See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273704768

The evolution of design methods

Conference Paper · May 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 2,527

3 authors, including:

Julio van der Linden João Pedro Ornaghi de Aguiar

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Universidade Feevale
66 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design para Micro e Pequenas Empresas View project

Livro Design em Pesquisa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julio van der Linden on 02 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Júlio Carlos de Souza van der Linden, André Pedroso de Lacerda, and João Pedro
Ornaghi de Aguiar
Doctor, Adjunct Professor; Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Master's degree Student; Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Master's degree Student; Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
[email protected]

Abstract

The study of design methods in the 1950’s started from the perception of the increased
complexity in industrial products. The linear paradigm of the first models evolved to
more systemic representations of the design process. This paper presents the
development of design models in order to contribute to a greater understanding of the
methodology for design projects with caution to the fact that each one reflects the period
in which it was developed. Based on the understanding of product design taxonomies, a
framework for product design methodology was generated.

Introduction

The idea behind the word “design” is relatively recent. The concept was established in
the modern era, before the Industrial Revolution. It became characteristic of this period,
not only in the restrict sense of product design, house design or urban planning, but also
in the sense that all dimensions of life could be planned. Design in Architecture,
Industrial Design and Engineering presents particular characteristics not only technical,
but social and political as well. In any field, design activity implies meeting
simultaneously different requirements. This will affect the performance, the usability,
the environment and the society. The simultaneously meeting of different aspects of the
design problem is not new – it was a current topic in since the 1970s. This approach
suggests a systemic view that considers how the requirements, such as the ergonomic or
technologic ones, affect each other. This systemic approach distinguishes from the
dominant paradigm in the design methodology in the 1970s. The ideas of René
Descartes in Discourse on the Method (1637) greatly influenced the design thinking of
the time: “divide each difficulty into as many parts as possible and necessary for its
adequate solution.”.
The perception of inherent complexity in the product developed from the second half of
the twentieth century was pointed by Christopher Alexander as one of the reasons for
the emergence of design methods in the 1950s and early 1960s. The Cartesian principle
of breaking down the problem in minimum units, whose partial solutions will lead to the
general solution, could deal with the design problems in the functionalist period, but it
was disturbed by the socio-economical, and philosophical changes in the late 1960s and
1970s. Thomas Kuhn published in 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which
postulates that the paradigm shift is preceded by the crisis of the previous paradigm, and
that evolution, by paradigm shifts, is not necessarily progressive. Kuhn’s idea indeed
contradicts the previous paradigm, which can be illustrated by Karl Popper’s thought.
Popper argues that all knowledge is progressive and cumulative, which conveys the
ideia of linearity. Paul Feyerabend comments on the evolution of methods in Against
Method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge, opposing to a general model,
and arguing that the variety of strategies for dealing with product development is a way
of dealing with the increasing complexity that results from a humanistic view. [3]

The evolution of design methods can be reviewed, since then, as a succession of periods
of skepticism and optimism. The precarious nature of the activity practiced since the
Industrial Revolution until the middle of the twentieth century was perceived when
compared with the complexity of new products manufactured since 1950s. In the 1960s,
the belief that a simple design structure, an abstraction from the singularity of the design
problems, could ensure the access to a perfect solution was common. This view
displeased the main authors in the 1970s, largely due to lack of practical results of the
previous years. [16][9] In the 1980s, based on new paradigms, the design methodology
adopted new approaches that no longer have as its purpose the establishment of
objective functions, but to understand how people interact with products in their
environments. Studies on design methods began to explore other tools, such as
scenarios method, initially developed by Herman Kahn and Alvin Toffler. [3]

Since the 1960s the field of Design Methodology evolved through different paths, from
rationalist to anarchist. In order to contribute to a better understanding of the main
current tendencies, this paper presents the evolution of design methods and proposes a
framework to guide their teaching. It is part of a study that investigates the design
practice of product designers and start from the premise that we should expand the study
of design methods to include other approaches, especially the more flexible ones, which
may be more appropriate for solving complex problems and reach high degrees of
innovativeness, typical of the challenges posed by sustainable development.

The evolution of product design methodology

For a long time since its rise as a profession in the late eighteenth century to the mid-
twentieth century, the design method was restricted to the method of designing through
scale drawings:

“The method of designing by making scale drawings will be familiar to many

readers of this book. The essential difference between this, the normal method of
evolving the shapes of machine-made things, and the earlier method of craft
evolution, is that trial-and-error is separated from production by using a scale
drawing in place of the product as the medium for experiment and change. This
separation of thinking from making has several important effects.” [10]
This practice was developing at least since the Renaissance, not only in sketches of
works of art, but also in mechanical projects and other innovations planned in those
times. Representation techniques gained in refinement and precision through the
development and standardization. Nowadays, the advance of digital technologies
provides the scale drawing with resources beyond those pioneers’ imagination, (e. g.
simulations and virtual immersion).

The emergence of disciplines like operations research, decision-making and creative

techniques, and the development of computer programming, played a major influence in
the origins of new design methods during the 1960s. [6] The early years were also
characterized by constant exchange of information between design methods, artificial
intelligence, cybernetics and problem-solving theories. Many of the first authors present
a clear connection to traditional sciences, as is the case of Christopher Alexander.
Architect and mathematician, Alexander, one of the pioneers of the design methods
movement, provide a mathematical basis for his theory on his 1964 book Notes on the
Synthesis of Form. This closeness between science and design practice has brought
insecurity to the professional. And since then design had lost its character as a personal
activity that relies solely on the designer. The need to support every decision with
rational arguments arose. On the other hand, the same rationality would ensure
compliance for design methodology by the universities. [1][3] Moreover, there was
pressure from students of design schools that wanted “to know the specific purpose of
their activities without complying with vague indications”. [1]

From 1950s to 1960s there was a great effort in various areas to develop design methods
capable of coping with the complexity and the uncertainty present in the problems that
was inherent in the technological development context. The rationalization tendency of
the design methods culminate in the Conferences on Design Methods, held in England,
under the coordination of researchers from a wide range of disciplines. A reference
work of this period is the book Design Methods, by John Christopher Jones. It presents
a collection of tools to assist the design activity and a theoretical framework about the
design process. The essence of design methods developed in the 1960s relies on the
division of the process in well-defined steps. These steps can be broadly described as:
understand and define the problem, gather information, analyse information, develop
concepts for alternative solutions, evaluate alternatives and select solution(s), test and
implement. Its foundations lie in the idea of the Cartesian method of understanding the
problem prior to reducing its complexity, in order to be able to tackle the problem.
One of the first representations of the design process was presented by Bruce Archer in
1963, in a sequence of articles for Design magazine. In these articles he suggested that
the designer’s work combines intuition and cognition, and that the formalization of the
creative process tends to transform it in a more scientific practice. The design process
model proposed by Archer predicts the need for different approaches in different
moments: systematic observation and inductive reasoning in the analytical phase, and
subjective and deductive reasoning in the creative phase (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Archer’s model of the design process [5]

By that time, Morris Asimow proposed a representation that considered the life cycle of
the product (Figure 2). This representation starts with the analysis of requirements,
followed by a feasibility study, prior to joining the preliminary design and detailed
design phases. Next there are the activities related to the production, distribution,
consumption and disposal. This method is considered as a predecessor of all the product
development methods organized in separated phases. [6]

Figure 2: Asimow’s method

Phase models, such as French’s and Pahl and Beitz’s methods (Figure 3), were
developed concurrently in business and academic environments to reduce the
uncertainty in the development of new products before the competition.
Figure 3: French’s and Pahl and Beitz’s methods [18]

In the late 1970s, due to external influences – such as Kuhn’s, Popper’s and
Feyerabend’s ideas – and in a reaction to critics, a new paradigm in the design
methodology emerges. Jones stood out again with his Essays in Design. In this book,
Jones deeply criticizes the reductionists’ methods, emphasizing the role played by
emergence and intuition in the creative and investigative process. [9][3]

With the depletion of the functionalist and rationalist paradigm, the methodology
tendency of proposing a general representation of the design process changed, and
studies on specific tools became more common. In addition, integration with various
non-design disciplines resulted in the increase of the designer repertoire. The interest
changed to the proposition of new tools such as mind maps, scenario techniques,
usability testing, cooperative/participatory design, among others. [3] Nevertheless the
interest in describing the design process through a diagram is still present among
researchers and design groups. The Design Council, from UK, presented a flexible
representation for the design process in four phases: discover, define, develop and
distribute (Figure 6). The form originated its name: Double Diamond. In this diagram,
the process of divergence and convergence are associated with key moments in the
design process. Discover and develop phases correspond to divergent processes, while
define and distribute phases are convergent. To complement and extend this
representation, the elements arranged inside the diagram indicate exploratory and focus
activities on the left diamond, and cycles of prototyping, testing and refinement in the
right diamond.
Figure 4: Double Diamond [7]

Linearity was a common characteristic of the first representations. Even though many
authors included the possibility of returns and feedbacks, this was seen as a problem or
an opportunity to correct errors. Another way of understanding the process embraces the
nature of uncertainty as part of the design activity. The path was no longer linear,
simply because successive iterations are needed to frame the problem and the solution.
To this idea of parallel evolution between problem and solution is given the name co-
evolution. This concept is discussed by Maher, et al. [12] and analyzed by Dorst and
Cross. [8] L.J. March broke with the linear representation of design process, based on
the assumption that the problem is dependent on the solution and that the inductive-
deductive thinking is inadequate for the production of synthesis in the design process.
March sought the work of the philosopher Charles S. Pierce for the idea of abductive
thinking, which is linked to the production (synthesis), while induction and deduction
are related to research (analysis). In other words “deduction proves that something must
be; induction shows that something actually is operative; abduction suggests that
something may be” (Pierce, cited by Cross [5]). March’s representation for design
process (Figure 5) is a cyclic model that starts with production (preliminary
requirements and assumptions about solution types to describe a design concept),
followed by deduction (to predict solutions performance) and goes through a moment of
induction (indicating changes and refinements in the concept). [5]
Figure 5: March’s diagram [5]

Nonlinearity can be found in IDEO’s design process, described by Brown [2] as “a

system of spaces rather than a predefined series of orderly steps”. Figure 6 demonstrate
a modus operandi that is beyond the classic models. The process, or the design space,
involves three areas: inspiration, ideation and implementation. Inspiration corresponds
to the circumstances that motivate the search for a solution (a problem, an observation
or both). Ideation involves the generation, development and testing of ideas that could
lead to a solution. Implementation deals with the product launch. Throughout a project,
the three spaces can be explored, in particular the first two, in order to refine ideas and
take new paths. It is important to notice that the design in IDEO is done in close
collaboration with its client’s teams and that IDEO has a qualified group of
multidisciplinary professionals with diverse backgrounds. This ensures that many
activities can be done simultaneously, saving time in comparison with linear processes.
Figure 6: The IDEO process [2]

Faced with the need to live with antagonistic conceptions for the design methodology,
Nigel Cross developed a flexible approach to the selection of product development
methods. He considered variables such as level of problem definition, strategy to be
adopted and, very important and largely unexplored, cognitive style of the designer. The
starting point is the definition of the strategy, which describes the overall plan of action
for the design and the sequence of activities. Depending on the type of problem, the
strategy may be a “random search”, if there is a high degree of innovation, or a “prefab
strategy”, when it comes to well-know situations. Thus, in some cases, the decision may
be for the exploration of the problem with divergent thinking. In other situations, it
would be the creative process, and its specific techniques. Other cases would ask for a
more structured method, organized in phases. But the choice of method would depend
also on the cognitive style of the designer. [5]

Basis for a new approach to analyse design methods

Since the 1960s, the role of designers in new products development process has changed
to encompass other activities, not only restricted to the project itself. An example of
possibilities for design scope can be found in Roozenburg and Eeckels [18], who
defines design as a process of goal-directed reasoning that flows from the product
function to its form (see Figure 7). Traditionally the core of design activities is related
with the left side of the figure, the product designing process, not with the right side, the
product planning process. But, as the authors says, “The more to right we start (…), the
more open-ended the product development process will be”. [18] It means that
innovation effectively lies on product planning, when the constraints are assumed and
the goals are defined.

Figure 7 Product designing and product planning [18]

Simultaneously, the ideas of sustainable development have evolved greatly in recent

decades. Sustainability entered the Design agenda since the criticism against the
traditional production and consumption made by Victor Papanek in the 1970s. Today
we can perceive different levels of interference in the sustainable product design
process. Basically there are two approaches and four levels: a restorative, which
corresponds to ecological redesign and development of new products, aiming at the
improvement of existing solutions; and a strategic approach, encompassing the concepts
of product-service system and the proposition of new scenarios, intended to modify the
consumption and the production. [13] These levels of interference will certainly require
different methodological approaches. Returning to the idea of complexity in design
problems, it is important to consider that the degree of innovativeness will also affect
the way the problem will be address. Naveiro [14] defines the complexity by the project
size and the frequency and quantity of problems; the innovativeness is defined by the
degree of problem structuring, ranked in four categories:

“incremental project – consists in the modification of product parts, keeping the

original concept. It is a structured activity as the main variables of the problem
and solution are already identified;
complex project – large projects involving many people and an extremely
complicated information system… The frequency of problems is high, requiring
great coordination efforts;
creative project – consists of projects with low degree of structure in
technologically simple problems; intensive project – projects that involve new
and complex situations. As an example we can mention the Boeing 777, a huge
team working with non-trivial problems.” [14]

Based on this classification, van der Linden and Lacerda [19] proposed a model for
organization and selection of methods for teaching purposes (Figure 8). The context in
which these projects occur will be added to this first model: those of high complexity
require multidisciplinary teams that meet the wide variety of problems to be resolved;
the low complexity can be solved by small teams and often the designer addresses
himself the major design problems. This argument led to the conclusion that projects of
high complexity can be seen under the logic of rational product development process or
other systemic approach, while projects of low complexity allow classical approaches to
industrial design and even the use of creative process. The use of creative process was
suggested by Cross [5] as a strategy to approach the problem in situations of high
uncertainty. This model adopts the division into four quadrants bounded by the axes of
innovativeness (vertical) and complexity (horizontal).

Figure 8 Model for organization and selection of methods for teaching purposes [19]

A Framework for Product Design Methodology

Crossing the levels of design intervention with the vision of the process of Roozenburg
and Eeckels, [18] we find four suggestions for future strategies in product development.
The impact is minor on redesign, with a simple change of form and properties, and in
the design of new products, with changes in function. In a more advanced level of
intervention, the design of product-service system serves the needs of various
stakeholders. Finally the new scenarios proposal, involves changing values in
consumption. From this association between levels of design intervention and the
design process, was made a review of the model developed by van der Linden and
Lacerda. [19] Initially it can link innovation with four levels of intervention, finding two
groups: redesign (low innovativeness), new products, product-service system and new
scenarios (high innovativeness). Therefore, the categories of incremental and complex
project, which correspond to low innovativeness, are restricted to operations in from and
properties. On the other hand, creative and intensive project categories allow a review
of the function, needs and values. This is relevant to the issue of sustainability and also
for innovation. In addition, the quadrants should better serve the characteristics assigned
to each project category. As it seems reasonable to suppose that the incremental project
does not has border with the intensive, neither the creative with the complex, we
attempted a way to represent the relations between these classifications. For this, a
sigmoid curve appeared to be adequate, because it enables to indicate in a subtle way
the delimitation between the categories in the model (Figure 8). The boundaries
between categories are diffused, since there are borderline cases difficult to define, in
addition, the space occupied by each category is not able to be scaled, in the authors'
opinions. Thus, the model serves as a framework to guide didactically the analysis of
the design methods and development of new products.
Figure 8 Framework for Product Design Methodology

As an application example, we use the models presented in the second section of this
paper. Asimow, French, Pahl and Beitz correspond to product-oriented models: new
products or redesign. Double Diamond, March and IDEO allow higher flexibility in
use, causing them to also reach the highest levels of intervention (SPS and New
Scenarios). These examples are still superficial, just as an indication of the use of the
framework.

Conclusion

Observing the models as a manifestation of the design discourse, it was noted that
during the half century occurred a significant evolution between the linear model of
Bruce Archer and the cyclic model of IDEO. We should be careful when comparing
models from different eras, especially considering the evolution of technology during
this period, which certainly have an important role in their differences. From the era of
mass production, we move to the era of mass customization (even it the first survives
today; the second has become the reference). The problems which were complex in time
of the pioneers Conferences on Design Methods, today carry themes such as
sustainability, gender, globalization, dematerialization, and many others that have
emerged as new ways and challenges. Any study of methods for product design, should
assume there is a gap between the complexity of practice and the simplicity of a
theoretical model. However, the models can not be neglected due to its main function as
an element able to structure a complex activity to allow the detachment of the
professional, which enables him to examine critically the process. Moreover, they allow
the teaching of design activity, in that structured the process of beginners. Another
important function of models is to standardize the language used by a team of product
development, allowing communication between teams. Regarding the classification of
projects into one of the categories proposed in the framework, in many cases will
depend on the perception of what constitutes the problem when the project was done.
The historical context of who analyses the design problem by this model will influence
the analysis.
 References

[1] Bonsiepe, G., 1978. Teoría y práctica del diseño industrial. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.

[2] Brown, T. , 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, pp. 84-92, June.

[3] Bürdek, B. E., 2006. História, Teoria e Prática do Design de Produtos. São Paulo: Blücher.

[4] Cross, N. ed., 1984. Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley.

[5] Cross, N., 2008. Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.

[6] Cross, N., 2007. Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28, pp. 1-4.

[7] Design Council, 2007. Eleven Lessons: managing design in eleven global companies. [online]
Available at <http://www.designcouncil.org.uk> [Accessed 15 December 2009].

[8] Dorst, K.; Cross, N., 2001. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design
Studies, 22 (5), pp. 425-437.

[9] Jones, J. C., 1985. Diseñar el Diseño. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.

[10] Jones, J.C. , 1992. Design methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Originally published in 1970.

[11] Jones, J.C. , 1970. The State of the Art in Design Methods. In: Emerging Methods in Environmental
Design and Planning. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

[12] Maher, M.L.; Poon, J.; Boulanger, S., 1996. Formalising design exploration as coevolution: a
combined gene approach. In: GERO, J.S.; SUDWEEKS, F. eds. Advances in formal design methods
for CAD. London: Chapman and Hall.

[13] Manzini, E.; Vezzoli, C., 2002. O Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Produtos. São Paulo: Edusp.

[14] Naveiro, R. M., 2001.Conceitos e Metodologias de Projeto. In: Naveiro, R. M.; Oliveira, V. F. de
eds. O projeto de engenharia, arquitetura e desenho industrial. Juiz de Fora: UFJF, pp. 25-63.

[15] Pahl, G; Beitz, W., 2003. Engineering design. New York: Springer, 2.Ed.

[16] Rittel, Horst W.J., 1972. Second-generation Design Methods. In: Cross ed., 1984. Engineering
design methods: strategies for product design. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp 317-327.

[17] Rittel, H. W. J.; Webber, M. M., 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences,
v. 4, pp. 155-169.

[18] Roozemburg, N.F.M., Eekels, J., 1995. Product Design. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

[19] Van Der Linden, J.C. de S.; Lacerda, A. P., 2009. Qual o Método que eu Devo Usar? In Anais do 5º
Congresso Internacional de Pesquisa em Design. (Published 2000) Available at
<http://www.faac.unesp.br/ciped2009/anais/anaisprograma.swf> [Accessed 15 December 2009].

View publication stats