Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:44:28.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicating concepts in reasoning from function to form by two-step innovative abductions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2016

Ehud Kroll  and
Lauri Koskela
Ehud Kroll*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, ORT Braude College, Karmiel, Israel
Lauri Koskela
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland School of Art, Design and Architecture, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Ehud Kroll, Department of Mechanical Engineering, ORT Braude College, P.O. Box 78, Karmiel 2161002, Israel. E-mail: kroll@braude.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The mechanism of design reasoning from function to form is suggested to consist of a two-step inference of the innovative abduction type. First is an inference from a desired functional aspect to an idea, concept, or solution principle to satisfy the function. This is followed by a second innovative abduction, from the latest concept to form, structure, or mechanism. The intermediate entity in the logical reasoning, the concept, is thus made explicit, which is significant in following and understanding a specific design process, for educating designers, and to build a logic-based computational model of design. The idea of a two-step abductive reasoning process is developed from the critical examination of several propositions made by others. We use the notion of innovative abduction in design, as opposed to such abduction where the question is about selecting among known alternatives, and we adopt a previously proposed two-step process of abductive reasoning. However, our model is different in that the two abductions used follow the syllogistic pattern of innovative abduction. In addition to using a schematic example from the literature to demonstrate our derivation, we apply the model to an existing, empirically derived method of conceptual design called “parameter analysis” and use two examples of real design processes. The two synthetic steps of the method are shown to follow the proposed double innovative abduction scheme, and the design processes are presented as sequences of double abductions from function to concept and from concept to form, with a subsequent deductive evaluation step.

Keywords

AbductionDesign ReasoningInnovative AbductionParameter Analysis
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 30 , Issue 2: Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'14) , May 2016 , pp. 125 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, D.C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1985). Expert systems for a class of mechanical design activity. In Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 259–282. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Burks, A.W. (1946). Peirce's theory of abduction. Philosophy of Science 13(4), 301–306.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Xie, Y., & Zhao, M. (2015 a). A new model of conceptual design based on scientific ontology and intentionality theory: Part I. The conceptual foundation. Design Studies 37, 12–36.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Zhao, M., Xie, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2015 b). A new model of conceptual design based on scientific ontology and intentionality theory: Part II. The process model. Design Studies 38, 139–160.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Dew, N. (2007). Abduction: a pre-condition for the intelligent design of strategy. Journal of Business Strategy 28(4), 38–45.Google Scholar
Dong, A., Lovallo, D., & Mounarath, R. (2015). The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions. Design Studies 37, 37–58.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies 32(6), 521–532.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
Goel, V. (1988). Complicating the “logic of design.” Design Studies 9(4), 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and Human Interests, 2nd ed.London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design 19(4), 181–192.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. (1999). Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction. Foundations of Science 4(3), 271–305.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. (2009). Practical reasoning and engineering. In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Meijers, A., Ed.), pp. 375–402. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Koskela, L., Codinhoto, R., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Kagioglou, M. (2014). The Aristotelian proto-theory of design. In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design (Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L., Eds.). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Kroll, E. (2013). Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis. Research in Engineering Design 24(2), 165–183.Google Scholar
Kroll, E., Condoor, S.S., & Jansson, D.G. (2001). Innovative Conceptual Design: Theory and Application of Parameter Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, E., & Koskela, L. (2016). Applying the proto-theory of design to explain and modify the parameter analysis method of conceptual design. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 4(1), 1–25. doi:10.1080/21650349.1013568.Google Scholar
Kroll, E., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2014). Steepest-first exploration with learning-based path evaluation: uncovering the design strategy of parameter analysis with C-K theory. Research in Engineering Design 25(4), 351–373.Google Scholar
Li, Y.T., Jansson, D.G., & Cravalho, E.G. (1980). Technological Innovation in Education and Industry. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Magnani, L. (1995). Creative processes in scientific discovery. European Journal for High Ability 6(2), 160–169.Google Scholar
March, L. (1976). The logic of design and the question of value. In The Architecture of Form (March, L., Ed.), pp. 1–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Minnameier, G. (2010). Abduction, induction, and analogy—on the compound character of analogical inferences. In Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Abduction, Logic, and Computational Discovery (Carnielli, W., Magnani, L., & Pizzi, C., Eds.), pp. 107–119. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science 66, S436–S451.Google Scholar
Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2000). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 1st English ed.London: Design Council.Google Scholar
Pauwels, P., De Meyer, R., & Van Campenhout, J. (2013). Design thinking support: information systems versus reasoning. Design Issues 29(2), 42–59.Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S. (1994). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Vol. 7. Science and Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. (1993). On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. Design Studies 14(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. (2008). Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164(2), 201–234.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990). The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takeda, H. (1994). Abduction for design. In Formal Design Methods for CAD (Gero, J.S., & Tyugu, E., Eds.), pp. 221–244. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Takeda, H., Sasaki, H., Nomaguchi, Y., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (2003). Universal abduction studio—proposal of a design support environment for creative thinking in design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'03. Stockholm: Design Society.Google Scholar
Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Modeling design processes. AI Magazine 11(4), 37–48.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T., Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., & Shimomura, Y. (2003). Abduction for creative design. Proc. ASME 2003 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., DETC'03, pp. 543–552, Chicago, September 2–6.Google Scholar
Ullah, A.M.M.S., Rashid, M.M., & Tamaki, J. (2012). On some unique features of C-K theory of design. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 5(1), 55–66.Google Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. (2007). Product Design and Development, 4th ed.Boston: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Vickers, J. (2013). The problem of induction. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Zalta, E.N., Ed.). Accessed at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/induction-problem/Google Scholar
Zeng, Y., & Cheng, G.D. (1991). On the logic of design. Design Studies 12(3), 137–141.Google Scholar