We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/designscience.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
This paper builds on the lead author’s keynote address to the Design Society’s 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design in 2019, and in doing so provides a personal perspective on the development of the field of design for sustainability. It begins by describing some of the history of the research from the late 1980s until the present day. This is followed by an analysis of the way in which design for sustainability has been reflected within the International Conference on Engineering Design over the last 30 years, highlighting the way in which the focus has shifted over this time from a focus on recycling and end of life to today where sustainability is playing a leading role in the research. The analysis compares the evolution of the subject with the wider policy and practice perspectives linked to global recognition of the need to move towards Sustainable Development. Finally, the paper reflects on the lessons to be learned from this work and their implications for design research illustrating that engineering design has an opportunity to take more leadership within design for sustainability research and use this to enable change within industry.
This paper proposes a relationship between design thinking and computational thinking. It describes design thinking and computational thinking as two prominent ways of understanding how people address design problems. It suggests that, currently, each of design thinking and computational thinking is defined and theorized in isolation from the other. A two-dimensional ontological space of the ways that people think in addressing problems is proposed, based on the orientation of the thinker towards problem and solution generality/specificity. Placement of design thinking and computational thinking within this space and discussion of their relationship leads to the suggestion of a dual process model for addressing design problems. It suggests that, in this model, design thinking and computational thinking are processes that are ontological mirror images of each other, and are the two processes by which thinkers address problems. Thinkers can move fluently between the two. The paper makes a contribution towards the theoretical foundations of design thinking and proposes questions about how design thinking and computational thinking might be both investigated and taught as constituent parts of a dual process.
In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman presented a model of human cognition based on two modes or ‘systems’ of thinking: system 1 thinking that is fast and intuitive and system 2 thinking that is slow and tedious. This paper proposes a framework for applying Kahneman’s model to designing based on the function–behaviour–structure ontology. It casts four instances of designing in this framework: design fixation, case-based design, pattern-language-based design and brainstorming.
Prototyping is interwoven with nearly all product, service, and systems development efforts. A prototype is a pre-production representation of some aspect of a concept or final design. Prototyping often predetermines a large portion of resource deployment in development and influences design project success. This review surveys literature sources in engineering, management, design science, and architecture. The study is focused around design prototyping for early stage design. Insights are synthesized from critical review of the literature: key objectives of prototyping, critical review of major techniques, relationships between techniques, and a strategy matrix to connect objectives to techniques. The review is supported with exemplar prototypes provided from industrial design efforts. Techniques are roughly categorized into those that improve the outcomes of prototyping directly, and those that enable prototyping through lowering of cost and time. Compact descriptions of each technique provide a foundation to compare the potential benefits and drawbacks of each. The review concludes with a summary of key observations, highlighted opportunities in the research, and a vision of the future of prototyping. This review aims to provide a resource for designers as well as set a trajectory for continuing innovation in the scientific research of design prototyping.
Many public transport authorities have a great interest in introducing zero-emission electric buses. However, the transformation process from diesel to electric bus systems opens up a vast design space which seems prohibitive for a systematic decision making process. We present a holistic design methodology to identify the ‘most suitable system solution’ under given strategic and operational requirements. The relevant vehicle technologies and charging systems are analysed and structured using a morphological matrix. A modular simulation model is introduced which takes technical and operational aspects into account. The model can be used to determine a feasible electric bus system. The technology selection is based on a detailed economic analysis which is conducted by means of a total cost of ownership (TCO) model. To cope with uncertainties in forecasting, a stochastic modelling of critical input parameters is applied and three different future scenarios are evaluated. The applicability of the model was verified in a pilot project in Berlin and the methodology was applied to a realistic operational scenario. Our results indicate that electric bus systems are technically feasible and can become economically competitive from the year 2025 under the conditions examined.
Sustainability encompasses social, economic and environmental issues with the primary aim to fulfil the needs of the present society without compromising the potential needs of future generations. Product design has been identified to greatly influence the sustainability of New Product Development. This study aims to identify and review the fundamental factors in which product design has the ability to influence and improve the overall environmental sustainability of a product. A comprehensive literature review has been performed to establish trends over the past four decades. The factors that have significant potential, such as the 6Rs, waste and energy, which aid designers in the implementation of environmental sustainability during the product design process have been identified and discussed. Through this analysis, a new conceptual framework has been conceived, facilitating designers in implementing environmental sustainability during product development. In addition, future research opportunities have been identified.
Talking about design, most discussions circulate around physical objects or products, around their invention, development, production and marketing. While most modern design approaches do also cover questions pertaining to human interaction, e.g. within user- or human-centred design philosophies, a systematic and fundamental conception of the role and implications that human perception and emo-cognitive processing take with regard to designing physical goods is lacking. Under the umbrella term ‘Psychology of Design’, I will develop and elaborate on psychological dimensions that are highly relevant to the optimization and evaluation of design. I propagate a general psychological turn in design theory and practice in order to purposefully include not only the top-down processes triggered by context, framing, expectation, knowledge or habituation but also the psychological effects of Gestalt and Zeitgeist. Such psychological effects have the potential to determine whether the very same physical design will be aesthetically appreciated, desired, loved or rejected in the end. Psychology of design has a tremendous influence on the success and sustainability of design by triggering associations and displaying demand characteristics in a multimodal way. The paper is based on fundamental psychological theories and empirical evidences which are linked to applied examples from the world of art and design.
Digitalization and the momentous role being assumed by data are commonly viewed as pervasive phenomena whose impact is felt in all aspects of society and the economy. Design activity is by no means immune from this trend, and the relationship between digitalization and design is decades old. However, what is the current impact of this ‘data revolution’ on design? How will the design activity change? What are the resulting research questions of interest to academics? What are the main challenges for firms and for educational institutions having to cope with this change? The paper provides a comprehensive conceptual framework, based on recent literature and anecdotal evidence from the industry. It identifies three main streams: namely the consequences on designers, the consequences on design processes and the role of methods for data analytics. In turn, these three streams lead to implications at individual, organizational and managerial level, and several questions arise worthy of defining future research agendas. Moreover, the paper introduces relational diagrams depicting the interactions between the objects and the actors involved in the design process and suggests that what is occurring is by no means a simple evolution but a paradigmatic shift in the way artefacts are designed.
This article explores the ability of ChatGPT to function as a virtual colleague in helping to design materials for higher education design students. Using a self-study methodology, two university educators attempted to collaborate with ChatGPT to create course materials targeted at higher education design students, before reflecting on its strengths and weaknesses during the process. Contextualising ChatGPT as the latest acute example of digital disruptors that design practices and processes have faced, the authors evaluated its current and potential threats and opportunities for the creation of design-focused learning content. The authors found that ChatGPT was a competent partner with regard to saving time, structuring textual content and documentation, and as a brainstorming tool. However, ChatGPT’s weaknesses included content generation that was often generic, usually requiring much human prompting, cajoling, and manual editing to produce desirable outcomes. Overall, ChatGPT was found to excel at its stated functionality as a language model, with some potentially useful functionality for the creation of higher education design course materials and outlines, as well as limitations. The reflections discussed can be used to inform design educators who may want to work with ChatGPT when designing course materials. However, acknowledging limitations and potential ethical challenges, the authors’ caution that educators may have to evaluate for themselves whether ChatGPT’s potential advantages outweigh its disadvantages.
Outside of community-led design projects, most participatory design processes initiated by a company or organisation maintain or even strengthen power imbalances between the design organisation and the community on whose purported behalf they are designing, further increasing the absencing experience. Radical participatory design (RPD) is a radically relational answer to the coloniality inherent in participatory design where the community members’ disappointment is greater due to the greater expectations and presencing potential of a ‘participatory design’ process. We introduce the term RPD to show how research and design processes can be truly participatory to the root or core. Instead of treating participatory design as a method, a way of conducting a method, or a methodology, we introduce RPD as a meta-methodology, a way of doing any methodology. We explicitly describe what participation means and compare and contrast design processes based on the amount of participation, creating a typology of participation. We introduce ‘designer as community member’, ‘community member as designer,’ and ‘community member as facilitator’ models and provide characteristics for the meta-methodology of RPD.