry..TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement24(6):617-630.

LeMassonP,WeilB,KokshaginaO(2015b)Anewperspectiveforriskmanagement:astudyofthedesignofgenerictechnologywithamatroidmodelinC-Ktheory.In:Taura T (ed) Principia Designae－ Pre-Design, Design, and Post-Design - SocialMotive for theHighly Advanced Technological Society. Springer, Tokyo, pp 199-219

Lenfle S (2012) Exploration, project evaluation and design theory: a rereading of theManhattancase.InternationalJournalofManagingProjectsinBusiness5(3):486-507.

LenfleS,LeMassonP,WeilB (2016)Whenprojectmanagementmeetsdesign theory:revisitingtheManhattanandPolarisprojectstocharacterize“radicalinnovation”and its managerial implications. Creativity and Innovation Management 25(3):378-395.

MabogunjeA,LeiferLJ(1997)NounPhrasesasSurrogatesforMeasuringEarlyPhasesof the Mechanical Design Process. In: 9th international Conference on DesignTheory andMethodology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, September14-17,Sacramento,CA,1997.p6

March,L(1964)Logicofdesign,InCross,N.,(ed),DevelopmentsinDesignMethodology,Wiley,Chichester.

MargolinV(2010)DoctoralEducationinDesign:ProblemsandProspects.DesignIssues26(3):70-78.

MeijerS,ReichY,SubrahmanianE(2015)Thefutureofgamingforcomplexsystems.In:Backtothefutureofgaming.

Monarch IA, Konda SL, Levy SN, Reich Y, Subrahmanian E, Ulrich C (1997) MappingSociotechnicalNetworksintheMaking.In:BowkerGC,StarSL,TurnerW,Gasser

- 26 -

L(eds)SocialScience,TechnicalSystems,&CooperativeWork.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Mahwah,

Nagai Y, Taura T, Mukai F (2008) Concept Blending and Dissimilarity. Factors forCreative Design Process - A Comparison between the Linguistic InterpretationProcess and Design Process. In: Design Research Society Biennial Conference,Sheffield,UK,16-19July2008,2008.

NagelJK,PittmanP,PidapartiR,RoseC,BeverlyC(2016)TeachingbioinspireddesignusingC–Ktheory.Bioinspired,BiomimeticandNanobiomaterials0(0):1-10.

Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for CollectiveAction.CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork

PahlG,BeitzW,FeldhusenJ,GroteK-H(2007)Engineeringdesign,asystematicapproach(trans: Wallace K, Blessing L, Bauert F). Third English edition edn. Springer,London

PotierO,BrunJ,LeMassonP,WeilB(2015)HowInnovativeDesigncancontributetoChemicalandProcessEngineeringdevelopment?OpeningnewinnovationpathsbyapplyingtheC-Kmethod.ChemicalEngineeringResearchandDesign103:108-122.

RaïffaH(1968)DecisionAnalysis.Addison-Wesley,Reading,MAReddy JM, Finger S, Konda S, Subrahmanian E (1997) Designing as Building and Re-

UsingofArtifactTheories:UnderstandingandSupportofDesignKnowledge.In:ProceedingsoftheWorkshoponEngineeringDesignDebate,UniversityofGlasgow,Glasgow,Scotland.,1997.

Reich Y (1995) A critical review of general design theory.Research in EngineeringDesign,7(1):1-18.

Reich Y (2010) My method is better!, Editorial, Research in Engineering Design,21(3):137-142.

Reich Y (2017) The principle of reflexive practice, Design Science, 3, 2017.https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.3

ReichY,HatchuelA,ShaiO,SubrahmanianE(2010)ATheoreticalAnalysisofCreativityMethods in Engineering Design: Casting ASIT within C-K Theory Journal ofEngineeringDesign:1-22.

Reich Y, Konda S, Subrahmanian E, Cunningham D, Dutoit A, Patrick R, Thomas M,WesterbergWA(1999)BuildingAgilityforDevelopingAgileDesignInformationSystems.ResearchinEngineeringDesign11(2):67-83.

ReichY,KondaSL,MonarchIA,LevySN,SubrahmanianE(1996)Varietiesandissuesofparticipationanddesign.DesignStudies17(2):165-180.

ReichY,ShaiO(2012)Theinterdisciplinaryengineeringknowledgegenome.ResearchinEngineeringDesign23(3):251-264.

ReichY,ShaiO,SubrahmanianE,HatchuelA,LeMassonP(2008)Theinterplaybetweendesign and mathematics: introduction and bootstrapping effects. In: 9thInternationalConferenceonEngineeringSystemsDesignandAnalysis,Haifa,Israel,2008.p5

ReichY,SubrahmanianE(2015)DesigningPSI:an introduction to thePSI framework.In:WeberC,HusingS,CantamessaM,CasciniG,MarjanovicD,VenkataramanS(eds)ICED'15,Milan,Italy,2015.pp137-146

ReichY,SubrahmanianE(2017)ThePSIMatrix–AFrameworkandaTheoryofDesign,ICED'17,Vancouver,Canada,2017.

RicoeurP(1975)Lamétaphorevive.Points.LeSeuil,Paris

- 27 -

Rittel HWJ (1972) On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the 'First and SecondGenerations'.Bedriftsokonomen8:390-396.

SavageLJ(1972)Thefoundationsofstatistics.2ndedition(1stedition:1954)edn.Dover,NewYork

SavanovicP,ZeilerW(2007)'IntegralDesign'Workshops:ImprovingBuildingPracticeand Education Through Methodological Approach for Multidisciplinary DesignTeams.In:InternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign,ICED'07,Paris,August28-31,2007.p12

SchönDS (1990)TheDesignProcess. In:HowardVA (ed)VarietiesofThinking.EssaysfromHarvard'sPhilosophyofEducationResearchCenter.Routledge,NewYork,NY,pp110-141

Segrestin B, Hatchuel A (2008) The Shortcomings of the corporate standard: towardnew enterprise frameworks. International Review of Applied Economics 22 (4 -SpécialIssueonRegulationandGovernanceoftheFirm):429-445.

SegrestinB,HatchuelA(2011)BeyondAgencyTheory,aPost-crisisViewofCorporateLaw.BritishJournalofManagement22(3):484-499.

SEoP (2017) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Peirce on Abduction,https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/peirce.html,July29,2017

Shai O, Reich Y (2004a) Infused Design: I Theory. Research in EngineeringDesign 15(2):93-107.

ShaiO,ReichY (2004b) InfusedDesign: IIPractice.ResearchinEngineeringDesign 15(2):108-121.

ShaiO,ReichY,HatchuelA,SubrahmanianE(2009a)CreativityTheoriesandScientificDiscovery:aStudyofC-KTheoryandInfusedDesign.In:InternationalConferenceonEngineeringDesign,ICED'09,24-27August2009,StanfordCA,2009a.

ShaiO,ReichY,HatchuelA,SubrahmanianE(2013)Creativityandscientificdiscoverywith infused design and its analysis with C-K theory. Research in EngineeringDesign24(2):201-214.

ShaiO,ReichY,RubinD (2009b)CreativeConceptualDesign:Extending theScopebyInfusedDesign.Computer-AidedDesign41(3):117-135.

SharifUllahAMM,MamunurRashidM,TamakiJi(2011)OnsomeuniquefeaturesofC-Ktheoryofdesign.CIRPJournalofManufacturingScienceandTechnologyinpress.

SimonHA(1969)TheSciencesoftheArtificial.M.I.T.Press,Cambridge,MA,USASimonHA(ed)(1979)ModelsofThought,vol1.YaleUniversityPress,NewHavenSimonHA(1995)Problemforming,problemfinding,andproblemsolvingindesign.In:

Collen A, Gasparski WW (eds) Design and Systems: general application ofmethodology,vol3.TransactionPublishers,NewBrunswick,NJ,pp245-257

StinyG,GipsJ(1972)ShapeGrammarsandtheGenerativeSpecificationofPaintingandSculpture. In: Petrocelli OR (ed) The Best Computer Papers of 1971. Auerbach,Philadelphia,pp125-135

SubrahmanianE,MonarchIA,KondaS,GrangerH,MillikenR,WesterbergA,grouptN-d(2003)BoundaryObjectsandPrototypesattheInterfacesofEngineeringDesign.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork12:185-203.

Subrahmanian E, Reich Y, Konda SL, Dutoit A, Cunningham D, Patrick R, Thomas M,WesterbergAW(1997)Then-dimapproachtocreatingdesignsupportsystems.In:ASME-DETC,Sacramento,California,1997.

SubrahmanianE,ReichY,Krishnan S (2013)Context, collaboration and complexity indesigning: the pivotal role of cognitive artifacts. In: ICED'03, August 2003,Stockholm,Sweden,2003.

- 28 -

SuhNP(1978)OptimizationofManufacturingSystemsthroughAxiomatics.AnnalsoftheCIRP27(1).

SuhNP(1990)PrinciplesofDesign.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYorkTaura T, Nagai Y (2013) A Systematized Theory of Creative Concept Generation in

Design: First-order and high-order concept generation.Research inEngineeringDesign24(2):185-199.

TomiyamaT,YoshikawaH(1986)Extendedgeneraldesigntheory.volCS-R8604.CentreformathematicsandComputerScience,Amsterdam,theNetherlands

TverskyB (2002)Whatdo sketches say about thinking. In:AAAIspringsymposiumonsketchunderstanding,2002.MenloPark,CA:AAAIPress,pp148-151

VermaasPE (2013)On theFormal ImpossibilityofAnalysingSubfunctionsasPartsofFunctionsinDesignMethodology.ResearchinEngineeringDesign24:19-32.

vonFoersterH (1991)EthicsandSecond-OrderCybernetics. In:ReyY,PrieurB (eds)Systemes,ethiques:perspectivesenthérapiefamiliale.ESFéditeur,Paris,pp41-54

WaldA(1950)StatisticalDecisionFunctions.JohnWiley&Sons,NewYorkYoshikawaH (1981)GeneralDesignTheory and aCADSystem. In: SataT,WarmanE

(eds)Man-MachineCommunication inCAD/CAM,proceedings of the IFIPWG5.2-5.3WorkingConference1980(Tokyo).Amsterdam,North-Holland,pp35-57

ZengY,ChengGD(1991)Onthelogicofdesign.DesignStudies12(3):137-141.Zeng Y, Gu P (1999a) A science-based approach to product design theory: Part 1:

formulation and formalization of design process. Robotics and ComputerIntegratedManufacturing15:331-339.

Zeng Y, Gu P (1999b) A science-based approach to product design theory: Part 2:formulation of design requirements and products. Robotics and ComputerIntegratedManufacturing15:341-352.

Ziv-Av A, Reich Y (2005) SOS–Subjective objective system for generating optimalproductconcepts.DesignStudies26(5),509-533.