Hi all,
Design (even engineering design) is more than 'just' problem solving.
Oliver correctly sees 'problem solving' as implying a level of
understanding of the problem, that is rarely available in design.
There are kinds of design problems that can at least superficially be
treated as (quasi)mathematical mappings from problem to solution. There is
some evidence that this can lead to things that appear creative. For
example, there was an experiment (by Mary Lou Maher, I think, but I'm not
sure) of a case-based reasoning engine called CADET that given 'knowledge'
of a child's seesaw and some rudimentary heat transfer relations, was able
to 'design' a faucet that allowed for hot and cold water to be mixed and
regulated. The 'design' was just a very schematic and functional
description, but still, the point was that the software came up with
something that it had absolutely no information about.
...I might quibble with the choice of "mathematical" mapping. I'd prefer
"logical"...but that's just me.
Now, having said that, tho, there's *alot* of design that doesn't fall into
that category.
Problem solving is, to be sure, a *part* of design.
I'd say that, if 'problem solving' is part of design, then 'problem
recognition and explication' is another aspect that is just as essential.
I think of this kind of 'analysis' as a learning experience by the
designer, an exploration of the problem space that may be informed by
various rational, methodical, even logical methods - but that can be
equally well informed by 'creativity' (whatever that is :-)
Insofar as Tomiyama et al go, it should be noted that the article in
question was published in an AI journal, and their interest had to do more
with that tiny fragment of problems that may submit to AI approaches. I
know Tomiyama, and I seriously doubt he'd ever consider design to be
equivalent to computation alone.
Even with regards to 'problem solving', I think design employs only one
kind of problem solving: synthesis (which we engineers think of as the
complement of the 'analysis' that seems to take up so much of our time,
unfortunately). Most engineers would agree with the idea that synthesis is
a kind of problem solving that involves the 'creation' of something that
didn't previously exist.
Cheers.
Fil
Oliver Hoffmann wrote:
> At 19:07 11.05.2004, Rosan Chow wrote:
>
>> in the course of my study, i have come across an article by Zimring and
>> Craig (2001)
>
> [...]
>
>> suggest to treat designing as a type of problem solving
>
> [...]
>
>> not sure if i should agree with their proposal.
>
>
> This proposal would lead to a reductionist view of design:
> first: design = problem solving
> then: design = nothing else than problem solving
> then: problem solving = computation
> then: problem solving = nothing else than computation
> then: design = nothing else than computation
>
> The main issue here is the creativity/predictability dilemma. "Problem
> solving" already implicitly assumes that there is a clear understanding of
> what the "problem" is and of what would qualify as appropriate "solutions",
> leading to an understanding of design as some kind of mathematical
> "mapping" between the "problem descriptions" and the "solution
> descriptions" (Tomiyama 1994), which rules out real creativity (would have
> to introduce something new and unexpected)
>
> (Tomiyama 1994) Tetsuo Tomiyama: "From General Design Theory to
> Knowledge-intensive Engineering" In: Artificial Intelligence for
> Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 1994 (8), Cambridge
> University Press, Cambridge, England, U.K.
>
> cheers
>
> :) Oliver Hoffmann
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|