Click here to load reader
Upload
davidaww
View
15
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
why design is important
Citation preview
Why Is Design Important? 1An Introduction
Silke Konsorski-Lang and Michael Hampe
1.1 State-of-the-Art Design Research
Although design is as old as the human race itself,
pervades our lives, and is fundamental to many differ-
ent disciplines, the concept “design” is often vaguely
defined, and the way in which it is understood and
applied within these various disciplines diverges sub-
stantially. Design is a commonly shared key compo-
nent for many diverse disciplines such as science,
engineering, management and architecture – to name
just a few. For example, there is system design in
engineering, algorithm design in computer science,
process design in management, creative design in
architecture, and self-organizational design in biology.
However within these fields the way in which design is
understood and utilized differs significantly. Design
research, including design science and design meth-
odologies, is a wide and comprehensive field based on
both expertise and formulated terminologies that are
specific to a discipline. Even though research on
design can be traced back to the early 1960s, it cur-
rently needs extensive research, now more than ever.
The design methods developed in the 1960s and
research into artificial intelligence in the 1980s
provided some advances, but they did not have a
significant practical impact. The fundamentals and
principles of design are relatively little understood.
Surprisingly, little effort has been made to investigate
either the fundamental issues or the foundations of
design and to formulate specific criteria to establish
it as an extensive scientific concept and discipline in
its own right. For instance, in some specific engineer-
ing disciplines, such as user interface design, hand-
books with detailed design instructions do exist
already. However, a holistic understanding of design
would enable completely new perspectives of and
approaches to diverse disciplines, including those of
architecture, engineering, management, and natural
science. Until now, the potential of merging knowl-
edge from various disciplines has only rarely been
investigated.
1.1.1 What is Design Science?
Design is typically concerned with creating things that
people want. As the initial brainwork is normally
unseen by those on the outside of the thought process,
design is often seen as a procedure related to material
things. According to S. A. Gregory, the fundamental
idea behind design is building a structure, pattern, or
system within a situation (Gregory 1966). And there
are many examples of this. Engineering design is goal
oriented and concerned with the process of making
artifacts and complex systems for expert use. In natu-
ral science, design abides mainly by the laws of nature.
However, engineers, technologists, and scientists, as
well as architects, artists, and poets are all involved in
design processes. These processes are relatively more
or less creative, but all imply that thinking ahead is a
significant component of this process.
Many authors and scientists have sought to define
the term design. The following list, which is certainly
not exhaustive, summarizes some of the statements
S. Konsorski-Lang (*)
ETH Zurich, Universitatstrasse 6, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
e-mail: lang@ inf.ethz.ch
S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe (eds.), The Design of Material, Organism, and Minds, X.media.publishing,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-69002-3_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010
3
about design found in the literature. According to
these, design is:
� An art form
� An applied science
� A process with an input and an output
� A goal-directed problem-solving and decision-
making activity
� A deliberately intended or produced pattern
� Creativity and imagination
� Satisfying needs
� Drawings, sketches, plans, calculations
� Foresight toward production, assembly, testing,
and other processes
� Managing, learning, planning, and optimizing
� Collecting and processing data
� Transferring and transforming knowledge.
Research on design may have originated when, in
1872, Viollet-le-Duc recognized that design problems
are becoming so complex that the designer’s intuitive
grasp is not sufficient to solve them (Heath 1984).
Design research is concerned with the study, research,
and investigation of man-made artifacts and systems.
Within the manufacturing industry, design has been
formally acknowledged as a separate discipline for the
last 150 years. This is particularly true for the field of
engineering, where scientific developments, especially
those that occurred in the early 1940s, made signifi-
cant contributions toward solving design problems.
Multidisciplinary teams consisting of engineers,
industrial designers, psychologists, and statisticians
were set up. Initially, the focus of design research
was on improving classical design by using systematic
design methods. The Design Research Society was
founded in London in 1966. In 1970, the Environmen-
tal Design Research Association was established.
Their research involved evaluative studies of architec-
ture and environmental planning. At the Portsmouth
DRS Conference, L. Bruce Archer defined design
research as “systematic inquiry whose goal is knowl-
edge of, or in, the embodiment of configuration, com-
position, structure, purpose, value, and meaning in
man-made things and systems.” (Archer 1981, pp.
30–47).
However, since the 1990s, the focus has shifted to
automated design. This novel approach has trans-
formed information about design problems into
detailed specification of physical solutions that use
computers in order to attempt to solve the particular
problem. For instance, research in cybernetics has
influenced design methodologists and theoreticians
such as L. B. Archer and Gordan Pask. They draw
similarities between designers’ design behavior and
organisms’ self-control systems (Archer 1965; Pask
1963).
1.1.2 Design Science and its Origins
Design science is a systematic approach that seeks an
appropriate design methodology. This design method-
ology is a pattern of work, which is independent of the
discipline and offers a means of solving various pro-
blems.
1.1.3 Related Work
Regarding design and science, there are two periods of
special interest: the 1920s with their investigations of
scientific design products and the 1960s with their
research on scientific design processes. It is interesting
to note that in the 1920s, Theo van Doesberg and Le
Corbusier already had the desire to bring science and
design together (van Doesberg 1923; Le Corbusier
1929). Both produced works based on the values of
science: objectivity and rationality. The subsequent
investigation of innovative design methods had its
origins in the upcoming problems of the Second
World War. Novel, scientific, and computational
methods were then investigated and applied to new
and pressing problems.
In the 1960s, the disciplines of urban design,
graphic and interior design, industrial design, and
engineering recognized what nowadays is commonly
understood as design, and it became a discipline in its
own right. The vast number of initiatives during that
decade testify to this quickly growing awareness: the
Conference on Design Method in 1962 (Jones and
Thornley 1963), Christopher Alexander’s PhD on the
use of information theory in design in 1964 (Alexander
1964), the Teaching of Design – Design Methods
in Architecture conference in Ulm at the Hochschule
fur Gestaltung in 1966, and in 1967 the creation of
the Design Methods Group at the University of
California, Berkeley, the International Conference on
4 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
Engineering Design by Hubka, as well as The Design
Methods in Architecture Symposium in Portsmouth,
which all took place in the same year (Broadbent and
Ward 1969). Buckminster Fuller was probably the first
to coin the term Design Science. S. A. Gregory
adopted it in 1965 at the conference on The Design
Method (Gregory 1966). Gregory defined Design Sci-
ence as the study of design in theory and in practice, in
order to gain knowledge about design processes, about
design procedures to create material objects, and about
the behavior of its creators. According to his rather
general description (which applies to digestion as
well), design is a process that has an input and an
output (Gregory 1966). In 1967, Hubka established
the International Conference on Engineering Design
where he introduced the scientific approach to engi-
neering design methods as design science for the first
time. Design science was described as a system con-
sisting of logically related knowledge. This system
was intended to organize the knowledge gained
about designing.
1.1.4 Design Methodology
According to Cross (1984), design methodology refers
to the study of principles and procedures of design in a
broad and general sense. It is concerned with how
design is carried out. In doing so it analyzes how
designers work and how they think. The aim is to
make rational decisions that adapt to the prevailing
values. This is achieved by looking at rational methods
of incorporating scientific techniques and knowledge
into the design process. Design methodology became
important as a research topic in its own right at the
Conference on Design Method in 1962 (Hubka and
Eder 1996). In 1964, Christopher Alexander published
his PhD thesis “Notes on the Synthesis of Form” in
design methods (Alexander 1964). His approach for
solving problems was to split design problems into
small patterns. In doing so, he applied information
theory. In 1967, the Design Methods Group at the
University of California, Berkeley, was founded. Over
the next decades, design methodology gained in impor-
tance, especially in engineering and industrial design.
During this time, design as a research topic became
common in Europe and the US. In 1966, The Teaching
of Design – DesignMethods in Architecture conference
was held in Ulm at the Hochschule fur Gestaltung. The
Design Methods in Architecture Symposium was held
in 1967 in Portsmouth (Broadbent and Ward 1969).
Design methods, together with artificial intelligence,
got another impetus in the 1980s. During that decade
and also in the early 1990s a series of books on engi-
neering design methods and methodologies and new
journals on design research, theory, and methodology
were released. To name just some of them: Design
Studies (1979), Design Issues (1984), Journal of Engi-
neering Design (1990), Languages of Design (1993),
and Design Journal (1997). The most relevant and
important design methodologists during this period
were: Morris Asimow, John Christopher Jones, Nigel
Cross, L. Bruce Acher, T.T. Woodson, Stuart Pugh,
and David Ullman. The first design methodologists
were scientists and designers, and made their investi-
gations to find rational criteria for decision making
with the aim of optimizing decisions. Design meth-
odologies were also used to offer appropriate methods
for supporting creativity. Horst Rittel, a second-gener-
ation methodologist, proposed problem identification
methods that were influenced by the philosopher Karl
Popper. His approach differed from earlier attempts by
incorporating user involvement in design decisions
and the identification of user objectives.
1.2 Knowledge through Contemplationand Action
These developments took place in a context of art and
technology, a context that was distinguished sharply
from science. It is an ancient idea that those who can
design and make things, those who have a “techne,” do
not possess the “right” or the “real” knowledge or
“episteme” about things compared to persons who
can talk about things after they have contemplated
them and gained insight into their essence (Aristotle
1924, 981a). Thus, a shoemaker who designs and
makes a shoe has, according to Aristotle, not neces-
sarily an insight into the essence of a shoe compared to
a philosopher who contemplates about what shoes are
made for, what their purpose is, and what makes a shoe
a good shoe.
This Aristotelian view of devaluating practical or
technical knowledge and favoring contemplation as
1 Why Is Design Important? 5
real knowledge came under pressure with Dewey’s
pragmatism (Dewey 1986). Dewey unmasked in his
sociology of knowledge the epistemic difference
between contemplation and doing as one that origi-
nated from the attempt to privilege the knowledge of
priesthood and to devaluate the knowledge of crafts-
men and workers in a society based on slavery. In
this way it was possible to secure the privileges of a
class of men that did not do any physical labor, but
that was in fact in its material self-preservation dep-
endent on a class of enslaved people. Dewey thought
that the hierarchy of knowledge by contemplation and
knowledge by doing survived not only the abolishment
of slavery, but also the disappearance of essentialism.
The distinction between the pure and the applied
sciences, between universities and mere polytech-
nics, still pays tribute to this hierarchy of different
forms of knowledge. But what happens if things have
no essence to contemplate and if the people who are
creating things are no longer socially dependent on
those who merely contemplate? Dewey’s answer was
clear: As soon has this becomes obvious, one sees that
all knowledge is in fact gained by doing or designing
things. Dewey thought that this insight should also
have pedagogical consequences: learning should hap-
pen by doing things and not by telling pupils about
things.
According to Dewey, knowledge, including “pure”
theory, is an instrument for action and problem-solving
(Dewey 1986). Since then, a great variety of theories
of knowledge have developed, which all consider
knowledge as a product of construction and not of
contemplation, as something that is actively crafted
by man and not passively conceived by the mind. The
varieties of constructivism not only made knowledge
into something that human beings design with their
minds but it led to a relativization of the distinction
between pure and applied science. Especially the con-
centration on the technological foundations of experi-
mental science, the insight that science is as much
about representing as it is about intervening in the
world (Hacking 1983), reshaped the view of the rela-
tion between theory and technology in the philosophy
of science. If human beings are engaged in processes
of design when they create theories, experiments, or
machines, then in what sense is the knowledge that is
necessary for developing a machine or a building
subordinate to the one that is needed in order to create
a theory? Is the complexity involved in the design of a
machine not much greater than the one involved in
creating a “pure theory?” Why should the design of an
experiment that is a stage in the design of a theory be
considered as pure science, whereas the design of a
material, a machine, or a building is “only” applied
science according to the cascade model of knowledge
that starts with theory on top (Bacon 1990)? Recent
investigations into the nature of the relation between
science and technology suggest that the design of a
technical gadget is very often much more than an
application of theoretically prefabricated knowledge
and that even theoretical insights that are as “pure” as
Einstein’s relativity theory are not gained indepen-
dently from technical problems (Gallison 2003,
Carrier 2006, pp. 15–31). A complex technical problem,
such as the one Einstein was facing when he thought
about the synchronization of the clocks in the railway
system, can lead, if it is seen against the background of
the general knowledge of the field (in Einstein’s case
against the background of physics of moving bodies), to
fundamental theoretical innovations. Thus, trying to
solve a concrete technical problem or a problem of
design can lead to very general new knowledge.
1.3 Design of Languages and Worlds
Theories are often considered as structures in a lan-
guage. As long as languages were considered as natu-
rally given, constructing a theory was working in
something that was not designed. This must not neces-
sarily mean that one does not consider theories as
products of design. For a machine is designed in a
material, such as metal, that need not itself be
designed. But since the mathematization of science,
the picture has changed. It was Newton who invented
or designed his own mathematics for his physics of
accelerated bodies, the infinitesimal calculus. Since
then physics has been dominated by the artificial,
man-designed languages of mathematics. The “natu-
ral” language or ordinary language plays only a peda-
gogical role in physics.
Since the development of computers, the design of
languages and machines for solving scientific pro-
blems has become even more prominent. The printed
circuit copied on a silicone board transforms the rep-
resentation of a machine into a real machine that can
solve problems in a language that is man-made, the
6 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
Boolean algebra. Designing a language for program-
ming a computer, designing a computer as a material
machine, and solving a theoretical problem of science
can become very tightly connected tasks in those areas
that use computer simulations. Insofar as we consider
systems that solve problems by using symbolic repre-
sentations as minds, the design of artificial languages
and artificial symbolic problem solvers is the design of
artificial minds.
But the design of minds and languages is not a
specialty of the epoch of artificial intelligence. Although
every person is born into a “natural language,” there is
hardly anybody who does not react to this language
by deviating from it. In most people this will not lead
to intentional design of languages. But for any poet
the natural language is a material that is to be changed
into something else: a designed language that serves
different purposes and shows different things in a
different light than the undesigned natural language.
At the very beginning of European fiction, in Homer’s
epics, this design is obvious. As the stories of these
epics were conveyed orally for a long time, the lan-
guage in which they were told had to support the
memory of the singer. In order not to mix up events
and characters, a verse was produced as well as
phrases to fit this verse that could not be exchanged
easily. Thus, Odysseus is always the sly one and
Achilles the fast runner. It has been suggested that
this design of a verse and mode of description that
serves memory was also influencing the way the peo-
ple who were telling these stories and were listening
to them perceived their world (Feyerabend 2009, pp.
107–156). Thus, the design of a language forms the
minds of the user of this language as much as the
minds of the user (e.g., their capacity to memorize
things) form the language they design.
If we consider experienced worlds as the result of
the way the minds shape languages to describe the
world and the way languages shape minds to experi-
ence the world, then we can say that the process of
designing languages and minds is a process of design-
ing worlds. “If a new way of speaking spreads, it will
affect the mental life and the perception, and man finds
himself in a new environment, perceives new objects,
he is living in a new world” (Feyerabend 2009,
p. 169). One famous version of constructivism, the
one developed by the American philosopher Nelson
Goodman, says exactly this: worlds of experience
(and these are the only ones we know of) are made,
and making languages is a way of making a world
(Goodman 1981; Steinbrenner et al. 2005). Critics of
this view may say that the world we experience is the
product of a natural development, whereas the world
man is able to create by designing languages is artifi-
cial worlds. This is true under the presupposition of a
superficial understanding of the “natural” and the
“artificial,” an understanding that is challenged by
recent developments in design and simulation.
1.4 The Natural and the Artificial
Creating intentionally artificial worlds is an activity in
which humans were probably always engaged. Plays,
paintings, and epics are artificial, man-made worlds.
The programming of the artificial worlds in computer
games is just the latest version of this creative activity.
When we look, on the other hand, at the ways human
beings thought the world they did not create them-
selves came about, we have three fundamental models:
The world did not originate at all, but was from eter-
nity and will be in eternity – the Aristotelian Model
(1), the world developed in a process of evolution that
involved elements of chance – the Democritean Model
(2), and the world was designed intentionally by a
designer – the Platonic Model (3). Today, models (2)
and (3) are favored: physical cosmology and biolo-
gical evolutionary theory develop modern versions of
model (2), and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam favor
model (3). Therefore, we consider model (2) to be a
naturalistic one in which the world came about by a
natural process without any intentions involved,
whereas the religious views are considered supernatu-
ralistic, because they involve a non-human, divine
intention as responsible for the design of the structures
of the world we consider to be natural.
The fact that the world seems to have an order and
that it contains many things useful to man was long –
in the so-called argument from design – considered to
be an indication (or even a proof) of the intelligent
creator who designed the world in such a way that man
can live in it (since Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth
century till Robert Payley in the nineteenth). David
Hume criticized this argument in his “Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion” from 1779. Do we not
know as many or even more principles of creating
order besides intelligent design, like growth or instinct
1 Why Is Design Important? 7
or generation? Hume asked (1948, p. 49). And if we
suppose that a divine mind designed the world by
planning it, how did he produce an order of ideas in
his intellect? Since Darwin’s theory of evolution and
the theories of natural self-organization, design has
disappeared entirely as a principle of explaining natu-
ral order. What happened is that evolutionary princi-
ples became tools for intentional design.
For if we now look at modern design processes and
at modern epistemology, the picture about the relation
between the natural as the unintentionally and the
artificial as the intentionally created becomes much
more complicated. Some modern methods of design-
ing and simulating things use evolutionary algorithms.The computer applies in these algorithms evolutionary
strategies like the reproduction, variation (mutation),
recombination, and selection onto structures in order
to simulate and design things like materials, markets,
organisms, pharmaceutics, biological populations,
states, and much more (Ashlock 2006). These strate-
gies are at the same time believed to be the most
fundamental mechanisms behind biological evolution,
i.e., behind the “natural production” of organisms.
Darwin found his theory of evolution originally by
applying observations about the social development
of human populations from Malthus and about the
methods of breeding on farms onto wild nature
(Bowler 2003). His term “natural selection” already
indicates that the process of selection was first consid-
ered a cultural one: the intentional selection of plants
and animals for breeding by the farmer. By imple-
menting evolutionary algorithms in a computer sel-
ection as a method of design that was theoretically
first intentional (at the farm), then discovered to
happen also nonintentionally in “wild” nature, design
becomes “semi-intentional”: the designer, e.g., in
search of a material for constructing an airplane, inten-
tionally installs an intentionally developed algorithm
that searches unintentionally for the best mix of com-
ponents for a material in a computer. The autonomy of
the transformation processes of algorithms in compu-
ters makes computer-aided design a semi-intentional
process: natural processes are intentionally simulated
in order to optimize design processes. If we now take
into account that our view of natural processes is
increasingly shaped by the processes of simulation
and design in computers, we see that the border
between the natural and the artificial becomes increas-
ingly blurred: nature, originally seen as a product of
design (in Model 3) and now seen as a product of
evolution, is imitated in its creative potential in evolu-
tionary algorithms that are installed in artificial brains
that shape our view of nature. Perhaps the distinction
between the natural and the artificial that dominated
western thought in a normative way for many centu-
ries will disappear or at least become a superficial one
if we develop a deeper understanding of the processes
of design and creativity in general.
If we take into account that the most advanced
computers, those that use evolutionary algorithms,
are also able to learn, i.e., to develop their own
minds, once they have been set up by man, we get an
even more complicated picture. Man’s mind has been
developed by biological and cultural evolution in such
a way that human beings were able to design artificial
minds intentionally. These artificial minds were con-
sidered most efficient if they ran evolutionary strate-
gies and were able to undergo developments that are
not planned intentionally. The way these artificial
minds develop will, the more they are used in science,
shape the way man sees the world. Thus, the human
mind of the future and the future human view of the
world will be developed in part by the artificial minds
man designed himself in such a way that they can
develop in a quasi natural fashion. This blurring of
the distinction between the natural and the artificial
has led theoreticians like Bruno Latour to the idea that
the whole concept of purely natural and purely artifi-
cial things is a fiction to be replaced by the idea of
hybrids (Latour 2000). The vision of a man who is
using glasses is as much a hybrid as the thinking of a
scientist about the world that is aided by a computer.
1.5 Pursuit of Perfection
1.5.1 What is Design?
In English the term design is used as both a noun and a
verb. As a noun, a design mostly refers to the final
product or the result of a design process. As a verb, todesign refers to the process of creating the product.
Designing includes the consideration of esthetic and
functional aspects.
In English and French, the terms for design trans-
late more to Gestaltung and Entwurf, whereas in
8 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
Italian disegno and Spanish diseno relate more to an
approved activity. Translating design into German
results in a broad range of meanings. In the German
language, the term design relates to things and is
targeted at their formal and artistic aspects, whereas
in Anglo-Saxon design also involves technical and
constructional aspects. Design itself is an iterative,
creative, but controlled process. It needs clear defini-
tions and controlled aims. In all disciplines the role of
the designer involves specifying the principles of:
need, describing the vision, and producing the result.
So far within design there has been a strong differ-
entiation between theory and practice. Research on
design theory didn’t have much impact on practice
until now. Designers in practice have, therefore, oper-
ated free from any design theory. But for all that
designers use empirical insights, concepts, and logical
systems, and their gained experience, all of which is in
practice used for making decisions, these are often
misinterpreted as intuition. Design theory, however,
deals with design on a different level than design in
practice. Research on design investigates models to
explain and to assemble design experience in practice.
The goal is to gain insights that can be used in practice
in the future. The proposed theories, however, neces-
sarily have to be generalized and border on at the
limitation of descriptiveness.
1.5.2 Perfection by Design
It is noticeable that designers work towards an
improvement and a perfection of their products
beyond disciplinary boundaries. Admittedly, the
design itself will never be perfect, only the imperfec-
tion will be minimized. Since design conforms to
constraints, requires choices, and involves compro-
mise, it will never be perfect. Design nowadays is in
most areas used to increase the user satisfaction, the
brand identity, as well as the competitiveness in the
sense of being better, quicker, cheaper, etc., than
others.
Armstrong defined design as the essential part of
the creative process of engineering that makes it dis-
tinct from science (Armstrong 2008). The design pro-
cess in engineering involves: imagination, creativity,
knowledge, technical and scientific skills, and the use
of materials. Creativity requires the ability to think
laterally, to anticipate the unexpected, to delight in
problem solving, and to enjoy the beauties of the
mind as well as of the physical world.
But what makes a design good? Are there para-
meters or models that define whether a design is
good or poor? In many disciplines evaluation criteria
exist to assist in achieving high quality results. Princi-
ples exist that are fundamental to the discipline and
that have to be fulfilled. In engineering, for example, it
is possible to identify basic principles that can be
applied to any other discipline when it comes to the
initiation of work or the testing of design decisions.
These principles in engineering should not be con-
fused with postulates, definitions, hypotheses, stan-
dards, or rules. However, design is related to art;
therefore, it is difficult to quantify and model it
completely. No checklist of rules or fixed set of ques-
tions exists that can be applied or answered to deter-
mine that a design is good. Fundamental principles are
generally well known to experienced designers, but
may not have been clearly formulated. Principles in
design are intended to provide assistance to the context
of the design. They are not scientific hypothetical
principles and are not necessarily rooted in physics
and mathematics.
But because man has always applied technologies
onto himself, processes of design have led to ideals of
human perfection as well. Perhaps the concept of
perfection is most intimately linked with human self-
understanding. Sportsmen have shaped or designed
their bodies since ancient times according to certain
ideals, and the design of drugs that will enhance our
mental capacities and emotional makeup is already
under way, i.e., man has started to design himself
mentally and physically according to ideals of physi-
cal and mental perfection. In the mosaic of religions
man, is designed by God according to his image, and
he has no right to shape himself according to other
images, which would be “unnatural” or a violation of
piety in this view. But in pagan Greece and in modern
times, when man sees himself as a product of evolu-
tion, this is different. Knowing the rules of evolution
and considering himself at the same time as a free
being (which is considered by some philosophers as
a contradiction), human beings may take every liberty
to improve themselves, e.g., their genetic material by
genetic engineering or design. Perhaps in the future
ideals for the genetic design of man will develop, such
as already exist for the so-called lower organisms.
1 Why Is Design Important? 9
It could well be that the industries that develop a
means of designing oneself physically and mentally
will also develop ideals of perfection in order to make
their products successful on the market. By such
means, at least in capitalist societies, the ideals of
perfection in design will probably always be
connected with marketing strategies.
1.6 Design Parameters
Unlike with recognized scientific disciplines, which
study what already exits, the field of activity in design,
and respectively, the discipline of design can hardly be
reduced to a common denominator. Scientific meth-
ods, that obtain and test knowledge that is covering
general truths of the operation of general laws underlie
science (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). In
science, something can be proven either by observa-
tion or by measurement. This means if design is a
science, we have to investigate a model that describes
design in terms of a logical representation.
If we assume that man-made design is a production
process and its objectives are not simply the creation of
physical objects but also all sorts of processes, ser-
vices, interactions, entertainment, and ways of com-
municating and collaborating, we can recognize that
design is one process step to optimize the product,
bring it to perfection, and create value. The processes
therefore determine the quality of the products. The
improvement of the products calls accordingly for the
improvement of the processes. Consequently, not only
the products have to be redesigned, but so does the way
we design. In order to improve our designs we there-
fore have to understand what we do and how we do it.
Designing as a process is more or less creative. This
usually includes the: intuitive, iterative, recursive,
opportunistic, innovative, ingenious, unpredictable,
refined, striking, novel, reflective, and also a search
for elegance and beauty (Schoen 1983). The design
process could be seen as the management of negotiable
and non-negotiable constraints. Design as a process
has many different forms depending on the resulting
product and the discipline. Each design group devel-
oped a method for solving problems that evolved over
time. Depending on the school of thought, different
groups look at the problem from different perspectives.
The results differ and so do their goals, as well as the
scales of the projects and the methods they use. Even
the actions appear to be different. However, looking at
different design processes, we can notice that general
similarities often appear in their approaches. That is to
say that every process can be structured with the same
few laws. Therefore, fundamental patterns exist within
the process they follow.
So if design is a process, the design process is the
transformation process (method) between an input and
an output. Assuming that design is a process, it fulfills
the usual process definition. Processes can be defined
as the way taken to achieve an end, and accordingly,
the individual steps can be described as process skills.
If the end is the response to a defined need, it can be
called the design process. The design process contains
three basic elements: inputs, outputs, and, in between,
the method used. This may seem obvious, but identi-
fying these three basic elements within design helps to
improve the operation. Furthermore, once these ele-
ments are made clear, and roles are defined in advance,
the probability of success is increased, and the risks
are reduced. Uncertainties and fears can be narrowed
down, and results can easily be improved, repeated,
and modified by identifying and fixing broken pro-
cesses. Therefore, design can be quantitatively mea-
surable and could be evaluated and optimized.
Nevertheless, it is important not to restrict creativity.
1.6.1 The Design Process
People often think that the designer has an idea, does
some not describable things (creativity), and suddenly
the result appears (see Fig. 1.1)
From this assumed course of action the following
simplified process can be derived (Fig. 1.2).
There is an input and an output, and in between a
process, a transformation. This simplification neatens
a complex approach and may suggest the illusion of
linearity.
A basic abstraction of the design process is shown
in Fig. 1.3. First there is an input, a clearly defined
need or desire. The output is the response of the need
or desire, for example, a product, system, project,
product description, or the use of something. To arrive
from the input to the output, we need a method, the
design process. The design process transforms the
need into the result. The process consists of two
10 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
basic parts: activities and resources. The overall pro-
cess is convergent, but within the process there are
periods of deliberate divergence.
1.7 Design and Evaluation
If things are designed because of human needs and if
human needs change because humans are confronted
with new things or live in changing worlds, then there
can be no eternal standards for evaluating designs. A
design is good or bad relative to a fixed system of
desires in a fixed world. But the constant use of a
new design will change the needs of those using it,
and the world from which the design originated. For
instance, the desires for people to communicate with
each other were changed by inventions like the tele-
graph and the telephone; these led to developments
like the Internet and e-mail, which will again change
the ways people communicate and the desires they
have. The history of design is often described as a
progressive process: the telephone is progress in com-
munication over the letter, the Internet progress over
the telegraph, and e-mail progress over the telephone,
and so on. But the mere fact that letters, telephones,
and e-mail all exist side by side shows that the devel-
opment of designed things is not necessarily one of
linear improvement. If the design of things is a more or
less intentional or unintentional design that is derived
from human desires and of experienced worlds then it
is also a design of principles of evaluation.
Fig. 1.2 Simplified design
process. There is a stated need,
and between the need and the
result there is the process
Fig. 1.1 Creative design
process: Some not describable
things result suddenly in a
solution
Fig. 1.3 Basic abstraction of the design process
1 Why Is Design Important? 11
Having said this, the evaluation criteria of design
emerge and change over time. They depend on the
values, desires, needs, possibilities, etc., of the re-
spective society. This is briefly illustrated using the
example of automotive design (see Fig. 1.4). The
development of the automobile is a good example of
how technological evolution is sometimes based upon
major design and technology shifts. In 1769, Nicolas
Joseph Cugnot built the first recognizable automobile
for transportation of people and used a steam engine to
power it. In 1888, Benz and Daimler invented the
four-stroke internal combustion engine, which is still
used in most modern automobiles. In 1924, when the
American automobile market started reaching satura-
tion, General Motors pursued the strategy of annual
model-year design changes with the goal of persuad-
ing car owners to buy a new replacement each year.
This strategy was intended to maintain unit sales.
Henry Ford, on the contrary, adhered to notions of
simplicity, economics of scale, and design integrity.
GM surpassed Ford’s sales and became the leading
player in the automotive industry in the US. The yearly
restyling influenced the design and made further
changes necessary. Therefore, the lighter but less flex-
ible monocoque design was changed to a body-on-
frame. Another change came in 1935 when designs
became driven by consumer expectations rather than
by engineering improvements. Automobile design
emerged after World War II with the introduction of
high-compression V8 engines and modern bodies.
Throughout the 1950s, engine power, vehicle speed,
and design gained in importance. Another shift came
in the 1960s with the international competition among
the US, Europe, and Japan. This era was affected by
the use of independent suspensions, wider application
of fuel injection, and an increasing focus on safety.
The modern era is characterized by increasing stan-
dardization, platform sharing, and computer-aided
design. Today aerodynamics, safety, and mainly envi-
ronmental aspects such as fuel efficiency, engine
output, carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, and gas con-
sumption influence car designs.
Another phenomenon that can be observed is that
some car models like the Isetta, Volkswagen, VW
Kafer, Fiat Cinquecento, and Citroen 2CV became
archetypes of modern spirit. The Isetta was built for
the man on the street in a time when cheap, short-
distance transportation was needed after World War II.
In 2009, the Mini celebrated its 50th anniversary:
in 1959 the British Motor Corporation (BMC) gave
Alec Issigonis clear instructions to construct a car
with a spacious passenger compartment, but with
short external dimensions, space for four passengers,
and amazing handling characteristics. In 1974, the first
VW Golf rolled from the assembly line. The VW Golf
is one of the most successful cars built in Germany in
the last three decades and also stands for a part of
cultural history for a whole generation. In the mid
1970s, the VW Golf was considered as sporty, even
with the smallest available engine capacity. Its design
criteria were economical engines and being affordable
for the masses.
But not only cars gain cult status. One of the newest
examples of good marketing and promotion is the
clogs from Crocs shoes, imitated from other manufac-
turer and sold worldwide. These beach and camping
shoes became fashionable as normal street shoes. You
can even buy shoedoodles (Jibbitz), stickers that fit
into the holes of crocs shoes, to individualize them
(Fig. 1.5). So why do people wear plastic shoes in
goofy looking colors with normal clothes?
1.8 Contents of this Book
Since design is so broadly defined, there is no univer-
sal or unifying institution of all disciplines. Therefore,
many differing philosophies of and approaches to
design exist. What they all have in common is that
they are designing. Their goals, actions, and, therefore,
their results differ, but they are all also similar as they
all follow processes. Serious research on design
demands focusing on the design process.
Fig. 1.4 Evolution of the
automobile: From the ox cart
to the horse-drawn carriage to
the motor carriage to the
automobile
12 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
Within this book we present how design is used in
different disciplines and point out uniform as well as
diverse principles within different design processes. In
the first place, we are not asking What is design? We
are asking How do you design?In their articles the authors give answers to the
following questions:
1. How is design used in the discipline and what is
designed?
2. Why is it designed?
3. Are there uniform as well as diverse principles
within the respective design processes?
Essentially, the book is organized to follow three
main design classifications (see Fig. 1.6): Design of
Objects and Materials, Design of Living Environ-
ments, and Design of Minds.
Chapter 1 acquaints the reader with how objects
and materials are designed as exemplified by Product
Design, Automotive Design, Game Design, Drug
Design, and Material Design. Fritz Frenkler, in his
article “The Design of the Environment and the Sur-
roundings,” focuses on product design, which not only
refers to products, but also to the configuration of
complete environments and surroundings. By means
of examples, this generally very diverse field and
accompanying diverse design approaches are
described. Design is based on perception of the envi-
ronment/surroundings as well as the social develop-
ments or trends resulting from an accountable
perspective. Design is not the honed application of
guidelines and rules, and design criteria are not static
rules. Furthermore, they must be regulated and
adapted to social changes. The goals of good design
are to improve the quality of life and to create comfort
and user friendliness. In product design, design is a
process that cannot be packed into reusable, general
rules or principles. Product designers initially scruti-
nize the actual task, develop several methods of
resolution, compare quality levels, and provide a rec-
ommendation. A subsequent article follows a disquisi-
tion on a specific product: the brand MINI. Here,
Gerhard Hildebrand points out the importance of
empathy for design. The principles of empathetic
design are explained using the example of automobile
design. So that design does not become random, social
and ecological progressions have to be taken into
account. Nowadays, good design is strongly related
to economic success. Hildebrand explains how this
factor of success is integrated into the structure of a
company. Indeed in comparison to other factors,
design is low cost. For example, at MINI the design
costs are low, less than 10%, but are 80% of the reason
for the purchase. Therefore, the most significant factor
for design at MINI is the client. The focus of the
designer is not to realize his own dream, but to create
a product that fits the brand and the target group. One
basic principle for the MINI design is “form follows
function,” and another is the “human body archetype.”
A good product is able to address all senses. Away
from the automotive area, Markus Gross, Robert Sum-
ner, and Nils Thuerey address the young and evolving
field of game design in their article. Within a graduate
course at the ETH, the Game Programming Labora-
tory, concerning the fundamentals of game design, the
various stages of the design process are thought out
and realized within prototype game developments.
The most important and persistent principles in game
design are, for example: iteration, peer review, proto-
typing, evolution, testing and evaluation, consistency,
Fig. 1.5 (a) Crocs Shoes Beach Color Variety (retrieved July 20, 2009 from http://www.sporthaus-ratingen.de/Crocs/crocs.html).
(b) Crocs with Jibbitz (retrieved July 20, 2009 from flickr # jespahjoy)
1 Why Is Design Important? 13
logical correctness, and simplicity. In the first part of
the article, the authors give a brief overview of the
history of game design before going deeper into the
stages of game design: the concept phase, preproduc-
tion phase, production phase, and quality assurance.
Besides formal elements, technology also plays a cru-
cial part in game design. Information technology and
computer science, for example, not only have a signif-
icant impact on the production costs, but also on the
feasibility of the project. Conceptualization, prototyp-
ing, and play testing are also major stages in the design
of a game.
Moving on from the design of computer games,
Folkers, Kut, and Boyer show that the design of
drugs has changed since 3D models of molecules can
now be handled computationally in such a way that in
Computer Assisted Drug Design (CAAD), the
machine will create a set of structural proposals for
molecules that should have a certain effect in a living
body. They also show the limits of this design method,
since it works on the (false) hypotheses of a one-to-one
correlation between an artificially created molecule
and a target structure in a living body with which it
interacts. Despite the enormous amount of structural
knowledge about complex molecules, “nobody has
been able to predict the most exciting new drugs” as
the molecular interaction between proteins is more
complex than the computer-assisted drug design
method presupposes. They also discuss the “dark
side” of drug design: drugs that are similar to pharma-
cological substances but have effects that cannot be
controlled and that were designed for drug abuse.
They show that the culture of neurological enhance-
ment, which may lead to the ability to design moods
and minds, is possibly the meeting point of the “dark”
and the medical sides of drug design. This chapter
ends with an article by Paolo Ermanni on the design
of materials and shapes for airplanes, cars, and other
Fig. 1.6 Organization of the book
14 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
technologies, which shows that modern design is no
longer purely a process of intuitions by inventive
individuals, but a collective process. Intuitions still
play a role, but the more the development of a struc-
ture proceeds, the more the freedom to make changes
on the structure decreases, or the more knowledge
about an ideal solution for a certain function is gath-
ered, the less freedom is left for intuitions. There are
several criteria one might use to evaluate for designed
products. The number of alternative solutions devel-
oped is as important for an evaluation as the amount of
time and costs that have gone into a design process.
The competition between alternative designs as a solu-
tion for the same problem within a market can, in a
certain sense, be simulated by evolutionary algorithms
in which a computational search for structural optimi-
zation takes place.
Chapter 2 is devoted to the design of environments
for living. The first part addresses the design of cities.
The article by the architect Meinrad von Gerkan pre-
sents dialogical design in architecture. In the first part
of this article, Gerkan describes the use of design and
summarizes analytical reflections arising from his own
work. The architect is an expert on design and architec-
ture as a social commodity. Designing our environ-
ment requires dialogue and the ability to react to
changing conditions. The key principles, which are sim-
plicity, variety and unity, structural order, and unmis-
takable individuality, are identified and explained.
The second part of the article strengthens the theory
presented in the first part, using the city Lingang as an
example. Lingang is a newly planned satellite city
close to Shanghai and is being designed and developed
from scratch based on the ideals of a traditional Euro-
pean city. Within their article “City Design – Design-
ing Process for Planning Future Cities,” Halatsch,
Kunze, Burkhard, and Schmitt investigate the design
process using the example of future cities. They dis-
cuss how computer-based technology has changed the
way architects and urban planners think, plan, and
communicate. They have also developed a framework
that allows simulating and evaluating urban environ-
ments to manage projects using GIS information and
to collaborate over large distances. This framework
contributes to solving urban planning issues and to
establishing participatory planning processes. The
last article in this chapter addresses the issue of land-
scape design. Interactive Landscapes by Christophe
Girot, James Melsom, and Alexandre Kapellos points
out the influence of new technology in the design of
large-scale environmental design. New technologies
used as tools inserted into the design process provide
new methods of verification and visualization that
cannot be easily attained using traditional processes.
However, in landscape design it is also essential to
work with models. Computer numerical controlled
(CNC) machines and CAAD-CAM technologies pro-
vide greater flexibility than traditional models, and the
information obtained through the traditional modeling
process feeds back into the design process, creating a
synergy.
Chapter 3 presents the design of minds such as
Text Design and Synesthetic Design. This chapter
begins with a discussion of theory and design. Focus-
ing on the concept of virtuality, Vera Buhlmann
investigates, from a philosophical point of view, the
conceptual and epistemological consequences of
design becoming increasingly important in various
sciences and for all relations of humans with the
world in general. Starting from the problem of local-
ity, as stated by the French philosopher and historian
of science, Michel Serres, Vera Buhlmann shows that
since antiquity an external stance to human knowl-
edge has blurred conceptual contrasts like the natural
and the volitional, the given and the made, the created
and the evolved. With digital design and simulation
becoming one of the most important methodologies
of handling the world, this external stance becomes
the standard one. Thus, the idea that science solves
naturally given problems by applying adequate rules
to it becomes more and more obsolete. The whole
idea of a fit between the natural and external to the
mental and internal is going to disappear. Buhlmann
shows that even “material,” “organism,” and “mind”
are terms that might need recategorization once the
distinction between the natural and the artificial is
gone. Wibke Weber points to the fact that texts con-
sist of sentences that have been built. Not only can
buildings be interpreted as texts, but texts and their
sentences also have an architecture that is designed.
Her article gives rules for designing good texts. It
proposes a technique for visualizing the design of a
text by using different colors for the different gram-
matical constituents. Keeping in mind that texts may
be seen as graphical structures, are read as semantic
structures, and were originally heard as acoustic phe-
nomena, Weber proposes different criteria in order to
design an optically, semantically, and acoustically
1 Why Is Design Important? 15
good text. By means of the project Sound-Color-
Space, Natalia Sidler discusses the synesthetic design
of music visualization. The first part of her article
gives insights into the phenomena of synesthesia
and defines synesthetic design. Inspired by the field
of Color-Light-Music, and the Color Light Organ, the
research project “Sound-Color-Space” emerged. The
transfer of synesthetic phenomena and characteristics
from neuropsychological research into artistic-
esthetics studies provides the basis for the design of
the unique Color Light Organ as well as for various
visualization software developed for this instrument.
The final section of this article illustrates the design
criteria for the development and construction of this
new instrument. After the instrument’s completion,
three visualization programs were written with the
goal of reproducing the sounds generated by the
Color Light Organ into two- and three-dimensional
geometries, structures, animations, and color arrange-
ments to couple sound and color.
1.9 Quintessence
At this point we are able to present the ways in which
design is used in the fields described in Sect. 1.8 and
point out that both uniform and diverse principles
coexist within different design processes. The key
discoveries looking at all articles are:
1.9.1 Design and Design Process
� Product Design is based on perception of the envi-
ronment and the surrounding.
� Product Design is a process that cannot be packed
into reusable, general rules or principles.
� In Product Design social aspects are crucial.� Product Design is self-sustainable and a serious
force.
� Design is the development and creation of indus-trial products that are produced in series and as
such takes into account the following parameters:
technology, ergonomics, sociology, and market rel-evance.
� Design produces a physical (material) object.
� Architectural Design evolves from a dialogue
between the existing conditions and the ideals and
models of the architect involved.� Design is an iterative process.
� Design is a creative process, based on knowledge
and intuition.
� Landscape Design is a very tangible exercise.
� Text Design begins with an idea to shape words, to
form phrases, to build sentences and then para-graphs, etc.
� Technology is a tool within the design process.
� Constructions designed by peoples are driven bythe environment.
� Synesthetic Design coordinates sensory impres-sions.
� In engineering the design process has four main
phases: (1) planning and clarifying, (2) conceptualdesign, (3) embodiment design and, (4) detail
design.
� In engineering the design process is motivated by
an idea or need for improvement.
1.9.2 Designing
� Designing moved away from art and became a
technical discipline.
� Product Designers are flexible and able to deal withan exceptionally wide range of different themes in a
very short time.
� Product Designers recognize and analyze deficitsand deficiencies.
� Product Designers scrutinize the actual task,
develop several methods of resolution, comparequality levels, and provide a recommendation.
� Product Designers require the ability to think in a
conceptual and holistic manner.� Product Designers must look ahead to the future
and create today what they expect to be fashionable
in 5 years.
1.9.3 Design Criteria
� Design Criteria must be regularly examined, eval-uated, and adapted to social changes. They cannot
be static rules.
16 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe
� The constants of design are ergonomic criteria and
safety guidelines.
� Form follows function.� Technology follows function.
� One MINI design principle is the Human Body
Archetype Intuition.� Design principles in game design are: iteration,
peer review, prototyping, evolution, testing and
evaluation, consistency, logical correctness, andsimplicity.
� Key principles in architecture are: simplicity, vari-
ety and unity, structural order, and unmistakableindividuality.
� Gestalt laws like proximity, similarity, closure,symmetry, law of continuity, and law of proximity
as well as writing style can be considered as design
principles for texts.
� Synesthetic phenomena and characteristics can be
transferred into artistic-esthetic studies and works
to visualize music.
1.9.4 Design Evaluation
� The design process is measured in terms of time,
costs, and quality of the final design.� Good Design makes a considerable improvement in
everyone’s quality of life.
� Successful design is empathetic design.� Successful design is self-explanatory.
� Successful design creates a need.
� Fun is crucial in game design.
Design is not a topic that can be investigated by an
axiomatic science that starts from general principles
that are universally applicable.
1.9.5 Design Science versus DesignEngineering
Regarding design and science, we distinguish among
three different areas: Scientific Design, Science of
Design, and Design Science. The term Scientific
Design goes back to the time when industrial design
became more complex and intuitive methods no lon-
ger worked. Scientific design merges intuitive and
rational design methods, and is simply an indication
of the reality of modern design practice. Herbert
Simon defined Science of Design as a body of intel-
lectually thorough, analytic, partly formalizable,
partly empirical, teachable doctrines about the design
process. In 1969, he also postulated the development
of a science of design. Natural science describes exist-
ing things according to natural laws. In contrast,
design deals with how things ought to be. In our
understanding, design is used in devising artifacts to
attain defined goals. According to Simon, everybody
who changes existing situations into preferred ones
designs. In order to improve the understanding of
design, the logic designers’ use has to be considered.
Science of design can be considered as the proper
study of mankind (Simon 1996). Abstracted, the sci-
ence of design is concerned with the study of design
with the aim of defining a design methodology. So, as
previously described, Design Science is, in contrast to
Science of Design, a systematical approach with the
aim of defining rules and laws that lead to the design
method.
In further contrast, design in engineering is a feed-
back process engaging the following engineering
activities: understanding the problem, concept genera-
tion, analysis and optimization, testing, and construc-
tion. Engineering design, therefore, refers to the chain
from research and development, to manufacturing,
construction, and on to marketing, and is based on
scientific principles, technical information, mathemat-
ics, practical experience, and imagination. The focus
is on the development of mechanical structures,
machines, or structures based on predefined functions
with the maximum of economy and efficiency
(McCrory 1966, pp. 11–18, Eder 1966, pp. 19–31).
Nowadays, engineers increasingly realize technical
functions by immaterial and software technologies.
The outcomes of these developments are the design,
the production, and the process. Hubka and Eder
(1996) defined the process of designing as the trans-
formation of information derived from the condition
of needs, demands, requirements, and constraints into
the description of a structure. This structure is capable
of fulfilling these demands, which include the wishes
of the customer, the stages and requirements of the life
cycle, and all the in-between states the products must
run through. Petroski (1997) describes engineering as
the art of rearranging materials and the forces of nature
based on the constraints given by the immutable laws
1 Why Is Design Important? 17
of nature. Engineering itself is seen as a fundamental
human process.
To recap, the most important differentiation
between science and engineering in this context is
that scientists search for understanding. While scien-
tists do not aim at rigidly specified goals, engineers
work toward very concrete objectives requiring cri-
teria and specifications. Design can therefore be con-
sidered as a hybrid. Design is part of fine art with its
esthetic and artistic aspect, and is part of the engineer-
ing disciplines as well as part of the science disci-
plines. To a large extent, designers, architects,
business managers, engineers, software developers,
etc., are unaware of the practices and processes in
other disciplines. They are not thinking about overlaps
and do not bring together work from different areas.
However, it is ultimately people who create things and
environments to improve their situation, and the situa-
tion in turn alters the world view of those who live
within it. This, then, subsequently shapes the persons
who are born into this new situation. In this way,
people design their worlds, and in so doing they also
design future human beings.
So can design be a scientific discipline? Or can the
combination of Design Science and Design Engineer-
ing seen as Applied Science? Or is it something else?
References
Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard
University Press, UK, Cambridge
Archer LB (1965) Systematic methods for designers. The
Design Council, London
Archer LB (1981) A view of the nature of the design research.
In: Jacques R, Powell JA (eds) Design science: method.
Surrey: IPC Business Press Ltd, Guilford, USA
Aristotle (1924) “Metaphysics.” Ross WD (Transl. and Ed.),
2 vols. Oxford
Armstrong J (2008) “Design matters.” Springer, London
Ashlock D (2006) “Evolutionary computation for modelling and
optimization,” Springer, Heidelberg
Bacon F (1990) “Novum Orgnanum/Neues Organon,” Philoso-
phische Bibliothek, Hamburg
Bowler PJ (2003) “Evolution: the history of an idea, Berkeley,”
3rd edn. Los Angeles, London
Broadbent C, Ward A (Eds.) (1969) “Design Methods in Archi-
tecture.” Lund Humphries, London
Carrier M (2006) The challenge of practice: Einstein, techno-
logical development and conceptual innovation. In: Ehlers J,
Lammerzahl C (Eds.) “Special relativity: will it survive the
next 101 years.” Springer, Heidelberg
Cross N (1984) “Developments in design methodology.” Umi
Research Pr, New York
Dewey J (1986) Logic: the theory of inquiry, In: Boydston JA
(Ed.): “John Dewey – the later works”, 1925–1953, Vol. 12:
1938, Carbondale
EderWE (1966) Definitions and Methodologies. In: Gregory SA
(Ed.) “The Design Method.” Butterworths, London
Feyerabend P (2009) “Naturphilosophie.” Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
am Main
Gallison P (2003) “Einstein’s clocks, Poincare’s maps” the
empire of time. New York
Goodman N (1981) “Ways of Worldmaking.” Indianapolis
Gregory SA (1966) “The Design Method.” Butterworths,
London
Hacking I (1983) “Representing and intervening: introductory
topics in the philosophy of natural science.” ISBN-10:
0521282462, Cambridge
Heath T (1984) Method in architecture. Wiley, New York
Hubka V, Eder WE (1996) “Design Science,” ISBN
3540199977, Springer
Hume D (1948) “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,”
Indianapolis
Jones JC, Thornley DG (1963) “Conference on Design Meth-
ods.” Oxford University Press, Oxford
Latour B (2000) “Die Hoffnung der Pandora. Untersuchungen
zur Wirklichkeit der Wissenschaft,” Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
am Main
Le Corbusier (1929) CIAM 2nd Congress, Frankfurt
McCrory RJ (1966) The design method in practice, In: Gregory
SA (Ed.) “The Design Method.” Butterworths, London
Pask G (1963) The conception of a shape and the evolution of a
design. In: Jones JC, Thornley DG (eds) Conference on
design methods. Pregamon Press, Oxford
Petroski H (1997) “Invention by Design,” ISBN 0674463676,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Schoen DA (1983) “The reflective practitioner: how profes-
sionals think in action,” Maurice Temple Smith Ltd, New
York
Simon HA (1996) “The sciences of the artificial,” ISBN
0262193744. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Steinbrenner J, Scholz OR, Ernst G (2005) Symbole,
Systeme,Welten, “Studien zur Philosoph Nelson Goodmans,”
Synchron Wissenschaftsverlag der Autoren, Heidelberg
van Doesberg T (1923) “Towards a Collective Construction.”
De Stijle
18 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe