Hello,
It is helpful to remember that the largest group of design fields made the
move to evidence-based design a long time ago. Evidence-based design is
now so well established in those fields that it can easily be overlooked.
Its success has resulted in those fields often being regarded as
'different'.
Engineering Design (in all its varieties) has its soulmates, Engineering
Analysis (usually called simply Engineering) and Engineering Management. It
is Engineering Analysis that provides the evidence-based processes, data and
outcome-projections used by engineering designers. It has done this
sucessfully for a long time. In a case of the tail wagging the dog, when
people think of 'Engineering' they now often think primarily of the
activity managing the evidence data (Engineering Analysis) rather than the
Engineering Design.
To get some idea of the scale of this use of evidence-based design in
Engineering Design, think of Usability and User-based research. In its
modern form this was originally developed in engineering design as
'Ergonomics' in 1857 (150 years ago) and later developed into Human Factors,
User-based design, Engineering Psychology and Macro-ergonomics - the
evidence-based design of organisations. Earlier developments of ergonomics
are found in Greek literature of about 2500 years ago and in Arab and
Persian literature on design of about 1000 years ago.
In addressing any questions to do with recently developed fields of design,
particularly in the Design and Art fields it is worth looking to the history
of engineering design as a first port of call. Particular eras of interest
I've found useful are:
Greek engineering design (Pythagoras school is of interest on human factors
as well as classcal technical design)
Arab and Persian design of 100 years ago
Industrial revolution (Manchester and London in UK, and US)
Around the time of the second world war (mainly for complex systems
developments)
Russia/USSR (1850 to date)
Eco-design engineering 2500BC to date
Socio-technical complex systems 1950s to date
Also useful to remember is that Engineering Design followed a similar path
to that being currently travelled by Design and Art fields such as Graphic
Design. Until recently, Engineering Design was often regarded as an Art that
was wholly dependent on the intuitions of 'genius' designers. Many
engineering designers fought the increasing use of evidence-based design.
The change happened because evidence-based design produced better design
outcomes.
What can we get immediately from looking at the history of Engineering
Design?
1. Evidence-based design will transition into 'standards-based design'
2. In the Design and Art fields there will be a move away from 'genius'
designers and design competitions to regarding design as a commodity service
undertaken by highly trained mixed discipline teams. The tradition of
identifying designs with individuals will reduce (as is already happening in
much of Graphic Design).
3. Design Management, typically called Project Panagement, will become a
significant element of design aducation and the Design and Art professions.
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FRDS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Founder member Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research
Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles
Burnette
Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2008 6:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Evidence and Case Based Design
Sabine, Ken, David, Terry and others
The problem with comparing evidence based designing with evidence based
medicine is that there are no searchable databases that parse design
research enough to make it relevant and useful in the situations confronted
by most designers. Some guidance may be had from statistics if one knows
what to access and how to interpret the findings but, generally speaking,
research findings do not map easily into the complexity of design problems.
At the heart of the issue are the needs, desires and circumstances - the
"problematic situations"- that designers address. Understanding how needs
and desires arise in the circumstances of a situation and the potentials
through which they might be satisfied is usually where the experience of the
practitioner weighs in. That experience is often under-informed and in need
of relevant knowledge. There are very few people dealing with how
information systems to support design could be implemented.
Some early efforts are worth noting. In 1976 the US National Science
Foundation (1) found a need for information services to support the
application of Environmental Design Research. It stated that "Research ...
will have to concentrate on developing a comprehensive understanding both of
the nature of design related information and the
nature, dimensions, and dynamics of the design task." Subsequently
the American Institute of Architects Research Corporation launched a program
of post occupancy evaluation of buildings to determine their success in
meeting the needs of occupants. Although textbooks were published,
professional offices began to offer POE services to their clients, and
government agencies incorporated the services into facilities management
practice no searchable databases reached the architectural profession as a
whole. Like POEs, case histories have sought to capture information and
model experience to inform designers and other decision makers. An entire
discipline of Case Based Reasoning using artificial intelligence to map case
data to new situations emerged in the '90s . ( See (2) for a thorough
introduction and some applications to architectural design.) But
useful documentation of design cases did not become integrated with
methodologies that might make them useful. Similarly, The Design Management
Institute began to compile and publish case histories of design projects
using a systematic approach to documentation.
Although primarily conceived as a tool for teaching and sharing design
management information, it is the only systematic institutionally sponsored
approach to case histories that I can recall. In (3) I suggested how the
DMI format might be strengthened and implemented in
a searchable database to serve as a research tool able to inform
design thinking. However no searchable database of case based
information was developed. Despite several other efforts the
matching of information to the needs of designers has never built the
institutional support necessary to establish informational tools that can be
used to capture and search for design information tailored to a designers
need. It remains as noted in 1976 (1) that "The design professions have
been able to get by in the past due to lack of hard research data and a
dependence on experience and intuition to fill in the gaps where information
was not available. This approach is no longer tenable..."
Chuck
(1) Environmental Design Research, NSF Program Options, Final Report
National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. December 1, 1976
(2) Kalodner, Janet (1993) Case Based Reasoning, San Mateo, CA, Morgan
Kaufman Publishers
(3) Burnette, C.H.: 1994, Structuring Case Histories to Support Design
Management Education and Practice, Sixth International Forum on Design
Management Education and Research, Paris School of Management, Education
Department, 1-3 June, Paris, France , See also DMI journal.
|
