BETÜL ORBEY, Sinan Mert ŞENER

Variations in design process: A case study about tool and task as design variants

Several researchers question the nature of design. Although design has specific characteristics that distinguish it from other cognitive activities, it also takes on different forms depending on the main factors of the design setting. To test this idea, this study has adopted design tools and tasks as the factors that change a design situation. In order to do that, a case study with one graduate student enrolled in Design Computing Program at Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul is conducted. The case is composed of four design sessions, each consisting of a unique combination of a tool and task. The analysis of the protocol aims to show how the different phases of a design process come together in different weights when working on the task depending on the problem given and the tool adopted. This study can be framed as adopting an activity based model where the actions of the participant are in a problem-oriented setting that requires re-production before re-iteration and are assessed through an analytical approach of coding activity in order to understand the impact of the design tool as a variant of the process. The results suggest that tools have a diverging effect on the process as they require different operational methods. On the other hand, the nature of design tasks converge designer’s thoughts into a predictable pattern. The combination of the divergence and the convergence yields a spectrum of unique design situations.

PDF

___

Blessing, L. (1996). Comparison of design models proposed in prescriptive literature. Proceedings of COST A3 / COST A4 International research work- shop, Social Sciences Series Vol 5. Lyon

Broadbent, G., & Ward, A. (1969). Design Methods in Architecture. London: Lund Humphries.

Browning, T. R. (2001). Applying the design structure matrix system to decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48, 292-306.

Clark, A. (2003). Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press.

Cross, N. (1975). Man Made Futures: Design and Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University.

Design Council. (2007). Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global companies. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from www.designcouncil.org.uk

Eckert, C. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2005). The reality of design. In J. P. Clarkson, & C. M. Eckert, Design Process Improvement: A review of current practice (pp. 1-29). London: Springer Science & Business Media.

Fish, J. (2004). Cognitive Catalysis: Sketches for a time-lagged brain. In G. Goldschmidt, & L. W. Porter, Design Representation. Stoodleigh, UK: Springer.

Fjeld, M., Lauche, K., Bichsel, M., Vorhorst, F., Krueger, H., & Rauterberg, M. (2002). Physical and virtual tools: activity theory applied to the design groupware. A Special Issue of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): Activity Theory and the Practice of Design, 11(1-2), 153-180.

Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. (2011). Comparisons of design methodologies and process models across disciplines: a literature review. International Con- ference on engineering Design, ICED 11. Technical University of Denmark.

Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Goldschmidt, G. (1991). Dialectics of sketching. Design Studies, 4(2), 123- 143.

Hayles, K. N. (2012). How we think. The University of Chicago Press.

Kuutti, K. (1993). Notes on systems supporting “organizational context” - an activity thory viewpoint. In L. Ban- non, & K. Schmidt, Issues of Supporting Organizational Context in CSCW Sys- tems (pp. 105-121). Lancester: Lancester University.

Maffin, D. (1998). Engineering Design Models: context, theory and practice. Journal of Engineering Design, 9(4), 315-327.

Preston, B. (1998). Cognition and Tool Use. Mind and Language, 13(4), 513-547.

Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19, 389-430.

RIBA. (2016, May 06). RIBA Plan of Work 2013. Retrieved from http:// www.ribaplanofwork.com/about/Concept.aspx

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Schön, D. (1983). Reflective Practitioner. USA : Basic Books Inc.

Simondon, G. (2012). Being and Technology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Smedes, T. A. (2005). Technology and Evolution: The Quest for a New Perspective. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 44(4), 354-364.

Stacey, M., & Lauche, K. (2004). Thinking and representing in design. In J. Clarkson, & C. M. Eckert, Design Preocess Improvement: A review of current practice (pp. 198-229). London: Springer.

Suwa, M., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for codign designers’ cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19(4), 455-483.Visser, W. (2009). Design: one but in different forms. Design Studies, 30, 187-223.

Visser, W. (2009). Design: one, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30(3), 187-223. Volti, R. (1992). Society & Techno- logical Change. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.

Von Leeuwen, L., Smitsman, A., & von Leeuwen, C. (1994). Affordances perceğtual complexity and the devel- opment of tool use. Journal of Ezperi- mental Osychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(1), 174-191.

Wynn, D., & Clarkson, P. J. (2005). Models of designing. In P. J. Clarkson, & C. M. Eckert, Design Process Im- provement: A review of current practice (pp. 34-59). London: Springer Science & Business Media.