Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:23:48.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DECOMPOSITION AND RECOMPOSITION STRATEGIES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN TEAMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Julie Milovanovic ,
John Gero  and
Kurt Becker
Julie Milovanovic*
Affiliation:
UMR AAU-CRENAU, Graduate School of Architecture of Nantes, Nantes, France;
John Gero
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science and School of Architecture, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, USA;
Kurt Becker
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Education, Utah State Univ
*
Milovanovic, Julie, AAU-CRENAU, Graduate School of Architecture, France, julie.milovanovic@crenau.archi.fr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Designers faced with complex design problems use decomposition strategies to tackle manageable sub-problems. Recomposition strategies aims at synthesizing sub-solutions into a unique design proposal. Design theory describes the design process as a combination of decomposition and recomposition strategies. In this paper, we explore dynamic patterns of decomposition and recomposition strategies of design teams. Data were collected from 9 teams of professional engineers. Using protocol analysis, we examined the dominance of decomposition and recomposition strategies over time and the correlations between each strategy and design processes such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation. We expected decomposition strategies to peak early in the design process and decay overtime. Instead, teams maintain decomposition and recomposition strategies consistently during the design process. We observed fast iteration of both strategies over a one hour-long design session. The research presented provides an empirical foundation to model the behaviour of professional engineering teams, and first insights to refine theoretical understanding of the use decomposition and recomposition strategies in design practice.

Keywords

Design cognitionSystems Engineering (SE)Design processProtocol analysisProblem decomposition
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 871 - 880
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Akin, O. and Akin, C. (1996), “Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyper acclamation (A-h-a-.t)”, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 341–361.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1964), Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Austin-Breneman, J., Honda, T., & Yang, M. C. (2012). A study of student design team behaviors in complex system design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 134(12), 124504. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, L.J., Evans, J., Dennis, I. and Ormerod, T.C. (1997), “Problem-solving strategies and Expertise in engineering design”, Thinking & Reasoning, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1982), “Designerly ways of knowing”, Design Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H. A. (1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990), “Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function–behaviour–structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Mc Neill, T. (1998), “An approach to the analysis of design protocols”, Design Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 21–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Song, T. (2017), “Decomposition/Recomposition design behavior of student and professional engineers”, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
Goel, V. and Pirolli, P. (1992), “The structure of design problem spaces”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 16, pp. 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gralla, E.L., Herrmann, J.W. and Morency, M. (2019), “Design problem decomposition: an empirical study of small teams of facility designers”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human–Computer Interaction, 5(2-3), 305–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.1990.9667157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, C.-H. (2001), “Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
INCOSE (2015), Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, Fourth Edition, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04, International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, Penguin Books, London, UK.Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero, J.S. (2019), “Design thinking, fast and slow: A framework for Kahneman's dual-system theory in design”, Design Science, Vol. 5, p. e10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannengiesser, U., and Gero, J.S. (In review), What distinguishes a model of system engineering from other models of design?Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: the design process demystified, Elsevier/Architectural Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liikkanen, L.A. and Perttula, M. (2009), “Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M.L. and Poon, J. (1996), “Modeling design exploration as co-evolution”, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, W. M. (1997). Portfolio assessment in design education, FIE, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed., Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Science, Vol. 4, pp. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, P.G. (1992), Design Thinking, MIT Press., Cambridge Massachussets.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, Dunod.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1973), “The structure of ill structured problems”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 4 No. 3-4, pp. 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, T., Becker, K., Gero, J., DeBerard, S., Oenardi, L. and Reeve, E. (2016), “Problem decomposition and recomposition in engineering design: A comparison of design behavior between orofessional engineers, engineering seniors, and engineering freshmen.”, Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, G., Yao, S. and Carretero, J.A. (2016), “An experimental approach to understanding design problem structuring strategies”, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobias, C., Herrmann, J.W. and Gralla, E.L. (2015), “Exploring problem decomposition in design team discussions”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), Vol. Vol 11:Human Behaviour in Design, Design Education, Milan, Italy, pp. 111–120.Google Scholar
Van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F. and Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994), The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (1994), “Organisation of design activities: Opportunistic, with hierarchical episodes”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 239–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar