Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 312003

Understanding the Order of Engineerittg
Design Research

I. Horv:ith

Engineering design research manifests as a platfonnfor exploration, desription, alTange?nent, rationalization, and application of fusign
hnowledge. Whal we can see when we are looking at the research into enghrcering design is an alrnost chaotically fragnmted pfuture. Is it
possible to haae a holistic view on the conlents and internal relalionships of engineering design research? This paper cons'iders teleology,

a refleclion of a branch of philosophicaL speculations, as the dochine of ordering hnowledge of engineering fusign and structuring

engineering design research according\. Teleologl exphins tlmt the uhhnate reason behind design is lo sustain human exislence and,well

bemg fi airtual creation of artifucx and sentices for society. To this end, knoutledge of engineering research is supposed to be transferred

fron the platfonn of scientific/theoretical exploration and conprelunsion to the platfonn of technical/pragnatic application. This implics
'a 

natural streaming of knowledge of engineering design. In order to tnahe the teleological explanation operational, a framework of
reasoning has been constructed hy adopting the analogt of the source, clmnnel and sink of a stream. To represmt the source, channel and

sink categaries of engineedng design knouLedge, lhe author inaugurated nine categories in the f ameworh. It has been hypothesized that

the intt'oduced categoties are equally aalid for research in engineedng dtsign as well as for the knowledge of mgineering design. Within
each category, research domains and trajectories haae been delined. The proposed, teleology-based fntrnework lends itself to a better

undcrstanding of the disciplinary articulation and intrinsic relationships of engineering ilesign research. It is hoped, arnong olher things,

to fonn a basis for a shared und,erstanding, to make the influence of decisions on research prograrns more lransparenl, as welL as lo facilitate
organizing subject materials for uarious rfusign courses.

Keyuonls: engineefing design research,, leleologl of engineeilng design, natural slreant of knowledge, research categoties, research'

d ornains, re search trni e ctories.

I Introduction and development of
a framework of reasoning

Engineering design is a creative act, which is under-
stood to be a partially scientific discipline [42]. Design

science intends to explore design-related knowledge, look for
an understanding of design, search for all forms of truth,
and ultimately, explain the act of designing by humans.
Eventually, engineering design research is the instrument for
exploration, description, arrangement, rationalization, and
application of design knorvledge. The aim of this paper is to
conclude about the contextual arrangement and intrinsic
relationships of engineering design rcsearch, if these exist at
all. The motivation behind thiswork comes from the observa-

tion that engineering design research shows a rather chaotic
picture no matter if we look at it from a distance or from
inside. On the contrary the analytical rationality of science,

which is especially dominant in natural and abstract sci-

ences, exprcsses a strong attempt to categorize and arrange
all pieces of the explored knowledge [45]. The 'scientific

method' attempts to introduce order by stt'ucturing the ele-

ments of knowledge so as to make proper actions, judgments

and evaluations possible. But, can we otder engineering
design knowledge if the researth that produces this knowl-

edge does apparently not obey to order or rule? Or; can we

understand engineering design research without a proPer
comprehension of knowledge of engineering design? These
have been the main issues for the research whose recent
results are being reported in this paper.

The first assumption of the author has been that engi-
neering design research does obey an order and it can be

comprehended by taking the nomothetic relationships of
design knowledge into consideration, Nomothetic relation-

ships are abstract, general or even universal statemenls or
larvs. After Bohm, D., two alternative views can be formed,
explicate and implicate t5]. An explicate view is related to
obserrrations and allorvs creating order by phenomenology.
Implicate view relates to comprehension and allows creating

order by cogitation. In the end, an implicate view creates a ho-

listic order that mutually enfolds all relationships of design
knowledge. Adopting an implicate vierv can definitely help us

to discover some nomothetic relationships, but it necessitates

an adequate doctrine that enables us to explore any ProPer
relationship. The question is what kind of doctrine can be

adopted to obtain any deeper understanding ofthe content
and relationships of design knowledge in an implicate way?

In our case, unfortunately, the strategy of inductive reasoning

to reach fiom the facts observed in real life and literature to

a hypothesis or a model of reasoning does not work. We have

to appeal to a nlor€ speculative doctrine, which lends itself to
the requested implicate vierv.

It has been hypothesized that the doctrine of teleology,

rather than of mechanism, must be followed toward a better
comprehension of the order of engineering design knowl-
edge and reseatrh. As a philosophical category teleology
provides explanations of phenomena by the Purpose they

sewe. The doctrine of teleology teaches us about the final
r€asons of engir-reering design, and reveals the purpose of the
knowledge of engineering design It points at the fact that
engineering design is being directed towards an ultimate
purpose that manifests in virtual creation of artifacts and
services for society [I2]. That is, as opposed to mechanism,
the teleological view indeed claims that engineering design is
determined not only by mechanical causes, but also by an

over-all purpose. The doctrine of teleology also attempts to

account for the features ofengineering design knowledge by

appealing to their contribution to functioning and attain-

t7



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. gl200g

Fig. l: Conceptual framework ofthe order in engineering design research

ments of goals. Teleology also says that the ultimate reason
does exist without our awareness, recognition or understand-
ing. Neglecting all other implications, we can claim that rhis
ultimate reason is to sustain human existence, to which engi-
neering design contributes through its purpose. Actually, the
contribution of engineering design to the fulfillment of soc!
etal needs for products and services explains its occurrence
and the way ofoccurrence.

The third assumption has been that, on the one hand, the
purpose of engineering design derermines the order and the
intrinsic relationships of engineering design knowledge. On
the other hand, projecting the order of engineering design
knowledge to the research of engineering design provides us
with the requested implicate view. The hypothesis, supported
by some fundamental observarions, is that the global disci-
pline of engineering design is naturally rationalized and di-
rected. The knowledge is transferred from the scientific (or
theoretical) exploration and comprehension to the technical
(or pragmatic) application. Hence, the underpinning idea
behind an implicate view can be this narural flow of knowl-
edge through design. The basis of demarcation of the fields of

t8

knowledge, as well as in the attentions of research, is the con-
text of purpose. With regards to engineering design research,
the categories offields ofinterests can be detailed for contents
at various levels. Based on these postulates, a framework of
reasoning has been constnrcted that serves four functions: (a)
identification of the contexrual categories of engineering
design research, (b) disintegrarion of the categories ro re-
search domains and making the interactions and dependen-
cies explicit, (c) decomposition of the domains to research tra-
jectories, and (d) breaking down the trajectories to research
approaches, whenever this is possible or needed. A research
category is a philosophical concept that is based on our
thoughts and organizes our experiences accordingly. A Ee-
search domain is a disciplinary branch of engineering design
knowledge and research, represenring a parricular field of
competence or expertise such as history ergonomics, and
management. A research trajectory indicates a stream of op-
erations sharing the same objectives and concepts, which in-
volve modeling a typical example. Finally, a research ap-
proach concerns the concrete treatment of specific research
issues in engineering design research.



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 312003

In order to be able to cast the natural flow ofknowledge
into a framework of reasoning, the analogy of the source,

channel and sink ofa stream has been used to define the con-
textual categories (Fig. l). As specific to engineering design

knowledge, the author inaugurated nine research categories

in the framework. The source categorie,s of engineering design

knorvledge and research are the categories that endow with
the fundamental mental capacity for engineering design.

From an epistemic point of vieq knowledge pertaining to
design may belong to one of four contextual categories:
(a) knowledge of human assets, which must be an all-preced-
ing source category (b) generic knowledge of design, which

represents a part of universal knowledge, plus (c) artifact
knowledge and (d) Process knowledge, which complement

each other. The clrunneL categories provide knowledge for
establishing couplings betrveen ttre scientific/theoretical

knowledge and pragmatidtechnical knowledge categories.

The purpose of design philosophy is to improve understand-
ing, of design theory is the proper reasoning with knou'ledge,
of design methodology is the proper utilization of knowledge,
and of design technology is the effective application of knowl-

edge. The sin k category is concerned with generation of knowl-

edge that is necessary for the ultinlate deployment of the

whole engineering design knorvledge. Design application

alone represents this category. l)ue to space limitations, the

discussion of the proposed structure of engineering design

knowledge and resean:h tnust be restricted to the level of
design trajectories, as the lowest.

2 Research trajectories in human
assets

We regard human assets as the whole of the mental and

physical capabilities as well as potentials that are owned by

a community of human beings and that a business needs to

enable its processes to generate new values' Humans relate

to engineering design in three forms. They can be (a) schol-

arly originators of general and specific design knowledge
(design philosophers, design scientists, design theoreticians,

designers), (b) design problem solvers (design methodo-

Iogists, engineering designers, product and design system

developers), and (c) profiteers from the design deliver-

ables (users, consumers, undertakers, students)' Within the

research category of human assets' six research domains can

be identified that decompose to various research trajectories.
They are shorvn in fig.2. Design psychoLogy studies the mind
and behavior of designers as well as of the people who are

affected by design in whichever lbrm [53]. Individual design-

ers, collaborating designers and designer-user mixed grouPs

have been considered l4). Duign cognition research investi-
gates the act or process of knowing, the cognitive mechanisms
and mental concepts of knowing, perceiving and conceiving
design knowledge, intuitions and hypotheses [49]. It disre-
gards horvever feelings, emotion, beliefs and volition. It also

focuses on the cognitive processes (logical, visual, spatial, and

functional thinking) and models of designing [9] and the vari-

ous techniques of elicit.ing design knowledge from the design

activity on decision, product, and project levels [35].

Stimulated by globalization of industrial production and
the need for customized products rvorldwide, researchinto de'

sign ethnograpliy focuses on distillation of culturally relevant

design knowledge, as well as on culture-sensitive design of ar-
tifacts [7]. Design aesthetics, the science of sensuous knowledge,

studies various aspects of experience beyond the superficial

appearance of products, the impression and appreciation of
beauty in products, emotional reactions of humans, and the

creation of aesthetic values [55]. Design aesthetics involves

the study of perception of shape, functions, attributes, and

behaviors. It stresses a theoretical argumentation about form,
color and other sensory Properties. In the domain of de'

sigtt ergononilcs, the major research issue is accumulation of
knorvledge for optimizing the connection between clusters

of humans and products/environments [3]. While physical

ergonomics concentrates on the investigation of physical hu-

man-product interaction with an emphasis on the increase

of effrciengv, safety, comfort and convenience, informational

ergonomics pursues very analogous objectives in mental

human-product interaction [37]. High-fidelity multi-aspect

modeling of humans based on anthropometrical data, mate-

rial properties and physical functions, in particular for the

investigation of human-product interactions in various user

environments, is another main trajectory of research in this

domain. Supported by the general theories of marketing'

product nnrketing research covers a subset of fields of interests

that specifically belong to marketing of artifacts and to related

human
assets

Fig. 2: Research trajectories in human assets

l9



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. gl?00g

technical services ft7| The major fields of attention in this
research domain include product policies, marketing scenar-
ios and processes, customer behavioq product servicing and
life cycle costing. Cusromer behavior studies have received
specific attention especially related to consumer products
t281.

3 Research trajectories in design
knowledge
The structure ofresearch in the contextual category ofde-

sign knowledge is shown in Fig. 3. By adopting the doctrine
of epistemology of scientific knowledge, dcstgn epistemotogy
deals with the competing theories of design knowiedge wiih
respect to its origins, nature, forms, constituents, structure as
well as to its validation and merhods tl3l. There is a srong
coupling to the category of human assets, since human in-
volvement is the only rvay of acquiring design knowiedge
from the natural, social and technical sciences, as well as from
design practice. Although it was found to be fundamentally
empirical in nature, engineering design research has made
design knowledge more theoretical by structural reasoning,
abstraction and generalizarion, and logical processing t261.
Contemporary research in this domain has found that, in the
most general sense, design knowledge can be synthetic, as ac-
quired by the cognitive senses, and analytic, as derived by
mental reasoning. Design intelligence extends the intrinsic
forms of human intelligence, rhar is, linguistic, musical, logi-
cal, spatial, kinaesthetic and personal thought processes Il l.

The research in the domain of dzstgn intelligence investi-
gates the principles and forms of c<lmmon, plausible and
non-deterministic design reasoning and learning, togerher
with the apprehension of specific problem solving capabili-

ties, the nature and manifestations of design creativity, as well
as the nature of design problems and handling of hoiism and
complexity of design problems [8]. While design thinking
investigates the cognitive and intuitive mechanilms, design
reasoning considers the rational foundations with the aim of
deriving principles for procedural inference [31]. Design
reasoning based on formal logic has been considered u *.u-rl,
of mechanical realization of design, rather than a means
of achieving a creative leap [36]. In the domain of dzsign exter_
rnlizntion, research splits into three main trajectories: la) gen_
erating mental images (concepts) and converting them to
abstract or concrere schemata, (b) reprcsentationi applica-
ble to transfer mental images to external representations,
and (c) communicarion of design ideas, information and
design knowledge [50]. The research in the domain of fusisn
education decomposes ro the srudy of (a) design teaching aid
learning processes, methods and tools, (b) ctevelopmeni and
experiencing with various design learning pro$?ms, and (c)
exercising product design and realizarion by co-located or dis_
located coilaborative groups [46]. One of the most important
findings of research in the design instruction trajectory is the
observation that design is not separative, like science, but
integrative, like art and engineering, which has to be charac-
teristic for education in the information age [40].

4 Research trajectories in knowledge
of artifacts
Ihowledge related to artifacts, also named technical

systems or products, representi a specific subset of design
knowledge. In the context of design, a wealth of complix
artifacts appeared during the great industrial revolution and
later. Historically the first artifact theories were about mecha-

Fig. 3: Research trajectories in design knowledge

Fig. 4: Research trajectories in artifact knowledge

20



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 312003

nisms rather than about compound machinery or products,
Looking back over a long history the research into arti
facts intends to understand the rules, forms and relations of
processing substance, energy and information in designs.

The author distinguishes three domains of research into the

rtalm of artifacts, specifically the domain of technical systems,

product principles and ardfact rnanifestations (Fig.4). Re-

searrch recognizes technical s)stems as goal-implied, synergetic

arrangements of organs, and places the emphasis on the laws

of transformations, casual changes and optimization of oper-
ation [25].

The domain of prcduct pinciples is populated by the
research trajectories of product paradigms [44], structures,

technologies, materials and product intelligence [a3]. Re-

search in the domain of aftifuct nutnifestations is composed
of research in the trajectories ofdesign taxonomies, design

catalogues, artifact properties and the methods and tools of
product evaluations. The aims of research in design taxono-
mies are (a) to discover general principles for orderly classifi-

cations of designs and their relationships, and (b) to classifr
purposeful artifacts in various classes based on extensional
or intentional properties [56]. Design catalogues have been

studied as (a)warehouses of artifact related knorvledge and (b)

means of supporting systematic crcativity [57]. Research in
product properties is intelested in attainilrg optimal values

for influential properties such as weight, complexity, efli-
cienq', reliability, adaptability and crashworthiness.

5 Research trajectories in knowledge
of processes
There are many aspects to the discussion of design related

processes. The main domains of research in this category are

(a) design processes, (b) artifactual processes and (c) implicate
processes (frg. 5). Research in the domain of dlsign prlcesses

decomposes to the study and modeling of design processes as

well as to optimization of the transformations and the use of
resources in design processes to improve qualities Il]. The
firstly mentioned trajectory of research incorporates explana-
tion, generalization and/or abstraction of observed design
processes, and devising theorems, rules and procedures as

a set of instructions for solving design problems. Process

modeling studies the theoretical formalization of processes,

the ways of contextual understanding and information tech-
nological modeling of processes [30]. Understanding design
processes is the topic for ptocess theory specializing in design

[51]. The creative design processes have been found depend-
ent on the subconscious ideas that produce something not
known beforehand [21]. Monitoring and protocol study are

applied to understand the human ways of designing, process-

ing design information, applying knowledge, collaboration,
use of tools and methods, and design communication.

The research domain of arxtfucttnl processes spreads over
existential, operation, application and service processes of
products. 'Ihese are essentially the constituents of the life
cycle ofproducts. The research studies these product-related
processes in a holistic rvay, with the aim of understanding,
modeling, simulating and optimization. Implicate processes re'
late to the realization and exploitation of'products. Research

in this domain deals with technological, production, sales

and reclaiming processes. Technological processes are about
manufacturing and assembling parts, and they are studied
in order to provide information for designers for technol-
ogy-oriented decisions in the process of designing artifacts.
Production processes are about the realization ofproducts in

Fig. 5: Research trajectories in design-related process knorvledge

design
philosophy

Fig. 6: Research trajectories in design philosophy

2l



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. ll200|

various production environments such as conventional. real
time extended and virtual companies,

6 Research trajectories
philosophy

tn design

the technical, economic, moral, social and aesthetic values
created by design.

. 
Historically, philosophical inquiry targered rhe issues of

epistemology, aesthetics and ethics of lngineering tl4l.
Design philosophy is the highest level speculatiue ttri"ling
about (a) the existence and manifestation of design, $J
the role and position of design in society, (c) the hiitorical
evolution of design, and (d) rhe fioundational basis of design
thinking [61]. Philosophy of design is sometimes equated*to
a mek-theoretical fiamework for design theories gS+1. fne
author considers design science, design history design policy,
design ethics and design axiology as current domains of
design philosophy research, as shown in Fig. 6. Design sc,ience
is a scientific study ofdesign activity in its context, urrd g.rre._
ates a collection of logically arranged knowledge in rhe realm
of design. (In conrrast, the science of design is the study of
a scientific way of designing). Hubka, V and Ede4 W. E.
identified two constituents of design science as conceprs
of technical information and of design methodology [24].
Willem, R. A. found thar there exisr two knowledgeJevel
interactions benueen science and design [5g].

Daign history research focuses on the chronological
development of design.knowledge and the subdisciplines,
advancemenr. of philosophical and theoretical f.urrr"-
works (paradigms), and also on political, social, cultural, and
economic factors influencing the trends in the develop-
ment of products and designing [22]. Emeaging design policy
research concerns the executions of complex research
projects, knowledge about planning collaborative design pro-
cesses and outsourcing strategies for design projects. It
usually concerns a high-level overall plan embracing the gen-
eral design goals and acceptable design procedures. The
course of actions and,/or applicable methods is selected from
alternatives with a view to existing or hypothesized condi-
tions. Research in dcsign ethhs studies the ethical dimension in
engineering design, including man-made changes to nature,
the principles of a product that will be useful for society as well
as the rules of designing considering all moral, social, poliri-
cal, cultural and personal aspects. The main issue of research
is what rules reflect the norms of the society and should
govern the design activities, and what is the ethical sphere of
individual responsibility. Design axiologl research is develop-
ing spontaneously to study the nature and the measures bf

7 Research trajectories in design
theory
Design theories are dedicared ro the organization of engi_

neering design knowledge beyond the levei of craftsmanship.
The research in the category of design theory decomposes ro
the domains. of design theories, design semantics, and design
systematization (Fig. 7). Research in rhe domain of design thio_
ries. deals with both global and local theories. Descriptive, pre_
scriptive and formal theories have been identified ftS1.
Global theories concer-n both design artifacts and design
processes [20]. Hubka, V and Ede4 W. E. specified the
content for the theory of technical systems as the total of
sub-theories such as property theory it.,r.t,r." theory, trans-
formation (process) theory conformational theory life-stage
,1r.9.y, evolurion theory and ecology theory [241. a globil
design problem solving theory generally serves as a scientific
basis for rationalizing multidisciplinary product develop-
ment. One of the proposed global theories is general design
theory (GDT), which aims ar introducing an idealized modil
for the evolutionary design process [60]. Specific design theo-
ries are localized in scope, that is, they ar..onrr..t"d to o.r.
or several particular problems of engineering design. A local
design theory emerges when there is a testable explanation of
why the method behaves as it does. Formal local theories are
typically based on formalized theorems, rules and structured
procedures, and are used in automating solution finding
for design subproblems [6]. Research in rhe trajecrory of
design mappings focuses on specific problems of design such
as (a) converting ideas to a formal specification, (b) mapping
requrrement structures to functions and functional structures,
(c) clarification of functions and functional relationships,
(d) grasping the function ro form rransition, (e) perceprion of
shapes and shape morphi"g, (0 clari$,ing relationships of
shape and behavio4 and (g) study of design evolution.

Research in dcsign semanti.cs ta{gets meanings and inten-
tions in design []. Among the goals are (a) undersranding the
meaning as it relates to design and explicating design inrenrs,
(b) exploring design aspects and consideration of them in the
design process, (c) contextual understanding of designing
and designing in conrexts, and (d) axiom-based approaches
to design. Design semiorics studies the symbolisms applied in
the key functional activir.ies in design and in the related activi-
ties. Design axiomarism srrives ro develop and apply for-
mal reasoning frameworks from a limited number of axioms

Fig. 7: Research trajectories in design theory

99



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 3/2003

design
methodology

Fig. 8: Research trajectories in design methodology

(self-eviclent truths), propositions (conjectures) and/or facts.

Based on the work of Russel, B., we can conclude that there
are no truths par excellence in engineering design, which

makes its axiomatic definition logically unsupported [48].
The domain of dzsign systemtttizntion incorporates research

into (a) design decision-making, (b) design instrumentation,
(c) design optimization, and (d) design automation. The
research studies individual, team and organizational levels of
design decision-making. Design instrutnentation studies the
dialect of design tools and design processes, humans and
tools, and problems and tools. Design oPtimization research

targets both qualitative and quantitative methods of sys-

tem, structure, shape and parameter optimization. Design

automation research, which assumes that engineering design
is a computable function, studies computer-based problem
solving strategies, methods, heuristics, creativity, Iearning,
and reasoning. Its ultimate aim is formal design inference,
automated problem solving, and transplantation of design
capabilities.

8 Research trajectories in design
methodology
Design methodology is the theory of design methods,

activities and techniques. Many researchers have proposed
a separation between the so-called scientific method and de-

sign method [0]. This view is well supported by the vast

amount of non-scientific knowledge that is applied in engi-
neering design. The author's understanding is that the cate-

gory of dcsign methodology research embraces the domains of
design methodologies, design innovation, design modeling
and modeling methods (Fig. 8). Design methodologies
involve the systematic analysis and organization of the ratio-
nal, experimental and heuristic principles and processes in
order to solve design problems. Eekels, J. and Roozenburg,
N. F. introduced the notion of design methodics to dif-
ferentiate the theory of methods from the development and
application of methods. Design methods do not attemPt to
say what design is, or how human designers do what they

do, but rather provide tools by which designers can explain

and perhaps even replicate certain aspects of design behav-

iors [27].
Desigz innoaation research creates a scientific basis for

rationalizing multidisciplinary product development and fa-

cilitates solution finding for design problems. Also studied are

the relationships benveen design innovation strategies and
the underlying range of technical choice available to the

design team [33]. With the advent of digital computers, a new

field of attention has gradually been emerging in design
methodology, dcsigt. rnodeLing. Its objective is to generate
mental, cognitive, formal and symbolic models of humans,
artifacts, processes and knowledCe [2]. It investigates the
role of modeis in externalization, communication and testing
of design ideas [62]. Design modeling covers the research tra-
jectories of requirement engineering, functional, structural,
mor-phological, physical, and behavioral modeling of prod-
ucts. Expectations coming from the phases of the life cycle of
products ale also investigated. The research domain of mod,el-

ing nrcthock deals rvith mathematical, verbal-textual, symbolic,
visio-spatial, virtual and material methods of representation
of humans, artifacts, processes and knowledge, and their
integral use in engineering design. Typically, verbal starting
points are transformed into initial physical representations

supported b1' visuo-spatial thinking [38].

9 Research trajectories in design
technology
Science philosopher Ziman,J. said that science in applica-

tion is technology [63]. Cross, N. asserted that design is

more a technological activity than a scientific activity; there-
fore it has to be seen from the more practical and stable tech-

nological model of human action, rather than from a formal
scientific theory [0]. According to the authol design

technology' is the most characteristic channel category that
converts the general knowledge of engineering design to

explicit prcduct models and representations. With the advent
of digital computers, design technology has become one of
the most intensively studied research categories of engineer-
in$ design. Therefore, sorne 30 years ago, design technology rc-
search showed an unexpectedly rapid progress [23]. The
involvement of computers in design, pulled by the needs

of industry and pushed by the rapidly evolving computer
technology, has actually brought about the concept ofdesign
technology. The n..ro fundamental problems have been the

processing of design knowledge by computers, and the devel-
opment of design supporting systems. The specific research

domains are shown in Fig. 9.

23



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 3/2003

design
technology

information processing

information acquisition

Fig. 9: Research trajectories in design technology

Research in the domain of fusigninformath.s aims at study-
ing all non-specific aspects of handling data, information and
knowledge related to humans, methods, tools and products.
It concerns acquisition, representation, structuring, process-
ing and validation. The premier issue has been processing
visual and spatial information, which is enabled by the meth-
ods and techniques offered by computer graphics research
and image pnccessing [6]. Research in the domain of design
languages ta{gets formal product definition languages as
well as product description languages of neutral formats. An-
other research domain, fusign mind,ware, deals with the issues
of structuring and archiving design data, information and
knowledge in design databases in textual, numeric, visual
and multi-media forms. Knowledge bases for design relying
on conventional representation schemes, taxonomical onto-
logies, or multimedia represenrarion as well as knowledge
asset warehousing are also investigated [41]. The research
domain of dcsign sortware comprises research into the ex-
ploration of theories, methods and algorithms for (a) design
utilities, (b) graphics-based modeling sofrware, (c) analysis
software and (d) simulation sofnvare [32].

Facilitating the development of design support sysrems
on the computational side, historically (a) interaction, (b) vi-
sualization, (c) computing and (d) communication hardware
research formed the four trajectories in dcsign hardware re-
search. Research into graphical hardware grew in parallel
with the research of graphical input and output means. In
the light of the existing concepts and achievements of all-pur-

pose hardware research, the importance of the computing
and communication trajectories is fading away. Supporting
multi-channel natural communication and true 3D presenta-
tions are in the focus of current hardware research in the
interaction and visualization trajectories. Design slstens re-
search aims at the integration of various design tools into
a single holistic system that is able to support all actions
of designers. From the concept of multifunctional systems,
through model-based integrated systems, research has en-
tered the realm of collaborative virtual product development
environments. As a basis fior of integration several concepts
such as centralized databases, associative models, multiple
feature views, shared product models, remote collaboration
management and tele-presence have been tested [39].

10 Research trajectories in design
application

Design application means the utilization of generic design
knowledge and specific design information in design-
ing products and product related services. Daign appliration
research, as the only sink category studies the ways of deploy-
ing artifact and process knowledge as well as design theories,
methodologies and technologies in solving concrete design
problems. The related research domains and trajectories are
shown in lig. 10. Coined by Kotarbinsky, T., dcsign praxiotogl
research has a broader and a narrower interpretation, and is
still a matter of debate [29]. In its broader interpreration ir

Fig. l0: Research trajectories in design application

24

d6ign
application



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 3/2003

goes toward the theory of e{ficient design action, and in its
narrower meaning it is focused on design problem solving

and organization. Design assuronce research concerns both
the quality of design actions and the quality of deliverables'
One trajectory of research creates norms and measures of
design quality, and the other is involved in the deployment
of quality [52].

Design sta,ndardization research targets the increase of efli-
ciency and quality of design by investigating the principles of
standardization, stating the requirements and characteristics
ofartifacts, processes and methods, and generatingcodes and
norms with a pronounced relationship to design technology

[54]. Receiving amplified interest in the last decade, research

in dzsign sustenaaca deals with the capacity management issues

ofdesign projects and looks for strategies and principles for
design outsourcing, knowledge brokerage and conducting
collaborative product development [9]. Frnally, research in
the domain of fusign managenent investigates the methods
of lowlevel organization of designing I I 8], exploitation of de-

sign tools for particular products, and verification and reviews

of evolving design [58]. Design management research in-
volves the study of: (a) design offrce management, (b) design
project management, (c) organization of design manage-
ment, (d) management training for designers, and (e) design
training for managers.

11 Conceived Influences of the
framework of reasoning

Driven by practical or utilitarian considerations, one can

obviously ask: What benefit can we draw from all these? For

design scientists, researchers and educators it is most proba-

bly not diflicult to see the relevance or usefulness of this (or
other purposeful) reasoning model, but they might meditate
about the best forms of utilization. Most probabll', designers

and design managers will formulale their question even more
profanely: Can we design better now? All these questions

in the context of utility are justified. Each theory must be

measured in terms of its usefulness. Implicitly, this is the mes-

sage of the reasoning model itself. Howeveq more often than

not, the usefulness of a theory or a framework of reason-

ing appears indirectly, rather than directly. And the indirect
influence might be much greater than any direct influence.
Presumably, this is true in our situation. In any case, influence
and especially usefulness needs further evidence in order to
gain acceptance as sensible. Here we mention four fields
where the usefulness of the teleological framework of reason-

ing can be proven: (a) conceptual framework of development
of ontologies for engineering design reseatch, (b) structuring
engineering design knowledge, (c) strategic and tactical orga-

nization of engineering design research, and (d) facilitation
of knowledge intensiveness in product development.

Design ontologies are the specifications of conceptualiza-
tion of knowledge related to a particular field of interest.
Actually, the presented teleological reasoning model defines
and arranges the highestJevel concepts (categories, domains

and trajectories). It introduces a hierarchical structure that is
a widely accepted form of arranging knowledge. Thus the te-

leological reasoning model lends itself to the highest-level

conceptual framework of ontology development for engi-

neering design research. It provides us with a set of concepts

and the hierarchical relationships of the concepts, reflects a

shared understanding and commitment, and serves as a com-

mon vocabulary of design scientists and practitioners. Lower
level (specific) ontologies of engineering design research

can be derived from the teleological reasoning. model in a

consistent and transparent \{ay, In this way the high level
systematization goes into human and software agents sup-
porting design information and knowledge mining, retrieval,
processing, archiving and reasoning.

The teleological reasoning model is able to support a sys-

tematic structuring of engineering design knowledge. The
order it introduces is an explicate order for engineering
design research and an implicate order for engineering de-
sign knowledge. The notion of implicate order can be easily

understood by analogy with image generation in TV sets.

The transmitted electronic signals should be in an arrange-
ment and form that result in the correct screen picture. The
contribution of the proposed reasoning model to the under-
standing of engineering design knowledge is of this kind.
A-lthough further research is needed, the conceptual frame-
work can be used to arrange the disciplinary knowledge of
engineering design and to facilitate, among other things,
knorvledge asset management, ontology development, and
education material development.

In the course of time, some specific topics and approaches

of engineering design research incidentally receive greater
emphasis at the expense of other issues. Everywhere in
the rvorld, design research grants are awarded mainly by

particular local interests, very rarely with concern about the
development of the science of designing as a whole. Granters
control the publication possibilities depending on their com-
mercial objectives. The orientation of scientific development
is influenced more by the editors-in-chiefs of publishing
houses than by an unprejudiced understanding of useful
trends and a comprehensive vierv on the ori€ntation of scien-

tific developrnent. The conceptual framework gives a kind of
topography of engineering design research, rvhich can be

utilized in the strategic and tactical hnancing and organiza-
tion of engineering design research. The integral view that it
provides on engineering design research can make the articu-

lation ofresearrh on the level oftrajectories and approaches

transpar€nt for the decision makers, and indicates the emer-

gence of a new paradigm when harmony with the framework
tends to cease and adaptation becomes a necessity.

Understanding the order, exploration mechanisms and
knowledge transfer of engineering design research has be-

come indispensable in an age when technological progress is

accelerating almost unconstrained. The teleological reason-

ing model says that the scientific (or theoretical) knowledge
explored by research in engineering design must be trans-
ferred to technical (or pragmatic) application. Shortening the

time of knowledge transfer fiom research to Practice and cop-

ing with the knowledge explosion are generally recognized
issues. The author believes that a better understanding of the
relationships between the knowledge produced by the various
branches of research enables us to better cope with the prag-
matic issues. What is waiting for further research is the study

of those mechanisms that facilitate the achievement of
knowledge intensiveness in product development based on a

short-term conversion of the results of engineering design

research.

25



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. Z/2002

References

il] Akman, V,, Surav, M.: Steps Toward Fornnkztng Context,
AI Magazine, 1996, Vol. 17, No, Z, p. bb-72.

[2] Anderl, R; Trmds in Product Modelling.In: proceedings

of the International Conference on Engineering Design
ICED 97, ed. by Riitahuhta, Tampere, l'L, \'ol. l, 1997,
p.113-120.

l3l Andersson, E. R.: I S2stems Approarh to prod.uct Design
and, Deuelopmtnt - An Erganomic Perspectiae .International
.fournal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 6, 1989, p. l-8.

t4l Arnabile, 'I', M.: The Socinl Psychology of Creatixity. New
York: Springer-Verlag, I 983.

tsl Bohm, D.: Wholeruss and th.e Im.bli.cate Ord,er. London:
Routledge Classics, 1980.

i6l Braha, D., Maimon, A: A Mathcnntical Theory of Destgn:
Fowtd,ations, Algorithms and, Applications. Bosron: Kluwer
Academic Publisher. 1998.

t7l Bucciarelli, L. L.: An Ethnographir Perspectiae on Engi-
neering Design. Design Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1988,
p. 159-168.

t8l Chandrasekaran, B.: A Framcuork for Duign problem

Solaing. Research in Engineering Design, \'ol. l, 1g89,
D. /5-dO.

tgl Christiaans, H. C., Dorsr, K. H.: Cognitioe Modck in In-
dwtrial Daign Engineering: A Protocol Study.In: proceed-
ings of 1992 ASME Design Theory and Methodology
Conference, YoL 42, 1992, p. l3l-137.

[0] Cross, N., Naughton, J., Walker, D.: Destgn, Method and
Scientffic Metltod. Design Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1981,
p. 195-201.

[1] Ertas, A., Jones, l. C: Engineering Design Procass. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

121 Dilnot, C.: 1982, Design. as a Socinl\ Signifi.cont Actiaity:
An Introdru,cttion. Design Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1995,
p. 139-146.

[3] Dimarogonas, A. D:The Origins of Engineering Design.ln:
Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conferences, Albuquerque, NM, ASME, New York,
Vol.63, 1993, p. l-18.

[4] Dimarogonas, A. D: Phil,osophital Issues in Engineering
Daign. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Sci-
ence, Vol. l, No. I, 1997, p. 5+-75.

[5] Finger, S., Dixon,J. R.:A Reaiew of Research'in Mechanical
Engrneering. Research in Engineering Design, Part l,
Vol. l, No. l, 1989, p. 5l-68, Part 2, Vol. l, No. 2, 1989,
p. l2l-137.

[6] Foley, J. D., van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K., Hughes, J. F.:
Cornputer Graphits: Princr,ples and Practi,ce. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1990.

I I 7] Gardner , H: Frames of Mind,: The Theory of Multiplz Intet-
ligences. London: Heinemann Publisher, 1983.

[8] Gorb, P.: Design Management. London: Architecture De-
sign and Technology Press, 1990.

I I 9] Hardagon, A. B. : Technology Brokering and Innoaation in a
Product Deuelopmmt Finn. Administrative Science,
YoL 42, 1997, p. 7 1U734.

[20] Henderson, M. R., Taylor, L. E.: A Meta.-Model for
Mech.anical Products Ba,sed Upon the Mechnnfu,al Duign

26

Process. Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 5, lgg3,
p. 140-160.

[21] Hertz, K.: A Coherent Desription of the prouss of Dnign.
Design Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1992, p. 393_410.

t22l Hill, D. R.: I History of Engineering in Clnssital and. Medi-
eaal Times. LaSalle: Open Court, Il, 1984.

[23] Horvdth, l.: Shifiing Paradigms of Cotnputer Aidcd, Design.
Delfr: Delfr University Press, 1998, p. l-36.

[24] Hubka, V., Eder, W. E: A Scicntifc Approach to Engi-
neering Design. Design Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1982,
p. r23-r37.

[25] Hubka, V., Eder, W. E: Theory of Technical Systern : A Total
Concept Theory for Engineering Design. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1988.

[26] Hubka, V., Eder, W.: Design Knowledge: Theory in Sulgort
of Practi,ce. lournal of Engineering Design, Vol. I , I 990,
p,97-108.

[27] Jones,J. C.: Design Methoils: Seeds of Humnn Futures. New
York: Wiley Interscience, 1980.

[28] Ibssarjian, H. H.: Persornli$ antl Consumzr Behaaior: A
Reaiew. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, 1971,
p. 409-418.

[29] Kotarbinsky, T.: Praxiology: An Introdrction to the Science of
EJficimtAction London: Pergamon Press, 1g65.

[30] Kusiak, A., Wang, J.: Efficient Organization of Duign
Actittities. International Journal of Production Research,
Vol.3l, No.4, 1993, p.753-769.

[31] Lawson, B: How Designers Thinh: The Design Process De-
mystified,. London: Architectural Press, I 980.

[32] Lee, K: PrinctpLes of CAD/CAM/C,AE Systerns. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999.

[33] Little, S. E: Incrementnl and Systernic Innouation Strategzes:

ReJlections of Technical Choice. Design Studies, Vol. 8,
No. I, 1997, p.4l-54.

[34] Love, T.: Philosophy of Design: A Meta-Tfuoretical Structure

for Duign Theory. Design Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2000,
p. 293-313.

[3 5] Magee, K.: The Elicitation of l(nowledge frorn Designers. De-
sign Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2,1987, p. 62-69.

[36] March, L: The Ingh of Duign In Developmenrs in De-
sign Methodology, ed. by Cross, N., New York: Wiley,
1984, p. 265-276.

[3 7] McClella nd,, I. : Product As s e s smmt and, U s er Triak. In Eval-
uation of Human Work, ed. by Wilson, J. R., Corlett, E.
N., London: Taylor and Francis Publisher, 1995.

[38] Muller, W: Destgn Discipline and the Signifuance of V,i:uo-
-SpatialThinking. Design Studies, Vol. 10, No. t, 1989,
p. 12-23.

[39] Navon,J., Stous, D., Furura, R.: Coll.a,boratiae Hyper Docu-
ments and Prototyping Groupuare. Computers in Industry,
Vol.29, No. l, 1996, p.9l-104.

[40] Owen, C. L.: Design Edu,cation in the Inforruttion Age. De-
sign Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1990, p.2A2-206.

[41] Owen, R., Horvdth, l.: Towards Product-relnted Knowl-
edge Asset Warehousi,ng in Enterprises. In: Proceedings of
the Fourth International Symposium on Tools and
Methods of Competitive Engineering, ed. by Horv:ith;
L, Li, P., Vergeest, J. S. M., Wuhan: HUST Press, 2002,
p. 155-170.



Acta Polytechnica Vol. 43 No. 3/2003

[42] Pahl, G., Beitz, W; Engineering Design: A Systematic Ap-

proach. New York: Springer'Verlag, 1988.

[43] Paynter, H. M.: Analysis anl. Design of Engtneering Sy stem.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1961.

[44] Petroski, H.: Design Parad'igms. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1994.

[45] Popper, K: Conjectures and Refuntions. London: Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.

[46] Portillo, M. 8., Dohr, J . H.: Design Education: On the Roa'd'

Towards Thought Deaelopment. Design Studies, Vol. 10'

No.2, 1989, p.96-102.

[47] Raalj, van, W. F., Antonides, G., Oppendijk van Veen,

W. M., Schoormans, .1.: Product an'd Consurnenl. Utrecht;
Lemma BV, 1999, (in Dutch).

[48] Russel, 11.: Tlu Problems of Philosoph2. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1912.

[49] Schon, D. A: The Reflectiae Practitioner. New York: Basic

Books, 1983.

[50] Smith, R. P., Morrow, J. A.' Prodtttt Deueloprnent Pro-

cess Mofuling. Design Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1999'

p.237-26t.

[51] Sohlenius, G.: Concurrent Engineenng. Annals of CIRP'

Vol.4l, No.2, 1992, p.645-655.

[52] Taguchi , G.: IntroducLion lo Qtality Engineenng: Designing

Quality into Products and, Processes. Tokyo: Asian Produc-

tivity Organization, 1986.

[53] Thomas, J. C., Carroll,J. M.' The Psychological Stu.dy of
Design. Design Studies, Vol. l, No. I, 1979, p. 5-1 l.

[54] Tbms, P.: Stttndnrds awJ tlw Design Procus. Design

Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1988, p. I t5-122.

[55] Tovey, M. J.: Styling and, Design: Intuition and. Arnlysis in

Ind,ustnnl Desryn, Design Studies, Vol, I 8, I 997, p, I 5-3 I .

[56] Ullman, D. G.: A Taxonomy for Mecfutnrcal Design. Re-

search in Engineering Design, Vol. 3,1992,p. 179-189.

t57l VDI, Richtlinie-2222, Blatt 2: Erstellung und Anwand-

ung von Konstrr-rktionskatalogen, Berlin:' VDI-Verlag,
1977.

[58] Warfield, J. N., A Science of Gmeric Design: Managing
Complexitl Through Slstems Design. Ames: Iowa State Uni-
versity Press, I994.

[59] Willem, R. A.: Design and Science. Design Studies, Vol. I l,
No. l, 1990, p.4347.

[60] Yoshikawa, H: General Design Theory as a Formal Theory

of Design.In Intelligent CAD, Vol. l, ed. by Yoshikawa,

H., Gossard, D., Amsterdam: North Holland' 1987'

p.5l-61.
[61] Yoshikarva,H.: Design Philosophl: The State of thz Art- Ar.'

nals ofthe CIRP, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1989, p. 579-586.

162) Zeid, l.: C.AD/CAM: Theory and' Practice. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991.

[63] Ziman, J .: Real Science. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2000.

Imre Horvdth
e-mail: i.horvath@io.tudelft.nl

Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
Delft University of Technology
Landbergstraat l5
2628 CE. Delft, The Netherlands

27


	Scan17
	Scan18
	Scan19
	Scan20
	Scan21
	Scan22
	Scan23
	Scan24
	Scan25
	Scan26
	Scan27