w. poelman, w. poelman, d. keyson-what architects & industrial designers can teach each other about...

8/20/2019 W. Poelman, W. Poelman, D. Keyson-What Architects & Industrial Designers Can Teach Each Other About Managin…

1/128


2/128

This page intentionally left blank


3/128

Design processesWhat Architects & Industrial Designers can teacheach other about managing the design process

Edited by: Wim Poelman and David Keyson


4/128

Edited by: Wim Poelman and David KeysonCommunication and Layout: Matty Cruijsberg

Graphic design: Janita Han

© 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-1-58603-945-5

Published by IOS Press under the imprint Delft University Press

Publisher IOS Press BVNieuwe Hemweg 6b1013 BG AmsterdamThe Netherlandstel: +31-20-688 3355fax: +31-20-687 0019email: [email protected]

LEGAL NOTICEThe publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the followinginformation.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS


5/1281

Preface

Contents

Preface Prof. dr. C.J.P.M. de Bont ________________________________ 3

1 Introduction Dr. ir. W.A. Poelman ____________________________________ 4

2 Design Processes Between academic and practice viewsDr. ir. H.H. Achten ______________________________________14

3 Visualization Sketching is Alive and Well in this Digital AgeProf. G. Goldschmidt ___________________________________ 28

4 Project Management

Project and risk Management in architecture andindustrial designProf. dr. ir. J.W.F. Wamelink and dr. J.L. Heintz _______________ 44

5 Social Complexity Social complexity in design collaborationProf. dr. P.G. Badke-Schaub ______________________________ 60

6 Decision Making A decision-based design approach ________________________ 68Dr. ir. P.P.J. van Loon, ir. R. Binnekamp and ir. J. Burger

7 Technology Diffusion and Design

The metabolism of knowledgeDr. ir. W.A. Poelman ____________________________________ 90

8 Closing speech Prof. dr. ir. A.C.J.M. Eekhout _____________________________ 108

Appendixes:

1 Chairman’s impressions Prof. dr. ir. T.M. de Jong _________________________________112

2 Program ____________________________________________120


6/1282


7/1283

Introduction

Preface

This book is a result of cooperation between the Faculties Industrial Design Engineeringand Architecture of Delft University of Technology. It presents the content of a series of This conference was organized in a special timeframe. On the 13th of may the Faculty of Architecture burned down. A few weeks later important part of the staff of Architecturehad moved in in the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering which might have agreater impact on the cooperation than the conference itself. Directly discussionsbetween scientists from both faculties started about possibilities for cooperation.Nevertheless this conference and this book mark an important moment in the 40 year

history after Industrial Design Engineering sprouted from the Faculty of Architecture.

Also on behalf of the dean of the Faculty of Architecture, professor Wytze Patijn, I thankthe reviewers professor Arthur O. Eger and professor Jos Lichtenberg for the effort Poelman and professor David Keyson for editing this book.

Professor Cees de Bont

Dean of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering


8/128

IDE+ADesign Processes - Wim Poelman and David Keyson (Eds.)

IOS Press, 2008 © 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction


9/1285

1 Introduction

Background

This conference has been organized in the context of the cooperation betweenthe faculties Industrial Design Engineering and Architecture of Delft University ofTechnology.In the second half of the sixties, Professor Joost van den Grinten took the initiative to startan interfaculty for “Technische en Industriële Vormgeving” as a spin-off of the facultyfor Architecture, and in cooperation with the faculty for Mechanical Engineering, amongothers. Some years later the faculty became independent and the name was changedinto the faculty of “Industrieel Ontwerpen” or Industrial Design Engineering. As yearswent by both faculties developed relatively independently which has had drawbacks knowledge develop themselves more easily in greenhouse-like organizations.However, after nearly forty years the two organizations still have a lot in common withthe main communality being their focus and vision on society and the role for leadingedge design research. Perhaps more important than what they have in common witheach other, is the design research work which is ‘complementary’ between the two

faculties. The research subjects within the portfolios of the two faculties differ as doesthe approach of the design related research in general. Human factors, methodologyand sustainability are examples of research subjects for which the approach of the cooperation. A team, consisting of the two deans and several professors of both faculties starteddiscussing the possibilities of cooperation, a discussion of which the results werepresented at a symposium in December 2005.

th of June 2008with the title “Design Processes”. This title was selected by an organizing committeeconsisting of Wim Poelman, David Keyson, Petra Badke Schaub, Teake the Jong andHannah Ottens. The committee was of the opinion that the most striking differencebetween the disciplines was the attitude against and the practice of methodology in thedesign process. It was decided that a preliminary investigation would be organized toprovide specialist with data from practice preparing their papers.

Preliminary Investigation

Four student assistants were invited to carry out the preliminary research, two fromeach faculty. Names: Gijs Kappen, Melissa van ter Meij, Maarten Heijmerink and MattyCruijsberg. subjects were: design processes in general (invited specialist professor Henri Achten),visualization as a design tool (invited specialist professor Petra Badke Schaub), projectmanagement (invited specialist professor Joost Wamelink), social complexity in


10/128

6 Introduction - W.A. Poelman

collaboration (invited specialist professor Petra Badke Schaub), decision making (invitedspecialist professor Peter Paul van Loon) and technology diffusion (invited specialist Eight projects were selected, four Industrial Design cases and four Architecture cases.Interviews were arranged with the involved companies/designers/architects. The

interviews were carried out by two students, one of each faculty. passed to the specialists.Papers prepared by the specialists were presented to peers, one of the University ofTwente (professor Arthur Eger) and one from the University of Eindhoven (professorJos Lichtenberg).The chairman of the conference professor Teake de Jong of the faculty for Architecturewas asked to comment the overall results of the conference. His comments are recordedin chapter “Chairmens Impression“.

The general impression is that specialists were not able to base their paper fully on The second is that a lot of interesting information came out of the interviews apart their own point of view. One other aspect might have played a role. For the specialiststhe conference was a great opportunity to present their own vision. The cases weredeployed rather for underpinning their own opinion than for analysis in order to cometo new insights.

One of the valuable results of the preliminary research turned out to be the propositionsfor which the interviewers explicitly asked. They are presented in this introduction. In theChairmen’s Impressions chapter he will comment these pro-propositions extensively.

The cases

The cases provide several examples of the various characters of design processes.Not all information, resulting from the preliminary research is free for publication, but

provide valuable information.

The Westraven building by CePeZed is a project for the government organization “Rijkswaterstaat” and based on existing building which is stripped completely until only building in which many new technologies were applied. Eye catching in the project are get rid of the boring repetition in the façade. Remarkable are furthermore the textilescreens in the façade which care for sun shading a well as for wind shielding and sounddecrease.


11/128

7Introduction - W.A. Poelman

Figure 1: Fasade detail

Propositions:Every advisor has solutions.oThe architect has to take all ideas to a higher level.oThe architect introduces problems, the advisor provides solutions.oCopies are compliments.o

The A230 chair by Ahrend is a representative example of an

advanced industrial design engineering product. As e result Ahrend team is able to develop a product which is optimizedin every aspect such as ergonomics, form, produce ability,sustainability, etcetera. Here comes to the fore an importantdifference with architecture: “development deepness”. Inarchitecture development costs are mostly written of onone product, while a chair is produced in ten thousands.

Figure 2: A230 chairProposition:

oDecision making mostly means: ‘how large is the demand’.oThe sales agency is our antenna.oThe purchasing agency is an interesting source.o o oStyling is 10% of our work.o

The ‘image-and-sound’ (in Dutch, beeld en geluid) building by Neutelings-Riedijk is

a useful example how art and architecture can be integrated. The relation between engineering and art. As the artist houses more or less in very architect, most industrialdesign engineers do not feel like an artist at all. The artistic industrial designer forms evenan apart group within the discipline organized in different professional organizations.The chair of Ahrend will never be regarded as art, but the knotted chair of Gijs Wanders


12/128


the cooperation with Jaap Drupsteen, a graphical and media designer. In addition to to the glass facade to realise this remarkable building.

Figure 3: The ‘image-and-sound’ building

Propositions:The scale of a project is not relevant for the way of communicating.oSteps are similar to those taught at TUDelft + geographical centeredocommunication.

o All knowledge in architecture is common knowledge.o

Also the BeerTender by MMID will never be regarded as art, but it is an excellent exampleof industrial design engineering where the link to marketing is crucial. This project isabout a new way of packing, distributing and drinking beer for the home market. Acceptance by the user of this concept is dependant of marketing communication butto a large extent of design. The look of the business to business image of the beercontainer would not work, not the ergonomics.

Figure 4: The beer container


13/128


Propositions:Beertender is produced in very large series.oMy own style isn’t important in this project.oStyle is work method f-d-p (Functionality & technology, Design (look & feel),oProduction & assembly)I cannot recall decisions that explicitly.o

But there have been moments like that during the project. Time, Money andoQuality.

The 1-2-3 House by Martini is an extremely interesting project in the context of therelation between architecture and industrial design engineering. You could say thatan architectural product is developed and produced as an industrial designed product.From the interview is learned that there are many constraints introducing this kind ofapproach in housing industry. Up scaling is necessary to earn back money invested inthe manufacturing process, but the market structure is not suitable to apply marketingstrategies from industry. The housing market is highly bureaucratic.

Figure 5: Turning the tunnel

The Carver of Spark Design & Engineering and carver Europe is based upon theinvention of a hydraulic canting mechanism, which enables stability of narrow vehicles.The application of the system leads to both a striking driving experience and a strikingvisual appearance. In fact, a new archetype of a vehicle is created which resembles across between a motorcycle and a small car. The success of the design is a result ofthe collaboration between the engineering company (Carver Europe) and the designcompany (Spark Engineering). The design problem is comparable with that of theBeertender, introducing new product concepts linked to new human behaviour and newvisual appearance. The difference is that Carver does not have a marketing power likethe beer companies. Introduction by immense marketing campaigns is not possible,so Carver is dependent on a slow introduction via innovators, trendsetters and trendfollowers.


14/128


15/128


Figure 7: Interior sketch

is the last project to discuss. The bed was not designedas a synchronous product but as a diachronic script, in which not a special deliveryservice, but the homecare nurse herself delivers and installs the bed. The physicalproduct was simply a way to enable that script. Because traditional care beds did not product.Script based design represents a growing trend in the discipline of industrial design write the script and then the products necessary to realise the script. In architecture

this might be more common. The use of a building should be described before it ispossible to design a proper building.

Figure 8:

Propositions:Not much attention was given to aesthetics.oUsers played an important role, from the start they were consulted and laterothey were involved when prototypes had to be tested.The people involved in the engineering phase are already looking over theoshoulder during the concept development stage.


16/128


From the short description of these cases it will be clear that the diversity is so large Nevertheless, a lot is learned from the cases in combination with the analysis and follow in Chapter “Chainman’s impressions.

The subtitle

The subtitle of the conference behind this book reads: “life is a theater. Architects carefor the scenery; Industrial designers care for the props; People care for the drama”. architecture and industrial design engineering. However, the message goes further thanthat. Most people will agree with the proposition that architects and industrial designengineers should not write the script for human existence. The function of scenery andprops designers is to serve the scriptwriter and the actors with objects supporting the

play. Imagine a situation in which the behavior of a performer has to change becauseof the scenery or props. For example, when the actor has to appear on the scene fromthe ceiling, or is only able to speak after putting of a mask, without discussing it beforewith the scriptwriter and actors, this would lead to an unacceptable situation.But in real life, this happens all the time. Human behavior is for a large part enshrinedby architects and designers and not anymore by people themselves and spiritualfathers who acted as scriptwriters for life and still do in religious communities like the the script.Nowadays, the script of life is for a large part written by architects and designers. Urban

planning decides how we spread our activities geographical. The design of modernresidential districts determines for a large part how we communicate with each other. of means for transport decide how we move ourselves and kitchen designers decidehow we cook.

All this has to do with the mechanisms of technology diffusion on which Wim Poelmanwill elaborate in his paper later.The main subject of this conference however is “Design Processes” and the main issues

of the conference were:

the contemporary interrelationship of Industrial Design and Architectureoa confrontation of contemporary design practice in both domains with academicotheory and education


17/12813


18/128



Design Processes


19/12815

2 Design processes between academic and practice views

Dr. ir. H.H. Achten Assistant Professor, Architectural ModelingEindhoven University of TechnologyFaculty of Architecture, Building and Planning

Design Systems Group

Abstract In order to speak about the commonalities and differences between industrial and Practice-based descriptions have a long tradition, and are close to everyday reality of is a more recent development, which aims accurately to provide this framework. We

discuss the current understanding of design, its limitations, and some observationsrelated to the cases of the IDE+A Conference.

Keywords: design theory, design method, design research.

1 Do we understand design processes?

Before we begin the general argument in this paper, we must consider an importantpremise that underlies the motivation of the text. At the IDE+A Conference, architects then is this: can an architect or industrial designer discuss aspects of design in his or all, are about bricks, steel, glass, and wood; how to organise the spatial compositionof a building or urban environment, how to make structures and installations worktogether, etc. The industrial designer’s concerns are about plastics, textiles, and variouskinds of metals; how to create effective and ergonomic solutions for people; how to set

Both architects and product designers (or designers from any other discipline, for that designer is assigned or a team is put together, and work on the project continues untilits completion (or until its early cancellation). Such projects tend to take a long time,varying from a few months to several years. Throughout this time projects are subjectto all kinds of change: in the team, in the norms and laws to which the design must each project has its own confusing history of contingencies which must be solved forthe project to be completed successfully.There is a twofold assumption, therefore, when we talk about design processes: thatwe can bridge the differences between the design domains, and that we can abstractenough from everyday practice within each design domain to talk about the generalaspects of design. If either of these assumptions fails (or we choose not to believe inthem) then there is no basis for comparison other than the anecdotal level. Believing


20/128

Design processes - H.H. Achten16

in these assumptions, however, does not mean that all our problems are easily solved.Design processes have developed over a very long period of time (one could even claimthousands of years). There is a very close connection between the praxis of design,its body of knowledge, and design methods. For practitioners it is often very hard toseparate these views. The conception of the design process as something that can be

tremendous progress has been made in the understanding of design, there is still a lotleft to be understood properly.

The perspective that we take in this text, therefore, is academic rather than practice-based, since the academic view provides a transferable set of theoretical concepts by methods – and sketch the current orthodox view of what design processes are. Thisview is certainly not unchallenged, and a number of the most notable problems will be Conference.

Since the notions established in this paper are the result of research on design in allkinds of domains, here we refrain from talking about architects or industrial designers,but use the more generic term ‘designer.’

2 Design process, theory and method

In the description of the design process, two perspectives can be utilised: that of designtheory and of design method. Each has a very distinct view of design processes, but itis fair to claim that there is a very strong interdependency between the two.

procedures of design in a rather broad and general sense. Its central concern is howdesigning both is and might be conducted. This concern therefore includes the studyof how designers work and think; the establishment of appropriate structures for the

application to design problems’. difference between design processes (how designing is) and design methods (howdesigning might be conducted). In order to describe these aspects, it is necessary tohave a theoretical framework for design – this is design theory.It is important to notice that designers and researchers, when talking about designtheory, often mean different things. Professional design theory has been around at leastsince Vitruvius (approximately 1st Century BC; see Vitruvius 1960). Professional designtheory is instrumental theory in the sense that very often it instructs or describes howto get things done. Its main subject is the motivation and starting points for design, experience, and is very much object-oriented – urban environments, buildings, details,and so on. Professional design theory, however, is not the view that we take when wetalk about design theory.


21/128

17Design processes - H.H. Achten

2.1 The role of design theory

others, for example in an educational setting. Theory helps to distinguish between whatis fundamental to the discipline and what is not; which aspects and concepts matter todesign, and which aspects and concepts are incidental. This helps the designer maintain

an overview of the discipline and guards against ad-hoc actions. A strong theoretical are, and understands the means by which to achieve them. A too-rigid understanding balance.

In more recent applications, design theory has also been instrumental in the developmentof new tools for design – in particular in the development and application of computer enables new group processes such as collaborative design and twenty-four-hour designteams. Also the more direct use of the form and shape generating capacity of computers

human activities (for example, cooking, sport, arguing, etc.) If so,

2.2 The role of design methods

Design methods concern the actual or desired order of the design decisions that are informal and can mean anything from a habitual working method to highly structuredand controlled processes. Another recurring notion is the ‘personal design method’,

which is not communicated with others – it is even claimed to be incommunicable. Fora better understanding (and appreciation) of design methods, however, we must clearly and only if: 3. It is applicable to more than one case.


22/128


4. Other people can also apply it.5. It has criteria to determine when a step has been concluded.Each aspect of this list has to be present in order for something to be called a designmethod.

There are a number of reasons to develop and use design methods. Design methods are

occurs in complex design projects, or when the design(er) (team) takes on a problem structure the process. Finally, because of the explicitness of design methods, they alsohelp in coordinating large design teams or multiple experts involved in projects.

There is a sometimes tenuous relationship between design methods and practice. Mostof the designers of the IDE+A Conference cases, when asked whether they followeda method, replied either that they did not, or that when they did, it closely followedwhat they were taught at university. They also noted that practice will most oftenlead away from the ‘ideal process’, so there is a perceived lack of applicability. Whenconfronted with new or changed design methods, designers often feel restricted in theirfreedom (this is probably a stronger sentiment in architecture than in industrial design). time and effort, which distracts from the job at hand. This is a situation that a skilleddesigner wants to avoid. This mechanism can also explain why designers often disliketalking about their method. Thinking about the design process in terms of method is

a rationalising activity. Design problems, however, as we will see in the next section, has to state where things are explicitly explainable and where they are not. This againmay cause uncertainty or confer a sense of uneasiness. The mark of a skilled designer effort. Conscious thinking about the act of designing disrupts this because it challengesthe hidden skills to become expressed. Again, this is experienced as an intrusive activity.Finally, in the domain of architecture in particular there is a heightened status for stardesigners. Connected with this status is a tendency to keep the processes or methods

shrouded as some kind of mystery or art.

Most design methods have been developed for single designers. In some cases,design teams are considered to be one designer consisting of multiple persons. Thismay perhaps work for very well-contained design methods that have a limited scope at higher level goals because of group dynamics and mixed expertise. As much ofeveryday design takes place in teams or in communication structures with outside

To conclude, if we want to describe design processes, we need a theoretical frameworkfor design. It is basically a descriptive activity with design(ing) as its subject. Based ontheoretical considerations, a design theory may lead to a design method, but this isnot necessarily so. Design methods, on the other hand, may be the subject of designtheory. Design methods are prescriptive and solution-oriented. A design method always design process.


23/128


3 The orthodox view of design processes

of distinct periods (see Cross (1984) and Jones (1980) for good accounts of thisdevelopment). Three research approaches have emerged as dominant in the currentview of design processes: rational problem solving, about the structuring of design

problems; information processing, about the thought processes of designers; andprotocol analysis, about the research methods to study designers. Obviously, there aremany other ways to research and investigate design (see for example Oxman et al.(1995), Achten et al. (2001), and Achten et al. (2005) for an overview), but the threementioned above constitute what we might call the ‘orthodox view’ of design and thestudy of design.

3.1 The nature of design problems

In the theoretical research on design, a distinction is commonly made between fourclasses of problems with an increasing degree of complexity and unpredictability: tameproblems, well-structured problems, ill-structured problems, and wicked problems(Lawson (1990), Simon (1973)). The general consensus is that design problems are and Webber (1973):

2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad.

4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wickedproblem.

5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; becausethere is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt

6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustivelydescribable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-describedset of permissible operations that may be incorporated in the plan.

8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of anotherproblem.9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be

explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determinesthe nature of the problem’s resolution.

10. The planner has no right to be wrong.

degree of rationality can be applied to solve them. Creating a solution will alwaysdepend to some degree on a creative insight. The phase where solutions are created

is the challenging part where a designer seemingly ‘jumps’ from a problem settingto a solution. A match or mapping is made between two distinct things – a problemand a solution. This is not trivial: just why exactly a given solution matches a problemis still unanswered. Both problems and solutions are complex and they have almostno common elements in their structure. In most cases, problems and solutions are


24/128


or other verbal statements; and solutions as conglomerations of ordered elements ofurban/city environments, buildings, or objects.

3.2 Structure of the design process

Given the characteristics of design problems, it follows that creating a solution is not

therefore, is a lengthy process in time, during which the designer iterates and revisesthe design many times. Designing is as much about understanding the problem as itis about creating a solution, in particular in the early phase of design. Therefore, notonly does the designer utilise information and knowledge that is provided at the outset(brief, site, client, etc.) but he or she also generates a lot of knowledge throughout thedesign process. activities and documents that are created and performed in design. The BDC consistsof the following (terms in italics denote activities):1. Function statement: a statement about what is needed in the design

problem.2. Analysis: analysis of the function statement or current state of the

design.3. Criteria: a set of criteria to which the design has to conform.4. Synthesis: the creation of a (preliminary) design or solution to a sub-

problem.5. Provisional design: the external representation, by means of sketch,

drawing, text, or model, of the (preliminary) design.

6. Simulation: the derivation of the expected behaviour or performanceof the (preliminary) design.

7. Expected properties: a prediction of the future behaviour orperformance of the (preliminary) design.

8. Evaluation: a judgement of how well the (preliminary) designperforms, based on the criteria formulated earlier, and the expectedproperties.

9. Value of the design: a value setting of the performance, based on theevaluation and goals set by the designer.

10. Decision: the decision to continue with the design (either through thecreation of a new proposal in Synthesis, or restating the problem next document:

Roozenburg and Eekels note that the actual order of activities and documents in aconcrete design project is unpredictable, so they do not claim that this order is indicativefor a design project. Rather, they claim that in any given design project, each activityand each document has to be performed or created at least once, but most likely many

times over.

The BDC may be considered to be the ‘private’ design cycle for a designer or designteam. Throughout the whole design process, additional structuring is created as well –in architecture this is usually a phased process consisting of sketch design, preliminary that describe the design solution with increasing precision. The purpose of the phased


25/128


structure is to create secure, consistent descriptions of the design which can formthe basis for the next steps in the design process. In that way, the designer avoidsunnecessary backtracking.

3.3 Forms of knowledge in design

Designing is knowledge intensive. Much of design is a matter of applying knowledge ofprevious solutions that inform the basic direction in which the current design solutionhas to move. Previous solutions can be referred to as precedents (prominent examples),types (generalised knowledge of classes of buildings or products), and analogies (usedas metaphors rather than literal examples).

The design process itself starts out with many facts, arising from the brief and fromclients’ desires, from the site where a project is to be realised, from particular technologiesthat will be used (for example the 123 House case in the IDE+A Conference), budget,and so on. Throughout the design process, additional knowledge is generated aboutthe design itself, and the designer searches also for information based on the needs atthat point in the design. Constraints put limits or boundaries on the design or the context of design. Client goals,norms and laws, local regulations, welfare, and so on have to be met in order for adesign to be approved.

3.4 Forms of reasoning in the design process

In order to create (preliminary) design solutions, knowledge and information must beprocessed. This involves several forms of reasoning. Reasoning by example is a major analogy, the designer takes some element of the example and, based on the perceivedstructure of the solution, generates a new solution that is suited to the current designproblem.

A way of reasoning in design that is a bit more explorative or imaginative is through ‘what-if’ reasoning or by means of scenarios. In these cases, the designer takes the

current design and tries to imagine how it will perform. In this way, designers can alsouse previously experienced episodes with other buildings or urban environments andaim to duplicate them in the current design.

Given the characteristics of wicked problems, it is not possible to determine objectively designers try to meet the constraints set out in the brief, and those that are imposed bythe context of the project. However, this does not mean they have to prove that theirdesign is perfect or the only one possible. Rather, designers try to meet the constraintsas much as possible, and aim to reach at least a minimum threshold of performance or

Analytical modes of reasoning are used particularly in the analysis phase of a project, or plays a role in the design process. Finally, the least well understood form of reasoningis what is generally called ‘visual reasoning’. Designers use external representationssuch as drawings and sketches a lot, and a considerable amount of generation and


26/128


judgement is done visually on the basis of such sketches and drawings. All designers ofthe IDE+A cases strongly indicate that they consider sketching to be a vital skill.

3.5 Psychological view of designers

The reasoning and memory abilities of people is limited. Memory is generally conceived

of as consisting of two main functional parts: long-term memory (LTM) and short-termmemory (STM) – see Akin (1986) for a good introduction. LTM is where experiences not directly accessible for conscious processing. In STM memories are accessed fromLTM and once there can become the subject of thought processes. STM works relativelyfast, but it has a limited capacity to hold information. In general, this is thought of asroughly seven coherent pieces of information, called chunks. How big the chunks canbe, or how they are organised, remains unclear. It seems evident, however, that moreexperienced or skilled designers utilise better or more compressed pieces of informationwhen they are reasoning.

3.6 External representations in the design process

Limited reasoning and memory capacity is an additional factor that structures designprocesses. One role of representations such as drawings and models is to form anexternal memory which can store information about the design by similarity. The stored information.

External representations, in particular those that complete a phase of the design process legal status, and they are also used to communicate between parties in the designprocess. A large part of the activity in the design process, therefore, is reserved for theproduction of accurate and precise drawings and documents.

3.7 Creativity in design processes

Creativity plays an important role in design – it is the mechanism with which a designer

is able to come up with a novel solution to a problem. Creativity does not work inisolation; it needs to be embedded in a work context that provides information and theright setting to generate an idea. A common distinction which is made in terms of design solutions are the following threeclasses of designs (Brown and Chandrasekaran, 1985):1. Routine design: the creation of a solution that falls completely within

the range of previous solutions. The solution is adapted to currentneeds but does not introduce anything novel. Redesign may also beconsidered to be routine design.

2. Innovative design: the creation of a solution which has at least one

additional feature that has not been seen before in this kind of designsolution. Most of the design conforms to existing examples, but onepart is pushing the limits. All the architecture design cases in theIDE+A Conference demonstrate this kind of design.

3. Creative design: the creation of a solution that has a highly differentstructure compared to existing solutions. A creative design does nothave a lot of similarities with existing designs.


27/128


the delineation between the classes is fairly straightforward. A routine design simply isan instance of an already known type or class; an innovative design adds somethingnew but does not change the structure of the type or class; and in creative design analtogether new structure for a type or class is created.

The delineation becomes less clear, however, when we try to apply it from a designer’sperspective. In particular the distinction between innovative and creative designbecomes hard to make. Especially if we insist on completely new structures, thenmost of architectural design simply is not creative – a conclusion with which many willdisagree. The difference in ‘innovative’ and ‘creative’, therefore, is more a matter ofthe degree to which a design is pushing existing limits by means of innovations.

3.8 Design, designers, the design process

Based on the above, we can now summarise the orthodox view as follows. Thedesigner can be conceived of as an information processor (STM, LTM, and cognitivestructures) who tries to solve wicked problems. An important design activity is thesubdivision and reformulation of the wicked problem into sub-problems in order tomake them well-structured. The designer has procedural knowledge in the form of (architecture, industrial design, machine engineering, etc.) as well as knowledge ofprevious solutions (cases, precedents, and types).

Because of the limitations of STM and LTM, the designer cannot have an overview of

the whole problem (even not when a problem is well-structured, which in design does External representations such as drawings and models help to maintain an overview

Through the use of phases the designer prevents the possibility that, late in theprocess, a small change will necessitate a redesign of the whole project (this doesnot always work). Throughout the design process the designer explores both thesolution and the problem. One might claim that only at the end of the design process

is the design problem understood. A design problem does not have one single correctsolution. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine the degree of correctness. The

4 Challenges to the orthodox view of design processes

The view of design processes sketched above is rather concise, but in broad outlinesprovides the contours of our current understanding of design processes. As can beseen, there is a strong interdependency between theoretical and methodologicalnotions. Despite the relatively short period of time that design has been an area for is not the ultimate description of what design is about. Many things are still unknownand there are many challenges to the orthodox view of design processes.

The foundation of the orthodox view of design processes is rational problem solving


28/128


Table 1 below sets out the differences between the two approaches.

Since rational problem solving has the longer research tradition, it is clear that its practice, as noted by several researchers (see Dorst (1997), Valkenburg (2000), Reymen(2001)), has a weak theoretical foundation, but strongly appeals to designers. Unlessa designer has a very systematic approach to design, the naming-framing-moving-evaluating cycle seems much closer to what designers do. In earlier work (see Achten(2003)), where we investigated the normative stance of three well-known architects

through their published works (Peter Eisenman, UN Studio, and Greg Lynn) in order toderive their design methods, we have found some evidence for this. This concerns inparticular the decomposition of the problem, which resembles naming-framing morethan decomposition. This is so because there is a strong focus on concept formation.

An additional aspect that RPS ignores is the social aspects of design. Designers do notoperate in isolation, and most of the time they work in teams. The social aspects ofgroup dynamics such as leadership, dominance, negotiation, and team building are notdealt with (see for example Foley and Macmillan (2005), Valkenburg (2000), Baird et al.(2000), Ball and Ormerod (2000)).Lastly, the idea that the motivation for design, or particular design decisions, is notpurely rational or can be stated completely objectively is a problem. Part of the waydesigners in teams persuade each other is by means of storytelling. Another way toinvestigate verbal exchanges in design teams is to look at convergence in the use ofwords, to see whether a more or less consistent group dynamic is developing (Lloyd(2000), Turner and Turner (2003), Dong (2005)).

Although RPS pays due attention to the psychological structure of designers, there isno real differentiation between possible types of designers. In recent work, Lawson and

Dorst (2005) have investigated the notion of the level of expertise at which designers beginner, competent, expert, master, and visionary. Different cognitive structures, setsof competences, and ways of organising the design process are associated with each.

Most of the work summarised here (except for Schön’s work) has begun in the pastdecade and is still in development. This is only a brief sketch of additional or alternative


29/128


done justice in this section alone.

5 The IDE+A design cases

The IDE+A design cases include four from architecture, and four from industrial

design. From the description of each, it is clear that the complexity of the design teamplays an important role in the design process. Given the above outline of the currentunderstanding of design processes, we can immediately see that this aspect is foundwanting, as team design is not covered much by current research. Nevertheless, we canmake a number of observations about the cases.1. Most of the designers who were interviewed were able to identify the

authorship of the key ideas in a project without a problem. One mightexpect that due to the size of teams and the complexity of the task,this may be more problematic.

2. In the architectural cases, innovation is much more focused on asingle aspect whereas in the industrial design cases, innovation isoften spread out over a number of key components.

is a common phenomenon. However, this also means that the designprocess structure is different from the classical client-meets-architectmodel. The competition design leads to a proposal by which thearchitect hopes to win the competition, but it is not the same as the

a real risk of not getting the job. So in this type of process, there different concerns.

4. Because of their length, the structuring of the design process in thecases is based on the main documents or phases rather than the moredetailed design process for the single designer. The ‘ideal designprocess’ is seen as a point of reference, rather than an attainablegoal.

5. Practice is very demanding and problem-oriented. This means that if

something does not yield immediate results, designers are not eager fails to provide productive frameworks for designers. Findings are threshold for their application.

engineering, chemistry, information technology, and so forth. Since design theory in this what design is, it is necessary to reference to practice as much as possible.

6 Conclusion


30/128


in the nature of design, designers, and design products. It has also revealed however,that there is a lot more left to be understood than we currently know. Partly this willalways be the case: the study what design is, will never yield what it is to be a designer. for the design problem at hand, but it helps in creating the basic skills for the designer.Finally, from the view of professional and academic responsibility, we need to understand

what we are doing in a systematic, objective, and rigorous way – in order to engage inthe creative, unexpected, and joyful way of designing.

References Achten, H.H. (2003), ‘New Design Methods for Computer Aided ArchitecturalDesign Methodology Teaching’; International Journal of ArchitecturalComputing 1(1), pp. 72-91. Achten, H.H., Dorst, K., Stappers, P.J. and de Vries, B. (2005), ‘Design

Research in the Netherlands 2005 – Proceedings of the Symposiumheld on 19-20 May 2005 Eindhoven University of Technology’;Eindhoven: Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning.

Achten, H.H., Hennessey, J. and de Vries, B. (2001), ‘Design Research in theNetherlands 2000’, Eindhoven, Faculty of Architecture, Building andPlanning.

Akin, O. (1986), ‘Psychology of Architectural Design’, London, Pion.Baird, F., Moore, C.J. and Jagodzinski, A.P. (2000), ‘An Ethnographic Study of

Engineering Design Teams at Rolls-Royce Aerospace’; Design Studies21(4), pp. 333-355.

Ball, L.J. and Ormerod, Th.C. (2000), ‘Applying Ethnography in the Analysis

and Support of Expertise in Engineering Design’; Design Studies21(4), pp.403-421.

Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekaran, B. (1985), ‘Expert Systems for a Class ofMechanical Design Activity’, in Knowledge Engineering in Computer- Aided Design, ed. by Gero, J.S., Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp.259-282.

Cross, N. (1984), ‘Developments in Design Methodology’; Chichester, Wiley.Dong, A. (2005), ‘The Latent Semantic Approach to Studying Design Team

Communication’; Design Studies 26(5), pp. 445-461.

Dorst, C.H. (1997), ‘Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms’; PhDthesis, Delft: Delft University of Technology.Foley, J. and Macmillan, S. (2005), ‘Patterns of Interaction in Construction

Team Meetings’; CoDesign 1(1), pp. 19-37.Jones, J.C. (1980), ‘Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures’; London: Wiley

Interscience.

London: Butterworth Architecture.

Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design VI., ed. by Gero, J.S.

and Maher, M.L., Key Centre University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 211-230.Lloyd, P. (2000), ‘Storytelling and the Development of Discourse in the

Engineering Design Process’; Design Studies 21(4), pp. 357-373.Oxman, R.M., Bax, M.F.Th. and Achten, H.H. (1995), ‘Design Research in the

Netherlands: A Symposium Convened By the Design Methods GroupInformation Technology for Architecture, January 1995’; Eindhoven,Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning.


31/128


Reymen, I. (2001), ‘Improving Design Processes Through Structured Eindhoven: Institute for Programming Research and Algorithms.

Rittel, W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), ‘Planning Problems are WickedProblems”, In Cross, N. (1984), “Developments in DesignMethodology’; Chichester, Wiley, pp. 135-144.

Roozenburg, N. and Eekels, J. (1995), ‘Product Design: Fundamentals andMethods’, Chichester, Wiley.

Action’; London, Basic Books.

Simon, H. (1973). ‘The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems’, In Cross, N.(1984), “Developments in Design Methodology’; Chichester, Wiley, pp.145-166.

MIT Press. First Edition 1969.

Turner, S. and Turner, P. (2003), ‘Telling Tales: Understanding the Role ofNarrative in the Design of Taxonomic Software’; Design Studies 23(6),pp. 537-547.

thesis, Delft, Industrial Design Engineering.

Vitruvius (1960), ‘Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture’, translated byMorris Hickey Morgan, New York, Dover.


32/128



Visualization


33/12829

3 Sketching is Alive and Well in this Digital Age

Prof. G. GoldschmidtProfessor, The Mary Hill Swope Chair in Architecture & Town PlanningFaculty of Architecture and Town PlanningTechnion – Israel Institute of Technology

Abstract The different modes of visualisation found in the Delft Interviews are explored with means of communicating with various project stakeholders. Two main conclusions arise between architects and industrial designers in the way they produce and use visuals.Second, despite the proliferation of potent digital visualisation means and their willingadaptation by design practitioners, freehand sketching continues to be practised byalmost all designers throughout the design process. The extraordinary cognitive advan-tages of sketching are outlined and it is argued that because of those advantages sket-ching will continue to reign in design until other means of visualisation will be capableof emulating its supremacy.

Keywords: DI (Delft Interviews); digital; design; model; sketch; visualisation

Introduction

In a world such as the one we live in it is only natural for young students, who wereborn into the digital age, to ask their designer-interviewees: ‘In this digital age is the- expected answer is ‘no’, but the courteous students ‘allow’ the designers, practicing

Sketching is a mode of visualisation, alongside other modes. All designers in the surveytalk about means of visualisation they used in the particular project on which the inter-

view focuses but they all generalise to other cases as well. Visualisation, in the evidence as communication in its roles of information and image recording and description, de-monstration and sharing, explanation and convincing. Apart from freehand sketches(including annotations), visuals include primarily other manual drawings on paper, di-gital two- and three-dimensional drawings, and physical models. Digital drawings canbe divided into two distinct types: precise measured drawings, and three-dimensionalimages and renderings. Sometimes animation and movies are also added to the arsenalof visuals. When and for what purpose is each of these modes of visualisation used, -

Delft Interviews (DI), and which, perhaps surprisingly for the interviewers, are still in


34/128

30 Visualization - G. Goldschmidt

1 Why visualise?

-gners and those for whom the artefacts are designed consider many elements and theirproperties, as well as the relationships between them (and in the case of architecture,

also between them and their surroundings). Function and form must be understood, complex parameters is not possible without visualisation, especially the representationof shapes and forms. It is possible for individuals to entertain internal representation using mental imagery only (Athavankar 1997, Athavankar & Mukherjee 2003, Bilda etal. 2006), but imaging has its limitations and in any event it is applicable only to theprivate musings of individual designers; others are unable to share what is locked insidean individual’s mind. Fish (2004) argues that the capacity for mental imagery develo-ped in humans in prehistoric times for survival purposes as an aid in tasks like hunting;evolution has not caught up with newer human activities, such as design as we know it (Fish & Scrivener 1990).

Imaging may, though, have to do with preconceived ideas that designers bring with that preconceived ideas and images existed when they started work on their projects:Pesman (DI.1-Westraven Utrecht) said the image was directly in his head (p. 7); Meer-tens (DI.5-Beertender) said, ‘the design comes to you’ (p. 39); and Spark (DI.8-Carver

small car) stated explicitly, ‘the designer always starts with an image of what it has tolook like, this image comes to mind from the beginning’ (p.69).

But in practically all cases, more than one person was involved in the project right fromthe beginning. The team members, whether located in one place or dispersed geogra-phically, had to communicate during meetings and between meetings. This they didusing visualisations, which were prepared ahead of time and shown in meetings or sentaround, but also produced them in situ, as part and parcel of an ongoing discussion.Participants in design teams range from a small number of in-house designers to colla-

borations with partners and consultants from elsewhere, in addition to client represen-tatives. Visualisations help make sure that everyone concerned shares the same mentalmodels of the product’s looks and functioning, materials, manufacturing process or aparticular detail thereof that is being discussed. One might say that without visualisati-ons, it is inconceivable that a shared mental model could be achieved in a design team(Goldschmidt 2007). This is the foremost reason for visualising in the design process.

We have mentioned that one of the parties taking part in design meetings is the client.Clients vary greatly in the extent to which they wish, or are able, to get involved in thedesign process. But in any event they must approve the design, or select from amongst

alternatives. Designers must therefore make an effort to convince the client of thevirtues of their proposals, sometimes to the point of justifying budget increases. To doso they must show the client the designed entity in the most complete and attractivemanner possible, and in a mode the client, who is not necessarily technically adept, caneasily understand and appreciate. Digital devices such as graphically potent programs(3D) are often used for this purpose, and so are models. This is the second reason forvisualisation in the design process.


35/128


The third, and the least interesting reason for our purposes here, is visualisation forthe purpose of construction or manufacturing. The visualisations made for this purposeare technical in nature and today they are almost exclusively produced digitally (2D). companies. We shall not discuss these visualisations any further in this paper.

2 The digital age

What do we actually mean, in the design context, when we say that ours is a ‘digital manually, can now be done digitally in most cases, and more manipulations than were through buildings that do not exist yet, and so on). There are also new possibilities suchas digital prototyping which hardly existed a decade ago, mainly useful to industrialdesigners. Many more new applications are undoubtedly due to make their appearancein the foreseeable future. There are many advantages to digital drafting and modelling,such as speed, accuracy, ease of revision, and ease of sharing with others regardless ofwhere they are stationed. But that is not the whole story, of course: sophisticated algo-rithms permit the expansion of the world of manufactured and built forms, which areless restricted than was hitherto the case. For example, the free form of the roof of thestadium designed by Frei Otto for the 1972 Olympic games in Munich was a painstakingdesign effort, realised after countless models were built to approximate the curvaturesof the membranes, which did not conform to mathematically expressible shapes. Nowa-days digital means can not only easily save the considerable labour invested in buildingactual models, but also calculate the structure regardless of its irregular geometry and

ability of digital means to cope with completely free forms in architecture.

visualisation mode throughout the design process, and especially in its early, prelimi-nary phase. For experienced sketchers, which include almost every designer (architect

draw’ is an atypical exception (DI.3_Media Museum Hilversum, p. 22)), the production of generating ideas, testing them and discussing them, in a group or even in private de-liberations with oneself. To date, no digital means are available that come close to emu- economy, with the possible exception of academic prototypes that were developed withunusual insights (e.g., Do 2002; Shapir et al., 2007). Likewise, both industrial designersand architects continue to produce physical models, with or without the technical assi-

stance of digital means. The physical model is still necessary to allow us to get a betterfeel for scale, texture or the mode of operation of an artefact, be it a small hand-heldgadget or a large building; indeed, all DI designers use models at least during the deve-lopment phase of design projects. Digital devices, then, while helpful and in some casesindispensable, are not necessarily the answer to every single aspect of the process ofdesigning. We shall have more to say about sketching in section 5 below.


36/128


3 Design education and practice

Industrial designers, and to a lesser degree architects, are taught to work systematical-ly, according to well-established methods (Roozenburg & Eekels 1995) that specify all mechanical engineering design the reliance on strict methodologies is even more strin-

gent, with a large body of published research and handbooks to support this claim (e.g.,Jänsch et al., 2005). In industrial design brainstorming and other group methods aretaught and implemented in practice. However, in ‘real life’ there are many constraintsand unexpected situations that force designers to divert from the perfect methodslearned at school. Thus the DI car designers state that ‘They [at school] teach you tofollow the perfect process, but in reality it doesn’t work that way… an innovative projectdoesn’t keep to planning, it needs freedom’. (DI.8_Carver small car, pp. 60-61). One of that there are more iterations, more improvisations, more fresh starts than anticipated, tools are those best suited for exploration and experimentation, and they usually arenot the digital tools.

Despite the drive to use the ‘latest and greatest’ methods which inevitably are largely In architectural education many studio classes have become paperless, resulting inprojects that are detached from real materiality. Students are less occupied with develo-ping rich, complex and sensitive spatial solutions and concentrate instead on the gra-

and communication has become verbal only, related to PowerPoint presentations. With and pencil, the teacher cannot exemplify how something could or should be done, andis reduced to verbal reactions only to the student’s work in progress. This is a dramaticchange in the otherwise still largely apprentice-style design education we practise in thestudio, and not a change for the better1.

Luckily, in both architecture and industrial design, in practice as well as in the educatio-

otherwise. It is therefore not surprising that even long before models are built, both stu- to be in the work environment, to represent or simulate properties of a designed object mediating role of objects in our lives as knowledge translation agents, among otherroles (e.g., Whyte et al. 2007), but in this paper we discuss only visualisations that are

4 Design phases – interlocutors

The different design phases are distinguishable not only by their contents or the spe- them. It is hardly possible to arrive at a consensual breakdown of the design process

1 The commentary on design education is based on personal knowledge and experience.


37/128


into phases; in the Delft Interviews some designers talk about four phases, othersabout six, and yet others about a different number of phases. The participants in eachphase may also vary according to the design task and the norms and practices of each -

visualisations, the party with whom he or she (or they) interacts in the normal courseof the design process. The three phases/situations are: a) preliminary design; b) de-velopment phase; and c) discussions with clients and users. Table 1 maps the modesof visualisation reported in the DI according to these phases. This mapping cannot be Nevertheless, it does provide a close enough picture to what we assume is the realityof practice in architecture and industrial design.

sketching is used heavily during the preliminary and development stages, and to somedegree in discussions with clients or users. Clients may be involved throughout the pro-cess and discussions with them do not constitute a separate phase, of course. Rather, inthis rubric we mean primarily formal and less formal presentations to clients at variouspoints of decision making.

Preliminary design At the outset the major means of visualisation is sketching. Sketches are made during

the search for a solution principle, in most cases following an initial, preconceived idea,by the leading designer(s). Architects make more models than do industrial designersin this phase, sometimes in compensation for the lack of drawings and sketches (DI.3_ to imagine complex spatial relations without models. Architectural sketches and dra-wings, as opposed to product design drawings, tend to be two-dimensional, using theconventions of orthogonal projections which do not describe spaces directly. Architectsare trained to imagine spaces on the basis of plans and sections, but a model helpsto perceive the space and its proportions, and test the accuracy of the image. Models

-sentations at this stage. It may also be the case that rapid prototyping has become thestandard mode of modelling, at least for smaller artefacts; making them is reasonably a study model.


38/128


Table 1: Visualisation modes in the Delft Interviews

We note that no digital drawings are produced at this phase. This is not surprising asneither dimensioned drawings nor ‘fancy’ images are needed in this phase, in whichthe designers communicate primarily among themselves, in search of a viable solutionproposal that the designers can defend and which stands a chance of approval by theclient. The sketch, at this phase, is a compact ‘laboratory’ in which designers can expe-


39/128


case of failure. This encourages more experimentation with extreme, unusual and po- -veries in them, including the regrouping of elements, which offers new interpretations.Fish (2004) and Goldschmidt (e.g., 2002) have advanced similar arguments. Whereasthis facet of sketching is mostly studied in the context of individual designers working

alone, in teams sketching is essential to idea-generation sessions: it does not increase another (van der Lugt 2005), which is normally a precondition for creativity.

Development The development phase is usually carried out by a larger group of people than the oneinvolved in preliminary design. It is also more diverse in terms of expertise – we includein the group, or team, all the consultants, internal or external, who are involved in the costly and demoralising. A key to good coordination is a high level of understanding andagreement amongst team members regarding the designed entity, which is achievedthrough face-to-face meetings and conversations which include sharing of documents,also when members are not physically co-located. Naturally, visualisation plays a crucialrole in all of these team deliberations. The Delft Interviews show that practically allmodes of drawing and physical models are used in this phase (see Table 1), each forthe purpose it serves best.

Figure 1: ‘Models in dialogue: Denys Lasdun, National Theatre, London, c. 19652.

2 Photo by Behr Photography.


40/128


Figure 1 shows a stack of study models made during the long years in which the designof the National Theatre in London, including three different performance halls, was executed. Most such models are fairly rough and their purpose is study and evaluation.

As evident from Figure 1, the same entity may be modelled again and again, each time satisfactory proposal is achieved. This mode of usage resembles sketching and roughpreliminary models are sometimes referred to as ‘3D sketches’. Students, too, are al- both industrial design and architecture, and as in practice, these models are different produced as rapid prototypes by 3D printers or similar digital machines. Study modelscontinue to play an important role in design development, arguably more so in archi-tecture, especially since all stakeholders, including the client and others who may lackdesign expertise, can relate to them easily.

Sketches and other drawings continue to be essential in the development phase. The discussions and decision sessions. Consultants’ input needs to be integrated into the -blems that keep coming up. Communication therefore builds on detailed representati-ons of the latest versions of design drawings, be they measured plans or still, free-handsketches. For communication over distances fax machines and the Internet are used

to transmit information, including drawings. By comparison to the preliminary phase,in which sketches mainly express ideas and concepts and may be rather abstract andschematic, in the development phase sketches are more concrete and detailed, anddescribe the actual designed entity in its many facets. We begin to see digital drawingsas well: CAD measured drawings are produced so that all designers and consultantshave accurate information as the basis for their interventions. In the case of industrialdesign, this includes many more 3D drawings than in architecture. Fancier, so-called ‘presentation drawings’ are still rare at this phase, except for interim decision-makingmeetings for which they are typically prepared. All modes of visualisation are thus ex-

ploited at school and in practice to help develop a design project, as cogently stated byParadiso et al. (2002):

Projects develop through sketches in cardboard and on trace [paper]; theyare pushed further through exacting CNC-milled projects and detailedrenderings. But students are as likely to work through complex details by

sketches. (p 2)

Discussion with clients and users

Discussions with clients and users take place at all stages of the design process, ofcourse, but are typically built into certain checkpoints in which major decisions aretaken. For those occasions designers prepare visuals that are meant to convince theclient or users of the merits of the overall proposal, or as regards certain aspects of it.The Delft Interviews show (Table 1) that the means used for that end are mixed: fromsketches, which are probably used in informal meetings in which certain details may be -


41/128


rings), and even movies. Often, designers refer to ‘presentations’ they prepare, whichmay indicate the use of tools like PowerPoint in order to show visuals, undoubtedlyaccompanied by oral explanations.

This ‘mixed media’ panorama is most appropriate, and it applies to all branches of de-sign, architecture and industrial design included. Each mode of visualisation has its own

many more manual drawings were made, of course, but even before drawings werethe standard means of visualisation (that is, before paper became readily available and century), models were made to be presented to patrons in order to secure their appro-val. Figure 2 shows a fresco by Vasari from the mid-16th century, depicting the architectBrunelleschi presenting a model of San Lorenzo to his client, Cosimo de’ Medici, whocommanded the church. The model is a fairly accurate representation of the famousFlorentine church. Earlier pictures and mosaics bear evidence of the fact that modelpresentation to patrons was an established practice (for example, a beautiful mosaic atthe Kariye Museum in Istanbul, dated c. 1320, depicts Theodore Metochites, donor ofthe Chora, with a model of the church/monastery).

Figure 2: Fresco by Vasari (1565) showing Brunelleschi presenting the model for

the church of San Lorenzo to Cosimo de’ Medici3.

with the production of technical drawings which were made for the masons-builders of the professional architect, accompanied by his scholarly advisors, presenting plans tothe workmen who were building the Rotunda in Rome). Such drawings became standard

3 From: Ettlinger, L.D. (1977). The emergence of the Italian architect. In Kostof, S.(ed.), The architect. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 96-123; illustration p. 110.


42/128


43/128


meant for the cultural avant-garde of the time. Stirling chose to present an isolatedselected idea, in an unusual view (‘worm-view’ axonometric drawing).

Figure 4: James Stirling and Michael Wilford (1976). Axonometric up-views of major

elements in the Westfalen Museum, Düsseldorf (competition entry, not built)5.

Goldschmidt (2004) distinguished between ‘private’ and ‘public’ representations. The

former are those visuals that individuals and teams produce for themselves, as thinkingand communication aids; the latter are made in order to advance ideas and concepts vis-à-vis particular interlocutors or the (relevant) public at large, as in Stirling’s case. Otherarchitects and designers produced very different kinds of visuals of the same category; publicise. The cultural discourse in which design participates, which is an extension of a cultural context, even if the level of explicit awareness of its grinding wheels, and theattention paid to it, may vary considerably from one designer to another.

5 The robustness of sketching

Sketches are the most dominant mode of visualisation in design practise. Today theyare beginning to be produced digitally as well as manually, but sketches on paper arefar from obsolete in the design world. In fact design schools have re-discovered thenecessity of training students in free-hand drawing, after years of somewhat unrealistichopes that digital means will happily replace all manual design output. Sketches are notall of a kind; Ferguson (1992) divides them into the thinking sketch, the talking sketch,and the prescriptive sketch. In our terminology this means: sketching as a cognitive aid

in the generation of ides; sketching as an agent of communication, and sketching asinstruction for execution (e.g., for the construction of manufacturing). In this paper wehave largely addressed the talking sketch, which is prevalent in design practice where

5 Source: ‘Landesgalerie Nordrhein-Westfalen in Düsseldorf, James Stirling and Partnerwith Werner Kreis, Robert Livesey, Russ Bevington, Ueli Schaad’, Lotus International, 1977, Vol.15, 58-67.


44/12840

-remost a thinking activity – occurs above all in the individual’s mind, and the thinkingsketch helps in the conversation the designer holds with him or herself. We have already for the robustness of sketching in design practice for over half a millennium now, sincepaper became the standard medium for visualisations. Figure 5 is a diagram explaining

the status of sketching in visualisation as part of the design problem-solving process.

Figure 5: Sketching as a mental facilitator in complex, visually mediated tasks.


45/128


The thinking sketch, on which we wish to focus here, does not need to be complete orprecise. In fact it may be partial, vague, incomplete, inaccurate, not necessarily true toscale, and its level of concreteness of abstraction may vary sharply (within and betweensketches). Furthermore, it can be stopped at any time without losing what was doneto that point.

We shall conclude the discussion with a brief enumeration of what we hold to be themajor cognitive advantages of the sketch, which designers recognise and capitalise on,and which secures its utility in the design process for the foreseeable future.

The rough sketch:

on paper are enough to capture an idea, a shape, a mechanism or arelationship among parts.

The sketcher may stop any time and ultimately when the outcome

reasoning). More than anything else, the thinking sketch is a tool ofreasoning. Reasoning is said to be either rule-based or example-based(Sloman 1996); sketching facilitates example-based reasoning whichenjoys considerable freedom from rules (other than the rules oforthogonal projections, which are normally adhered to). This in turnhas the potential of expanding the design space in which a solution issought and may therefore enhance innovation and creativity.

changes). The sketcher may change his or her mind at any time andretract any number of steps.

sketch is made as part of the dialogue the designer holds with him orherself, ‘shorthand’ is enough; the designer will recognise intentionsand will be able to mentally complete any missing or vagueinformation.

intentions are important, accuracy and correct scale are not alwaysnecessary and there is no need to labour over them.

tandem: one informs the other. The ensuing cycle is in fact a feedbackloop which helps push the process forwards.

6 In conclusion

Whatever the differences in the design process between architecture and industrial de-

Often visualising is in fact thinking and not merely the recording of thoughts that had al- visualisation means available to them, from freehand sketching and manual drawing todigital drawings, through physical models and various simulations and movies. Natu-rally, more sketches are made in the front edge and more two- and three-dimensionaldigital drawings are produced later in the design process. Models are built throughoutthe process: they tend to be manual in architecture and digitally based prototypes in


46/128


industrial design. In essence, the kinds of visuals that are made in practice are notvery different from the ones that have been made for hundreds of years, although wecan now produce many of them digitally. A notable exception are the visuals made fordisplay and publication not in the context of regular practise but rather as participantsin a cultural discourse, where the norm is to break conventions and present innovativebreakthrough concepts. The means utilised are correspondingly often novel.

ends, and the most effective visuals are used for each purpose, i.e. the most conve-nient, most economical and most potent modes of visualisation are selected at any fact that, at least for the purposes of study and exploration, we have no tool that rateshigher. We must therefore conclude that sketching has advantages that to date cannotbe emulated by any other mode of visualisation. Sketching will continue to be in goodcurrency as long as it is the state of the art.

Acknowledgment

The writing of this paper was partially supported by a grant to the author from the fundfor the promotion of research at the Technion, hereby gratefully acknowledged.

References Athavankar, U. A. (1997). ‘Mental Imagery as a Design Tool’, Cybernetics and

Systems, Vol. 28, 25-47. Athavankar, U. A. & Mukherjie, A. (2003). ‘Blindfolded Classroom: Getting De

sign Students to Use Mental Images’. In Human Behaviour in Design,edited by Lindemann, U., Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 111-120.

the Question’, Design Studies, 27 (5), 587-613.

Brereton, M. (2004). ‘Distributed Cognition in Engineering Design: Negotiatingbetween Abstract and Material Representations’. In DesignRepresentation, edited by Goldschmidt, G. and Porter, W. L., Springer Verlag, London, pp. 83-103.

Do, E. Y-L. (2002). ‘Drawing Marks, Acts and Reacts: Toward a Computational

Sketching Interface for Architectural Design’. AIEDAM, Vol. 16,149-171.Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. The MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA.Fish, J. (2004). ‘Cognitive Catalysis for a Time-lagged Brain’. In Design

Representation, edited by Goldschmidt, G. and Porter, W. L., Springer Verlag, London, pp. 151-184.

Fish, J. and Scrivener, S. (1990). ‘Amplifying the Mind’s Eye: Sketching and Visual Cognition’, Leonardo 23, 117-126.

Goldschmidt, G. (2002). ‘Read-Write Acts of Drawing’. In TRACEY (Internet

journal dedicated to contemporary drawing issues); issue on Syntax ofMark and Gesture. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey/somag/gabi.html. Loughborough University, UK (accessed April 28,2008).

Goldschmidt, G. (2004). ‘Design Representation: Private Process, PublicImage’. In Design Representation, edited by Goldschmidt, G. andPorter, W. L., Springer Verlag, London, pp. 203-217.


47/128


Goldschmidt, G. (2007). ‘To See Eye to Eye: The Role of VisualRepresentations in Building Shared Mental Models in Design Teams’,CoDesign 3 (1), 43-50.

Jänsch, J., Nissl, A., Strasser, C. and Bruch, C. (2005). ’The Importance of theIntegration of Design Methods in Robust Engineering Design’. InProceedings of 15th International Conference on Engineering Design -

ICED 2005, edited by Samuel, A. and Lewis, W. Institute of Engineers Australia, Melbourne (CD-ROM).

Paradiso, A., Baxter, E. and Baumberger, M. (eds.) (2002). Foreword.Retrospecta 01-02. New Haven: Yale School of Architecture.

Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals andMethods. Wiley, Chichester.

Shapir, O., Goldschmidt, G. and Yezioro, A. (2007). ‘Conceptual Design: AnOperational Prescription for a Computer Support System’. In ComputerGraphics, Imaging and Visualisation: New Advances, IEEE & ComputerSociety, 4th CGIV07 International Conference, Bangkok, edited byBanissi, E., Sarfraz, M. and Dejdumrong, N., pp. 513-521.

Sloman, S. A. (1996). ‘The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning’.Psychological Bulletin, 119 (1), 3-22.

Suwa, M., Tversky, B., Gero, J. S. and Purcell, T. (2001). ‘Seeing into Sketches:Regrouping Parts Encourages New Interpretations’. In Proceedings of2nd Conference on Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design:Computational and Cognitive Approaches, Bellagio, edited by Gero, J.

S., Tversky, B. and Purcell, T., pp. 207-219.van der Lugt, R. (2005). ‘How Sketching Can Affect the Idea Generation

Process in De

w. poelman, w. poelman, d. keyson-what architects & industrial designers can teach each other about...

Documents