Design as problem solving; a model based on design precedents

Ahangar Azizi, Babak; Motalebi, Ghasem; Rezakhani, Zhila

doi:10.30475/isau.2020.205268.1306

Design as problem solving; a model based on design precedents

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

Babak Ahangar Azizi ¹

Ghasem Motalebi ²

Zhila Rezakhani ³

¹ Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

² Associate Professor, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran,Tehran, Iran.

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2020.205268.1306

Abstract

Extendedd Abstract
Objective and Background: Novice designers in design workshops are constantly finding themselves on the quest for an elegant solution to design problems. Still, a large portion of educators and professors are not able to, or willing to, define a distinct course for this quest, thus leading to problems of disorientation for these novice designers. However, it is noteworthy that the paths and processes for reaching such an ideal are absolutely unique to each designer, as at least some part of this process is intuitive and exploratory. Thus no same pattern can be handed out to all designers. Yet, this does not mean that students and novice designers can obtain their design formula without any external guidance from their instructors and relying only on inner instinct.
Methods: This study seeks to provide a clear and systematic model based on the previously discussed design records to prevent plagiarism and assist novice designers in solving the design problem, especially in response to the aesthetic aspects of the design that do not have any explicit assessment criteria. Considering that the causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is examined in this research, and the independent research variable, i.e., the educational model provided for teaching architectural design, can be manipulated by the researcher, this research is a quasi-experimental study. For this purpose, firstly, 28 students from the 4th semester of architecture were divided into two groups of control and experiment. The control group members then performed the desired exercise (study desk design) without using design records and only based on previous experiences. At the same time, the experimental group members were offered the proposed model and were free to use the design records. In the next stage, students’ schemas were scored using the self-assessment method, and the opinion of experts (professors of architecture) and the data were analyzed.
Findings: The path that scientists of different fields take to solve the problem, no matter how difficult and challenging, ultimately has a very clear and well-structured nature. However, the same is not valid for the design problem. This effect is more pronounced in the early works of novice designers. It is given that the various paths and stages of this process cannot be clearly observed and explained. In fact, the designer’s mind shapes new designs within mind what is perceived from nature, geometry, and samples of previous works, among others, by analyzing and combining elements therein. It can be argued that designing would not be simply feasible without having an intellectual archive of design resources in mind. The experience of facing design problems is critically involved in achieving their solutions. As such, novice designers and students who lack sufficient experience may be easily disoriented in solving design problems. Meanwhile, examples of prior works and projects, scientifically known as design records, are the most extensively used resources by designers, especially novice ones. Without a clear pattern and framework for exploiting these design records, risks such as tumbling into the trap of plagiarism and blind adherence to the teacher’s approach threaten the design, leading to their repressed skills development.
Conclusion: Design problems, unlike problems within the realm of experimental science, are mostly struck with poor structures and have ill-defined nature. There are no concrete paths and predefined frameworks for solving design problems. The main purpose of this study was to propose an approach to changing the nature of ill-structured design problems to a relatively well-structured one and thus employing the use of it in training novice designers. This goal was followed by proposing a model for framing the design problem using examples from previous design works. It should be noted that still the ultimate goal of the present study was to discover solutions for better learning and improving the skills of novice designers, rather than achieving an innovative and perfect design. The results of this study revealed that designing based on the proposed model alleviates the confusion of the novice designer especially in the early stages of working on design problems, while encourages facing the challenges of improving design skills, all of which is achieved by employing such a clear and systematic way. Nonetheless, the comparison of the works of the tested students showed better results and yielded higher scores for the group that developed their design using the proposed framework. Moreover, employing the proposed model reduced the probability of plagiarism and led to increased variety in the experimental group's schemas. The results showed that the experimental group's schemata compared with the schemata of the control group, received a higher average score. Using the proposed model reduced the probability of imitation and increased diversity in the experimental group schemas.

Graphical Abstract

Design as problem solving; a model based on design precedents

Keywords

Design process

Problem-solving

Precedent-based design

Architecture training

Arlin, P. K. (1989). The problem of the problem. Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications, 229-237.

Cai, H., Do, E. Y. L., & Zimring, C. M. (2010). Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design. Design studies, 31(2), 146-168.

Casakin, H. (2004). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance. journal of Design Research, 4(2), 1-18.

Casakin, H. (2005). Design aided by visual displays: A cognitive approach. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 250-265.

Casakin, H. (2010). Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 170-188.

Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153-175.

Collado-Ruiz, D., & Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, H. (2010). Influence of environmental information on creativity. Design Studies, 31(5), 479-498.

Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, 22(3), 4-17.

Džbor, M. (2009). Design Problems, Frames and Innovative Solutions (Vol. 203). Ios Press.

Dzbor, M., & Zdrahal, Z. (2002). Design as interactions of problem framing and problem solving. In Proceedings 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI (pp. 210-214).

Eckert, C. M., Stacey, M. K., & Clarkson, P. J. (2000). Algorithms and inspirations: creative reuse of design experience. In Greenwich 2000 International Symposium: Digital Creativity, University of Greenwich, London (pp. 1-10).

Eilouti, B. H. (2009). Design knowledge recycling using precedent-based analysis and synthesis models. Design Studies, 30(4), 340-368.

Fernandes, R., & Simon, H. A. (1999). A study of how individuals solve complex and ill-structured problems. Policy Sciences, 32(3), 225-245.

Gelernter, M., & Payne, I. (1978). Alternative concepts in architectural design education. In EDRA9: New Directions in Environmental Design Research. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Gero, J. S. (1998). Conceptual designing as a sequence of situated acts. In Artificial intelligence in structural engineering (pp. 165-177). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive science, 16(3), 395-429.

Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Avoiding design fixation: transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target. The Journal of creative behavior, 45(2), 92-100.

Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27(5), 549-569.

Grote, L., Wang, D. (2009). Architectural Research Methods. Translated by Alireza Einifar, Tehran, University of Tehran Publishing.

Grover, R., Emmitt, S., & Copping, A. (2018). The typological learning framework: the application of structured precedent design knowledge in the architectural design studio. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 1019-1038.

Heylighen, A., & Neuckermans, H. (2002). Are architects natural case-based designers? Experts speaking. The Design Journal, 5(2), 8-22.

Hojat, I. (2004). Creative education- Experience 1381. Journal of Fine Arts, Tehran. 18, 25-36.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational technology research and development, 45(1), 65-94.

Lawson, B. (2013). How designers think: the design process demystified. Translated by Hamid Nadimi, Tehran, Shahid beheshti university publication.

Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2005). Acquiring design expertise. Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design VI. Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Sydney, 213-229.

Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2-8.

Liikkanen, L. A., & Perttula, M. (2010). Inspiring design idea generation: insights from a memory-search perspective. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(5), 545-560.

Mahmoodi, S.A.S. (1998). Training of architectural design process; Employment of students' latent talents. Journal of Fine Arts, Tehran. 4&5, 73-81.

Mahmoodi, S.A.S., Zakeri, S.M.H. (2011). Influence of Design Precedents on Creativity. Journal of Fine Arts, Tehran. 47, 39-50.

Mougenot, C., Bouchard, C., Aoussat, A., & Westerman, S. (2008). Inspiration, images and design: an investigation of designers' information gathering strategies. Journal of Design Research, 7(4), 331-351.

Oxman, R. (1990). Prior knowledge in design: a dynamic knowledge-based model of design and creativity. Design studies, 11(1), 17-28.

Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105-122.

Ozkan, O., & Dogan, F. (2013). Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers. Design Studies, 34(2), 161-192.

Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design studies, 17(4), 363-383.

Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. Human judgments and optimality, 282-315.

Restrepo, J., & Christiaans, H. (2004). Problem structuring and information access in design. Journal of Design Research, 4(2), 1551-1569.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Sadram, V. (2017). Correct imitation, a prerequisite for creativity. Imitational learning in the training of architectural design process. Soffeh Journal, Tehran. 27(76), 5-16.

Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., Hejazi, E. (2008). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran, Agah Publishing.

Schmitt, G. (1993). Case-based design and creativity. Automation in construction, 2(1), 11-19.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, England: Temple Smith.

Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design studies, 5(3), 132-136.

Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design studies, 9(3), 181-190.

Schön, D. A. (1988). Toward a marriage of artistry & applied science in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(4), 4-10.

Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well‐structured and ill‐structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(1), 6-33.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial intelligence, 4(3-4), 181-201.

Talischi, Gh., Izadi, A., Einifar, A. (2013). Nurturing design ability of novice architecture designers, designing, implementation and testing a constructivist learning environment. Journal of Fine Arts, Tehran. 17(4), 17-28.

van der Lugt, R. (2003). Relating the quality of the idea generation process to the quality of the resulting design ideas. In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm (pp. 601-602).