Title: ICoRD’15 – Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 2 Creativity, Sustainability, DfX, Enabling Technologies, Management and Applications
Editor: Chakrabarti, Amaresh (Ed.)
Description: This book showcases over 60 cutting-edge research papers from the 5th International Conference on Research into Design – the largest in India in this area – written by eminent researchers from across the world on design process, technologies, methods and tools, and their impact on innovation, for supporting design across boundaries. The special features of the book are the variety of insights into the product and system innovation process, and the host of methods and tools from all major areas of design research for the enhancement of the innovation process. The main benefit of the book for researchers in various areas of design and innovation are access to the latest quality research in this area, with the largest collection of research from India. For practitioners and educators, it is exposure to an empirically validated suite of theories, models, methods and tools that can be taught and practiced for design-led innovation.
Link: http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9788132222286
Notes: A collection of recent ideas presented in Bangalore earlier this year.
Showing posts with label design principles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design principles. Show all posts
11 March 2015
Reviewing reflection in design: lack of definitions
Reference: Baumer, E. P., Khovanskaya, V., Matthews, M., Reynolds, L., Schwanda Sosik, V., & Gay, G. (2014, June). Reviewing reflection: On the use of reflection in interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (pp. 93-102). ACM.
Abstract: Designers have demonstrated an increased interest in designing for reflection. However, that work currently occurs under a variety of diverse auspices. To help organize and investigate this literature, this paper present a review of research on systems designed to support reflection. Key findings include that most work in this area does not actually define the concept of reflection. We also find that most evaluations do not focus on reflection per se rather but on some other outcome arguably linked to reflection. Our review also describes the relationship between reflection and persuasion evidenced implicitly by both rhetorical motivations for and implementation details of system design. After discussing the significance of our findings, we conclude with a series of recommendations for improving research on and design for reflection.
Notes:
1. little work actually explicitly defines what reflection is, and even less grounds the definition in a conceptual or theoretical framework
2. a majority of work using colloquial or implicit definitions of reflection and as a result presenting the concept as fairly limited in its scope
3. without a clear explicit definition, many of the papers we reviewed implicitly conflated reflection with feedback
4. Most of the papers we reviewed described reflection as an individual, largely mental or cognitive activity, e.g.,reflecting on one’s performance as a given task [44,62] or observing data about one’s self [25,55,56]. A few papers did acknowledge the possibility of reflection as a social activity.
Abstract: Designers have demonstrated an increased interest in designing for reflection. However, that work currently occurs under a variety of diverse auspices. To help organize and investigate this literature, this paper present a review of research on systems designed to support reflection. Key findings include that most work in this area does not actually define the concept of reflection. We also find that most evaluations do not focus on reflection per se rather but on some other outcome arguably linked to reflection. Our review also describes the relationship between reflection and persuasion evidenced implicitly by both rhetorical motivations for and implementation details of system design. After discussing the significance of our findings, we conclude with a series of recommendations for improving research on and design for reflection.
Notes:
1. little work actually explicitly defines what reflection is, and even less grounds the definition in a conceptual or theoretical framework
2. a majority of work using colloquial or implicit definitions of reflection and as a result presenting the concept as fairly limited in its scope
3. without a clear explicit definition, many of the papers we reviewed implicitly conflated reflection with feedback
4. Most of the papers we reviewed described reflection as an individual, largely mental or cognitive activity, e.g.,reflecting on one’s performance as a given task [44,62] or observing data about one’s self [25,55,56]. A few papers did acknowledge the possibility of reflection as a social activity.
10 February 2015
Shikakeology
Title: Shikakeology: From framework to implementation
Authors: Naohiro Matsumura and Renate Fruchter
Reference: Matsumura, N., & Fruchter, R. (2014). Special issue: Shikakeology: From framework to implementation. AI & SOCIETY, 1-3.
Abstract: Shikake is a Japanese word with a wide range of meanings regarding triggers for behavior change, and using shikakes to change behaviors could be a promising and feasible approach for making the world better. However, the methodology for developing a new shikake is not well studied. To define such a methodology, Dr. Naohiro Matsumura, one of the editors of this special issue, coined the term ‘‘Shikakeology’’ in 2011 as a new academic field where the mechanism underlying a shikake as an artifact, a theory, a system, and a practice designed to change behavior can be discussed and understood.
Notes: The concept of 'shikake' seems very very similar to 'nudges' introduced by Thaler and Sunstein in their 2008 book by the same name. This is a special journal of AI&Society worth reading. Is this another case of reinventing the wheel, or using different terms to refer to the same concept -not sure.
17 October 2012
Design Transformation Principles
Paper:
Innovations in Design Through Transformation: A Fundamental Study of Transformation Principles
Vikramjit Singh, Stewart M. Skiles, Jarden E. Krager, Kristin L. Wood, Dan Jensen, and Robert Sierakowski, J. Mech. Des. 131, 081010 (2009), DOI:10.1115/1.3125205
Abstract:
The act of creating a new product, system, or process is an innovation; the result of excogitation, study and experimentation. It is an inductive and/or deductive process. The inductive process involves studying systems that exist, for example, in nature, patents and products, and inducing from the behavior of these systems elemental features for innovating novel products. The deductive process involves deducing such aspects from hypothetical concepts and situations where systems or products could exist. By the application of a combined inductive and deductive approach, this paper reports on a methodology for the creation of innovative products with a broader functional repertoire than traditional designs. This breed of innovative products is coined as transformers, transforming into different configurations or according to different states. Current design theory lacks a systematic methodology for the creation of products that have the ability to transform. This paper identifies analogies in nature, patents, and products along withhypothesizing the existence of such products in different environments andsituations. Transformation design principles are extracted by studying key design features and functional elements that make up a transforming product. These principles are defined and categorized according to their roles in general transformations. The principles and categorizations are then validated and applied to conceptualize transforming products as part of aninnovative design process.
2. Another interesting discussion relates to the potential advantages and detriments of transformers (or reconfigurable products). I think that both of these need to be expanded and studied in much more detail.
3. In the future, it may also be very relevant to transcend the limitation of studying only mechanical transformations, since energy and information are also fundamental elements and very necessary for the construction of a thorough set of design principles.
4. The paper states repeatedly the need for a "foundational theory of transformational design", I couldn't agree more but this paper reminds us the need to further discuss what type of design theory or theories are required. References to relevant work would be welcome.
5. Design principles are defined here at least in four somewhat different ways: as causal principles (3.1), as generalized directive and as guidelines (4.1) and as representations of the transformation potential (4.3). The categorization process described in section 3.3 mentions that the grouping and coding of "facilitators" obtained from the inductive and deductive search is further organised into "super groups" from which "higher level facilitators" are extracted. From these, three general categories are then presented: expand/collapse, expose/cover and fuse/divide. This taxonomy is, arguably, the main contribution of this paper.
6. As the design principles are explained in 4.3, one mention is made to "primary functions". I think this leads to a very promising and interesting question: In transformation design, what defines a primary/secondary function?
7. Principles 1 and 2 could require a clearer distinction, for example the example in Fig 16b shows a water lilly as an example of expose/cover, yet it may seem to fit the expand/collapse definition: "change dimensions to bring about an increase/decrease along an axis, plane or volume.
8. Would an umbrella or a balloon be considered a transformer? Both seem to embody principle 1.
9. Personally, I consider section 4.4 to be the clearest and most substantial contribution of this paper: the description and illustration of all 20 transformation facilitators. Such taxonomy is highly valuable and is the type of analytic and systematic work that our field needs.
10. Reference to follow up:
Innovations in Design Through Transformation: A Fundamental Study of Transformation Principles
Vikramjit Singh, Stewart M. Skiles, Jarden E. Krager, Kristin L. Wood, Dan Jensen, and Robert Sierakowski, J. Mech. Des. 131, 081010 (2009), DOI:10.1115/1.3125205
Abstract:
The act of creating a new product, system, or process is an innovation; the result of excogitation, study and experimentation. It is an inductive and/or deductive process. The inductive process involves studying systems that exist, for example, in nature, patents and products, and inducing from the behavior of these systems elemental features for innovating novel products. The deductive process involves deducing such aspects from hypothetical concepts and situations where systems or products could exist. By the application of a combined inductive and deductive approach, this paper reports on a methodology for the creation of innovative products with a broader functional repertoire than traditional designs. This breed of innovative products is coined as transformers, transforming into different configurations or according to different states. Current design theory lacks a systematic methodology for the creation of products that have the ability to transform. This paper identifies analogies in nature, patents, and products along withhypothesizing the existence of such products in different environments andsituations. Transformation design principles are extracted by studying key design features and functional elements that make up a transforming product. These principles are defined and categorized according to their roles in general transformations. The principles and categorizations are then validated and applied to conceptualize transforming products as part of aninnovative design process.
Notes:
1. The authors explain (graphically) their research methods by introducing two complementary processes, which they call inductive and deductive. One of the questions I have relates to the deductive process, which is only briefly explained at the end of Section 2 and could be interpreted as an abductive process according to Charles Peirce.
2. Another interesting discussion relates to the potential advantages and detriments of transformers (or reconfigurable products). I think that both of these need to be expanded and studied in much more detail.
3. In the future, it may also be very relevant to transcend the limitation of studying only mechanical transformations, since energy and information are also fundamental elements and very necessary for the construction of a thorough set of design principles.
4. The paper states repeatedly the need for a "foundational theory of transformational design", I couldn't agree more but this paper reminds us the need to further discuss what type of design theory or theories are required. References to relevant work would be welcome.
5. Design principles are defined here at least in four somewhat different ways: as causal principles (3.1), as generalized directive and as guidelines (4.1) and as representations of the transformation potential (4.3). The categorization process described in section 3.3 mentions that the grouping and coding of "facilitators" obtained from the inductive and deductive search is further organised into "super groups" from which "higher level facilitators" are extracted. From these, three general categories are then presented: expand/collapse, expose/cover and fuse/divide. This taxonomy is, arguably, the main contribution of this paper.
6. As the design principles are explained in 4.3, one mention is made to "primary functions". I think this leads to a very promising and interesting question: In transformation design, what defines a primary/secondary function?
7. Principles 1 and 2 could require a clearer distinction, for example the example in Fig 16b shows a water lilly as an example of expose/cover, yet it may seem to fit the expand/collapse definition: "change dimensions to bring about an increase/decrease along an axis, plane or volume.
8. Would an umbrella or a balloon be considered a transformer? Both seem to embody principle 1.
9. Personally, I consider section 4.4 to be the clearest and most substantial contribution of this paper: the description and illustration of all 20 transformation facilitators. Such taxonomy is highly valuable and is the type of analytic and systematic work that our field needs.
10. Reference to follow up:
- Siddiqi and Weck 2008 "Modeling methods and conceptual design principles for reconfigurable systems", ASME J Mech Des 130(10), 101102.
- Skiles, S. M., Singh, V., Krager, J. E., Seepersad, C. C., Wood, K. L., and Jensen, D., 2006, “Adapted Concept Generation and Computational Techniques for the Application of A Transformer Design Theory,” Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Philadelphia, PA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)