Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Can Pahl and Beitz’ systematic approach be a predictive model of designing?

  • Udo Kannengiesser (a1) and John S. Gero (a2) (a3)
Abstract

Pahl and Beitz’ ‘Systematic Approach’ is generally seen as a prescriptive model of designing based on observations of professional design practice. In this paper, we examine whether this model can be used as a predictive model. This is done by testing its predictive capacity for the design behaviour of students that are formally taught design and design methods. The behavioural observations used in this study are based on protocols of 15 design sessions involving mechanical engineering students after their first year of design education and 31 design sessions of the students using various concept generation methods. The design protocols and the Systematic Approach are coded uniformly using the Function–Behaviour–Structure (FBS) design issue schema. Cumulative occurrence analysis is used to derive qualitative and quantitative measures as a basis for comparison between the Systematic Approach’s prediction and the students’ design behaviour. The results indicate that the Systematic Approach can predict some but not all of students’ design issue behaviour.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Can Pahl and Beitz’ systematic approach be a predictive model of designing?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Can Pahl and Beitz’ systematic approach be a predictive model of designing?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Can Pahl and Beitz’ systematic approach be a predictive model of designing?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Corresponding author
Email address for correspondence: uk@eneon.at
References
Hide All
Adams, K. M. 2015 Non-Functional Requirements in Systems Analysis and Design. Springer.
Asimov, W. 1962 Introduction to Design. Prentice-Hall.
Birkhofer, H., Kloberdanz, H., Sauer, T. & Berger, B. 2002 Why methods don’t work and how to get them to work. In Proceedings of EDIProD 2002, Zielona Góra – Lagów, pp. 2936. The Design Society.
Cross, N. 2000 Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, N. 2001 Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (ed. Eastman, C., Newstetter, W. & McCracken, M.), pp. 79103. Elsevier.
Dym, C. L. 1994 Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views. Cambridge University Press.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D. & Leifer, L. J. 2005 Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94 (1), 103120.
Eder, W. E. 1998 Design modeling – A design science approach (and why does industry not use it?). Journal of Engineering Design 9 (4), 355371.
Eder, W. E.2012 Comparison of several design theories and methods with the legacy of Vladimir Hubka, Public Report, The Design Society.
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. 1993 Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press.
Finger, S. & Dixon, J. R. 1989 A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes. Research in Engineering Design 1, 5167.
Frost, R. B. 1999 Why does industry ignore design science? Journal of Engineering Design 10 (4), 301304.
Gero, J. S. 1990 Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11 (4), 2636.
Gero, J. S., Jiang, H. & Williams, C. 2013 Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured and structured concept generation creativity techniques. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 1 (4), 196214.
Gero, J. S. & Kannengiesser, U. 2004 The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25 (4), 373391.
Gero, J. S. & Kannengiesser, U. 2014 The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations (ed. Chakrabarti, A. & Blessing, L. T. M.), pp. 263283. Springer.
Gero, J. S., Kannengiesser, U. & Pourmohamadi, M. 2014 Commonalities across designing: empirical results. In Design Computing and Cognition’12 (ed. Gero, J. S.), pp. 285302. Springer.
Gero, J. S. & McNeill, T. 1998 An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies 19 (1), 2161.
Hubka, V. 1974 Theorie der Maschinensysteme. Springer.
Hubka, V. & Eder, W. E. 1996 Design Science: Introduction to the Needs, Scope and Organization of Engineering Design Knowledge. Springer.
Jensen, T. E. & Andreasen, M. M. 2010 Design methods in practice – beyond the ‘systematic approach’ of Pahl & Beitz. In International Design Conference – Design 2010, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 110. The Design Society.
Jones, J. C. 1970 Design Methods. Wiley.
Kannengiesser, U. & Gero, J. S. 2015 Is designing independent of domain? Comparing models of engineering, software and service design. Research in Engineering Design 26 (3), 253275.
Kuhn, T. S. 1996 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press.
Lawson, B. R. 1994 Design in Mind. Butterworth.
Lee, Y., Gero, J. S. & Williams, C. B.2012 Exploring the effect of design education on the design cognition of two engineering majors, ASME IDETC DETC2012-71218.
Pahl, G. & Beitz, W. 2007 Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer.
Pedersen, K., Emblemsvåg, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J. K. & Mistree, F. 2000 Validating design methods and research: the validation square. In Proceedings of DETC’00 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 10–14, 2000, Baltimore, MD, DETC2000/DTM-14579. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Popper, K. 1962 Conjectures and Refutations. Basic Books.
Roozenburg, N. F. M. & Eekels, J. 1996 Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley & Sons.
Tate, D. & Nordlund, M. 1996 A design process roadmap as a general tool for structuring and supporting design activities. In Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT-Vol. 3), Society for Design and Process Science, Austin, TX, pp. 97104. Society for Design and Process Science.
Ullman, D. G. 1992 The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw–Hill.
Ullman, D. G., Dietterich, T. G. & Stauffer, L. A. 1988 A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 2 (1), 3352.
Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D. 2000 Product Design and Development, 2nd edn. McGraw–Hill.
Unger, D. & Eppinger, S. 2011 Improving product development process design: a method for managing information flows, risks, and iterations. Journal of Engineering Design 22 (10), 689699.
Van-Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F. & Sandberg, J. A. 1994 The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press.
VDI 1985 VDI-Richtlinie 2221 (Entwurf): Methodik zum Entwickeln und Konstruieren technischer Systeme und Produkte. VDI-Verlag.
Vermaas, P. E. 2014 Design theories, models and their testing: on the scientific status of design research. In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations (ed. Chakrabarti, A. & Blessing, L. T. M.), pp. 4766. Springer.
Wallace, K. M. & Blessing, L. T. M. 2000 Observations on some German Contributions to Engineering Design in Memory of Professor Wolfgang Beitz. Research in Engineering Design 12 (1), 27.
Williams, C. B. & Mistree, F. 2006 Empowering students to learn how to learn: mass customization of a graduate engineering design course. International Journal of Engineering Education 22 (6), 12691280.
Wynn, D. & Clarkson, J. 2005 Models of designing. In Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice (ed. Clarkson, J. & Eckert, C.), pp. 3459. Springer.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Design Science
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2053-4701
  • URL: /core/journals/design-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed