Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:54:33.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODELLING DESIGN TRADE-OFFS USING A SET THEORY APPROACH: ALTERNATIVE PATHS FOR NAVIGATING TRADE-OFF SITUATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Jordan Nickel ,
Ada Hurst  and
P. Robert Duimering
Jordan Nickel*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
Ada Hurst
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
P. Robert Duimering
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
*
Nickel, Jordan Joshua, University of Waterloo, Management Sciences, Canada, jnickel@uwaterloo.ca

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.

This paper synthesizes concepts from the design creativity and design optimization literatures to develop a conceptual descriptive model of trade-off situations in design. Using a set theory approach, a model of the design space is expanded to formalize the description of trade-offs as Pareto frontiers on this space. The modelling of design process and human biases and limitations on the structure of these design spaces explores the perceptions designers form of these design spaces. The model presented describes how altering the framing and formulation of the design space can be used to alter or bypass the original Pareto frontiers of that space, allowing trade-offs to be navigated outside of the original limitations.

Keywords

CreativityDecision makingDesign theoryDesign SpaceTrade-off
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2177 - 2186
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, Ö. and Akin, C. (1996), “Frames of reference in architectural design: Analysing the hyperacclamation (A-h-a-!)”, Design Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 341–361, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00024-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuller, G.S. (1984), Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byggeth, S. and Hochschorner, E. (2006), “Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 15-16, pp. 1420–1430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.03.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekera, T., Vo, N. and D'Souza, N. (2013), “The effect of subliminal suggestions on Sudden Moments of Inspiration (SMI) in the design process”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 193–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2015), “Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 54–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2019a), “Creativity and fixation in the real world: A literature review of case study research”, Design Studies, Vol. 64, pp. 154–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2019b), “Methodological diversity and theoretical integration: Research in design fixation as an example of fixation in research design?”, Design Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 78–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. and Moroşanu Firth, R. (2019), “Creativity and fixation in the real world: Three case studies of invention, design and innovation”, Design Studies, Vol. 64, pp. 169–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.07.003.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, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, S., Lin, L., De Guio, R. and Rasovska, I. (2015), “From simulation to invention, beyond the pareto-frontier”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), Vol. 6, Milan, IT.Google Scholar
Ekelund, R.B. and Hebert, R.F. (2007), A History of Economic Theory and Method, 5th ed., Waveland.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2007), “An ontology of situated design teams”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 295–308, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060407000297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kazakov, V. (1999), “An Interpolation/Extrapolation Process For Creative Designing”, Computers in Building, pp. 263–274, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5047-1_17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kazakov, V. (2000), “Adaptive enlargement of state spaces in evolutionary designing”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31–38, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060400141034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kumar, B. (1993), “Expanding design spaces through new design variables”, Design Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 210–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(93)80048-H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V. and Pirolli, P. (1992), “The structure of design problem spaces”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 395–429, https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(92)90038-V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halmos, P.R. (1974), Naive Set Theory, edited by Axler, S., Gehring, F.W. and Ribet, K.A., Springer, New York, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1645-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2009), “C-K design theory: An advanced formulation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19, pp. 181–192, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, C.A., Pack, A.T., Lofthouse, V. and Bhamra, T. (2019), “Using a Product's Sustainability Space as a Design Exploration Tool”, Design Science, Vol. 5, pp. 1–34, https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2018.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1956), “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 81–97, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poon, J. and Maher, M. Lou. (1997), “Co-evolution and emergence in design”, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 319–327, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0954-1810(96)00047-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafiq, M.Y. (2000), “Importance of Pareto optimum solutions in making informed decisions in engineering design”, Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford, California, pp. 1325–1333, https://doi.org/10.1061/40513(279)173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, A., Wang, H., Grinspun, E., Solomon, J. and Matusik, W. (2018), “Interactive exploration of design trade-offs”, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 37 No. 4, https://doi.org/10.1145/3197517.3201385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shai, O. and Reich, Y. (2004), “Infused design. I. Theory”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 93–107, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-004-0047-7.Google Scholar
Shi, X. and Gero, J.S. (2000), “Design families and design individuals”, Engineering with Computers, Vol. 16, pp. 253–263, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003660070008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1997), “Bounded Rationality”, Models of Bounded Rationality: Emperically Grounded Economic Reason, Vol. 3, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4711.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S.S. (1946), “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement”, Science, Vol. 103 No. 2684, pp. 677–680, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. (1997), “What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis”, Design Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 385–403, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00008-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar