Ch'4 What is Design Product Design : Fundamentals and Methods Roozenburg

1
Ch.4 What is Design?Product Design
Fundamentals and Methods (Roozenburg Eekels)
2
Introduction

• Definition of Design
• The Design Problem
• Form, Properties, Function
• From Function to Form
• The Structure of Technical Action
• Action, Making
• Technical Action and Designing
• Patterns of Reasoning
• The Material Implication
• Deductive and Reductive Reasoning
• Example of the Pattens of Reasoning

3
Design and Design Problem

• Definition of Design
• To conceive the idea for some artefact or system
  and/or to express the idea in an embodiable form
• Design Problem
• To find a suitable geometrical and
  physico-chemical form for the product and its
  parts, so that the given function(s) can be
  fulfilled.

4
Design Problem(I)

• A Product is a material system.

5
Design Problem(II)

• Development of New Product
• Product planning
• Seeks product ideas that fit with the company and
  the market
• Reasoning back from the goals(values) of the
  company to statements on functions that are worth
  fulfilling
• Product designing(Strict development)
• Actual designing of products
• Reasoning back from statements on functions to
  statements on the form of the product

6
Design Problem(III)

• Form
• Geometrical form
• Physico-chemical form
• Properties
• The total of all properties describes the
  behavior to be expected under certain conditions.
• Intensive property Depend on the
  physico-chemical form only.
• Extensive property
• Result of intensive properties
  Geometrical form
• Hypothetical statement antecedent
  consequence
• Functions
• The intended and deliberately caused ability to
  bring about a transformation of a part of the
  environment of the product.
• Can be described in different ways, such as in
  normal language, in mathematical formulae, or as
  a black box(Fig 4.2)
• Statements on property vs. Statements on
  function(Normative)

7
Design Problem(IV)

• The Kernel of the Design Problem
• Properties only become visible when we do
  something with the product.
• A product with the required properties therefore
  functions in the intended manner, only if it is
  used in an environment and in a way the designer
  has thought up and prescribed.
• Design problem
• description of the form use of the
  product
• Form Function
• scientific knowledge,
• methods
• Function Form
• creativity, insight

8
Design Problem(V)

• The Dual Functioning of Products
• A product must therefore function in at least two
  respects.
• Product designing Manufacturing and using
  products
• In a broader sense, the product design problem
• to think up the form of the product(geometry
  and material), the usage, as well as the
  manufacturing, given a business economic and
  socio-economic function, and given a certain size
  of the run.

9
Structure of Technical Action(I)

• Action S1 (state at time1) S2 (state at
  time2)
• Cosmonomy (See Fig 4.5, Fig 4.6)
• purpose design Mental, conceptual model of the
  desired new state
• mean design Projection that we have already
  intervenened in our mind
• Causal model or theory A set of
  hypothetical statements
• Cosmonomy in our mind Hypothetical statements
• Based on our representation of the present state,
  our purpose design and the causal model of the
  relevant cosmony
• Value judgement
• After performing the action, we conclude whether
  we are satisfied with the new situation.

10
Structure of Technical Action(II)

• Making
• Defn Technical action. Action that is directed
  towards the appearance of a durable subsystem in
  the environment of the acting person
• Realization of purpose Actualization of the
  material subsystem
• The making action arises from the possibility and
  need for instrumental action
• The means of a making action will contain three
  parts
• the design of the instrument to be used
• the instructions for manufacturing the instrument
• the instructions for the use of the instrument in
  order to achive the purpose condition

11
Structure of Technical Action(IV)

• Technical Action and Making about Designing
• 1. We learn How to make up actions, required
  elements, how to link them.
• 2. Designing is a very essential facet of and
  inherent to acting and making.
• 3. Interaction between knowing and doing(Fig 4.7,
  4.8) becomes noticeable.
• 4. Flow of process(Fig 4.8) can be easily
  understandable.
• 5. Mental process is not an impregnable fortness.
• - weak points
• Observation errors, Interpretation errors
• Values of different value levels do threathen to
  come into conflict with one another.
• Lack the time, Lose on relevance of our models
• In all these circumstances, the effectiveness of
  action is fundamentally insecure.

12
Patterns of Reasoning

• The Material Implication
• Much knowledge can be put into the form of the
  so-called material implication.
• Defn Compound statement in which two
  statements are connected with one another by the
  logical connective If...then.
• p q Truth table
• Deductive and Reductive Reasoning
• Deductive reasoning Given the material
  implication and given the antecedent, we can
  unerringly arrive at the consequence.
• Reductive reasoning
• The reasoning from consequence to antecedent of a
  material implication is not permitted in formal
  logic.
• Reductive arguments are certainly not
  unassailable, but they are daily bread.
• Induction, Abduction, Innoduction key mode of
  reasoning in design
  

13
Deduction

• Example
• Premiss p q If Socrates is a human
  being, then Socrates is mortal.
• Premiss p Socrates is a human
  being.
• Conclusion q Socrates is mortal.
• Deduction is a logically valid form of reasoning.
• If all premisses are true, the conclusions is
  also true.
• Can be false
• the premises were (partially) false
• the reasoning was wrong after all

14
Induction

• Example
• Premiss p1 q1 If glass is heated,
  it expands.
• Premiss p2 q2 If copper is heated,
  it expands.
• Premiss p3 q3 If steel is heated,
  it expands.
• Conclusion p q If a substance
  (irrespective of which) is heated, it expands.
• Inductive reasoning
• Important role in the empirical science - laws
  and theories
• From the logical point of view, Not valid form of
  reasoning.
• Cannot be reduced to some form of deductive
  inference.
• Degree of Induction
• From particular observations to a general
  statement
• Process is not clear, but creative.
• Can be more or less encouraged, but not
  guaranteed.

15
Abduction(I)

• Example
• Premiss p q If X steals a ring, X
  will leave fingerprints on the display case.
• Premiss p There are fingerprints of X
  on the display from which a ring has stolen.
• Conclusion q X has stolen the ring.
• Abduction
• Logically incorrect there is no necessary
  connection between the conclusion and the
  premisses
• From observed symptoms to presumed cause
• Legal science, historical science and medical
  science
• Trouble-shooting(in technology)
• Key mode of reasoning in design
• Productive reasoning in the design context
  (Peirce)
• Deduction vs. Abduction
• When designers have to determine to what extent
  the designed artefact possesses the desired
  performance characteristics.

16
Abduction(II)

• Example(I)
• Premiss p q If x is of alumininium
  then x does not corrode.
• Premiss p x is of alumininium.
• Conclusion q x does not corrode.
• p a feature of a design
• q a derived(predicted) property
• Example(II)
• Premiss p q If x is of alumininium
  then x does not corrode.
• Premiss q x does not corrode.
• Conclusion p x is of alumininium.
• q a performance requirement
• p a statement on the design

17
Innoduction(I)

• Example of the designing of a kettle
• Function change in some object (boiling water)
• W20 W100
• Mode of action the (functional) behavior of the
  artefact itself
• K20 K300
• Actualization user-action
• Krest Kaction
• ((form actualization) mode of action)
  function
• form artefact, its proper geometrical and
  physico-chmical form

18
Innoduction(I)

• Innoduction
• q Given only premiss statement on function
• p pF pA
• pF a description of the form of the artefact
• pA a prescription of its actualization
• Premiss q
• Conclusion p q
• Conclusion p
• Characteristic
• Very little is given and much is asked, so needs
  designers creativity
• Open process, which allows for many good
  solutions
• Term of innoduction Explanatory
  abduction(abduction) and Innovative
  abduction(innoduction)

19
Patterns of Reasoning
20
Example Dishwasher for sailing-boats
unbroken, dirty dishes must become unbroken,
clean dishes, within one hour and with the help
of seawater
Function
Desired Properties
Dirty dishes should follow the ships movements
as little as possible. The apparatus must be able
to withstand seawater and should use a detergent
that works with seawater
Reduction
Design Specification
How can the dishes be kept in a horizontal
position?
Innoduction
Function Form
Deduction
Simulation
Stainless steel can take seawater. They make a
detergent which will lather well in a seawater
Induction
Abduction
Dirty dishes are not clean.