Manipulating the design space to resolve trade-offs: Theory and evidence

IF 3.2 1区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING Design Studies Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2022.101095
Jordan Nickel, P. Robert Duimering, Ada Hurst
{"title":"Manipulating the design space to resolve trade-offs: Theory and evidence","authors":"Jordan Nickel,&nbsp;P. Robert Duimering,&nbsp;Ada Hurst","doi":"10.1016/j.destud.2022.101095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Trade-offs between design goals have traditionally been studied using optimization approaches, which assume a fixed formulation and framing of the design problem. We propose a novel set-theory framework of design spaces to model the role of problem reformulation<span> and reframing in resolving design trade-offs. The framework predicts mechanisms by which the designer can alter the boundaries and structure of that space to alter or avoid Pareto frontiers in the original space. Empirical evidence from interviews with designers identifies eight distinct trade-off response mechanisms aligned with the framework's predictions. The framework and interview results provide a foundation for developing methodologies that encourage design space restructuring to avoid unnecessary design compromises and sacrifices.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":50593,"journal":{"name":"Design Studies","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101095"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X22000151","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trade-offs between design goals have traditionally been studied using optimization approaches, which assume a fixed formulation and framing of the design problem. We propose a novel set-theory framework of design spaces to model the role of problem reformulation and reframing in resolving design trade-offs. The framework predicts mechanisms by which the designer can alter the boundaries and structure of that space to alter or avoid Pareto frontiers in the original space. Empirical evidence from interviews with designers identifies eight distinct trade-off response mechanisms aligned with the framework's predictions. The framework and interview results provide a foundation for developing methodologies that encourage design space restructuring to avoid unnecessary design compromises and sacrifices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
操纵设计空间以解决权衡:理论和证据
传统上使用优化方法研究设计目标之间的权衡,这些方法假设设计问题的固定公式和框架。我们提出了一个新的设计空间的集合理论框架来模拟问题的重新表述和重构在解决设计权衡中的作用。该框架预测了设计者可以通过改变空间的边界和结构来改变或避免原始空间中的帕累托边界的机制。来自设计师访谈的经验证据确定了与框架预测一致的八种不同的权衡反应机制。框架和访谈结果为开发方法提供了基础,这些方法鼓励设计空间重构,以避免不必要的设计妥协和牺牲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Design Studies
Design Studies 工程技术-工程:制造
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Design Studies is a leading international academic journal focused on developing understanding of design processes. It studies design activity across all domains of application, including engineering and product design, architectural and urban design, computer artefacts and systems design. It therefore provides an interdisciplinary forum for the analysis, development and discussion of fundamental aspects of design activity, from cognition and methodology to values and philosophy. Design Studies publishes work that is concerned with the process of designing, and is relevant to a broad audience of researchers, teachers and practitioners. We welcome original, scientific and scholarly research papers reporting studies concerned with the process of designing in all its many fields, or furthering the development and application of new knowledge relating to design process. Papers should be written to be intelligible and pertinent to a wide range of readership across different design domains. To be relevant for this journal, a paper has to offer something that gives new insight into or knowledge about the design process, or assists new development of the processes of designing.
期刊最新文献
Abduction, inculturation, and urban design thinking From an ethics of the eyes to ethics of the bodies: Rethinking ethics in design research through sensory practices Transforming mature design management to better firm performance: The importance of top management involvement Interior design ways of knowing: Embracing unpredictability That was fun, now what?: Modelizing knowledge dynamics to explain co-design's shortcomings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1