Why Design is Important

Why Is Design Important? 1An Introduction

Silke Konsorski-Lang and Michael Hampe

1.1 State-of-the-Art Design Research

Although design is as old as the human race itself,

pervades our lives, and is fundamental to many differ-

ent disciplines, the concept “design” is often vaguely

defined, and the way in which it is understood and

applied within these various disciplines diverges sub-

stantially. Design is a commonly shared key compo-

nent for many diverse disciplines such as science,

engineering, management and architecture – to name

just a few. For example, there is system design in

engineering, algorithm design in computer science,

process design in management, creative design in

architecture, and self-organizational design in biology.

However within these fields the way in which design is

understood and utilized differs significantly. Design

research, including design science and design meth-

odologies, is a wide and comprehensive field based on

both expertise and formulated terminologies that are

specific to a discipline. Even though research on

design can be traced back to the early 1960s, it cur-

rently needs extensive research, now more than ever.

The design methods developed in the 1960s and

research into artificial intelligence in the 1980s

provided some advances, but they did not have a

significant practical impact. The fundamentals and

principles of design are relatively little understood.

Surprisingly, little effort has been made to investigate

either the fundamental issues or the foundations of

design and to formulate specific criteria to establish

it as an extensive scientific concept and discipline in

its own right. For instance, in some specific engineer-

ing disciplines, such as user interface design, hand-

books with detailed design instructions do exist

already. However, a holistic understanding of design

would enable completely new perspectives of and

approaches to diverse disciplines, including those of

architecture, engineering, management, and natural

science. Until now, the potential of merging knowl-

edge from various disciplines has only rarely been

investigated.

1.1.1 What is Design Science?

Design is typically concerned with creating things that

people want. As the initial brainwork is normally

unseen by those on the outside of the thought process,

design is often seen as a procedure related to material

things. According to S. A. Gregory, the fundamental

idea behind design is building a structure, pattern, or

system within a situation (Gregory 1966). And there

are many examples of this. Engineering design is goal

oriented and concerned with the process of making

artifacts and complex systems for expert use. In natu-

ral science, design abides mainly by the laws of nature.

However, engineers, technologists, and scientists, as

well as architects, artists, and poets are all involved in

design processes. These processes are relatively more

or less creative, but all imply that thinking ahead is a

significant component of this process.

Many authors and scientists have sought to define

the term design. The following list, which is certainly

not exhaustive, summarizes some of the statements

S. Konsorski-Lang (*)

ETH Zurich, Universitatstrasse 6, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

e-mail: lang@ inf.ethz.ch

S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe (eds.), The Design of Material, Organism, and Minds, X.media.publishing,

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-69002-3_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

3

about design found in the literature. According to

these, design is:

� An art form

� An applied science

� A process with an input and an output

� A goal-directed problem-solving and decision-

making activity

� A deliberately intended or produced pattern

� Creativity and imagination

� Satisfying needs

� Drawings, sketches, plans, calculations

� Foresight toward production, assembly, testing,

and other processes

� Managing, learning, planning, and optimizing

� Collecting and processing data

� Transferring and transforming knowledge.

Research on design may have originated when, in

1872, Viollet-le-Duc recognized that design problems

are becoming so complex that the designer’s intuitive

grasp is not sufficient to solve them (Heath 1984).

Design research is concerned with the study, research,

and investigation of man-made artifacts and systems.

Within the manufacturing industry, design has been

formally acknowledged as a separate discipline for the

last 150 years. This is particularly true for the field of

engineering, where scientific developments, especially

those that occurred in the early 1940s, made signifi-

cant contributions toward solving design problems.

Multidisciplinary teams consisting of engineers,

industrial designers, psychologists, and statisticians

were set up. Initially, the focus of design research

was on improving classical design by using systematic

design methods. The Design Research Society was

founded in London in 1966. In 1970, the Environmen-

tal Design Research Association was established.

Their research involved evaluative studies of architec-

ture and environmental planning. At the Portsmouth

DRS Conference, L. Bruce Archer defined design

research as “systematic inquiry whose goal is knowl-

edge of, or in, the embodiment of configuration, com-

position, structure, purpose, value, and meaning in

man-made things and systems.” (Archer 1981, pp.

30–47).

However, since the 1990s, the focus has shifted to

automated design. This novel approach has trans-

formed information about design problems into

detailed specification of physical solutions that use

computers in order to attempt to solve the particular

problem. For instance, research in cybernetics has

influenced design methodologists and theoreticians

such as L. B. Archer and Gordan Pask. They draw

similarities between designers’ design behavior and

organisms’ self-control systems (Archer 1965; Pask

1963).

1.1.2 Design Science and its Origins

Design science is a systematic approach that seeks an

appropriate design methodology. This design method-

ology is a pattern of work, which is independent of the

discipline and offers a means of solving various pro-

blems.

1.1.3 Related Work

Regarding design and science, there are two periods of

special interest: the 1920s with their investigations of

scientific design products and the 1960s with their

research on scientific design processes. It is interesting

to note that in the 1920s, Theo van Doesberg and Le

Corbusier already had the desire to bring science and

design together (van Doesberg 1923; Le Corbusier

1929). Both produced works based on the values of

science: objectivity and rationality. The subsequent

investigation of innovative design methods had its

origins in the upcoming problems of the Second

World War. Novel, scientific, and computational

methods were then investigated and applied to new

and pressing problems.

In the 1960s, the disciplines of urban design,

graphic and interior design, industrial design, and

engineering recognized what nowadays is commonly

understood as design, and it became a discipline in its

own right. The vast number of initiatives during that

decade testify to this quickly growing awareness: the

Conference on Design Method in 1962 (Jones and

Thornley 1963), Christopher Alexander’s PhD on the

use of information theory in design in 1964 (Alexander

1964), the Teaching of Design – Design Methods

in Architecture conference in Ulm at the Hochschule

fur Gestaltung in 1966, and in 1967 the creation of

the Design Methods Group at the University of

California, Berkeley, the International Conference on

4 S. Konsorski-Lang and M. Hampe

Engineering Design by Hubka, as well as The Design

Methods in Architecture Symposium in Portsmouth,

which all took place in the same year (Broadbent and

Ward 1969). Buckminster Fuller was probably the first

to coin the term Design Science. S. A. Gregory

adopted it in 1965 at the conference on The Design

Method (Gregory 1966). Gregory defined Design Sci-

ence as the study of design in theory and in practice, in

order to gain knowledge about design processes, about

design procedures to create material objects, and about

the behavior of its creators. According to his rather

general description (which applies to digestion as

well), design is a process that has an input and an

output (Gregory 1966). In 1967, Hubka established

the International Conference on Engineering Design

where he introduced the scientific approach to engi-

neering design methods as design science for the first

time. Design science was described as a system con-

sisting of logically related knowledge. This system

was intended to organize the knowledge gained

about designing.

1.1.4 Design Methodology

According to Cross (1984), design methodology refers

to the study of principles and procedures of design in a

broad and general sense. It is concerned with how

design is carried out. In doing so it analyzes how

designers work and how they think. The aim is to

make rational decisions that adapt to the prevailing

values. This is achieved by looking at rational methods

of incorporating scientific techniques and knowledge

into the design process. Design methodology became

important as a research topic in its own right at the

Conference on Design Method in 1962 (Hubka and

Eder 1996). In 1964, Christopher Alexander published

his PhD thesis “Notes on the Synthesis of Form” in

design methods (Alexander 1964). His approach for

solving problems was to split design problems into

small patterns. In doing so, he applied information

theory. In 1967, the Design Methods Group at the

University of California, Berkeley, was founded. Over

the next decades, design methodology gained in impor-

tance, especially in engineering and industrial design.

During this time, design as a research topic became

common in Europe and the US. In 1966, The Teaching

of Design – DesignMethods in Architecture conference

was held in Ulm at the Hochschule fur Gestaltung. The

Design Methods in Architecture Symposium was held

in 1967 in Portsmouth (Broadbent and Ward 1969).

Design methods, together with artificial intelligence,

got another impetus in the 1980s. During that decade

and also in the early 1990s a series of books on engi-

neering design methods and methodologies and new

journals on design research, theory, and methodology

were released. To name just some of them: Design

Studies (1979), Design Issues (1984), Journal of Engi-

neering Design (1990), Languages of Design (1993),

and Design Journal (1997). The most relevant and

important design methodologists during this period

were: Morris Asimow, John Christopher Jones, Nigel

Cross, L. Bruce Acher, T.T. Woodson, Stuart Pugh,

and David Ullman. The first design methodologists

were scientists and designers, and made their investi-

gations to find rational criteria for decision making

with the aim of optimizing decisions. Design meth-

odologies were also used to offer appropriate methods

for supporting creativity. Horst Rittel, a second-gener-

ation methodologist, proposed problem identification

methods that were influenced by the philosopher Karl

Popper. His approach differed from earlier attempts by

incorporating user involvement in design decisions

and the identification of user objectives.

1.2 Knowledge through Contemplationand Action

These developments took place in a context of art and

technology, a context that was distinguished sharply

from science. It is an ancient idea that those who can

design and make things, those who have a “techne,” do

not possess the “right” or the “real” knowledge or

“episteme” about things compared to persons who

can talk about things after they have contemplated

them and gained insight into their essence (Aristotle

1924, 981a). Thus, a shoemaker who designs and

makes a shoe has, according to Aristotle, not neces-

sarily an insight into the essence of a shoe compared to

a philosopher who contemplates about what shoes are

made for, what their purpose is, and what makes a shoe

a good shoe.

This Aristotelian view of devaluating practical or

technical knowledge and favoring contemplation as

1 Why Is Design Important? 5

real knowledge came under pressure with Dewey’s

pragmatism (Dewey 1986). Dewey unmasked in his

sociology of knowledge the epistemic difference

between contemplation and doing as one that origi-

nated from the attempt to privilege the knowledge of

priesthood and to devaluate the knowledge of crafts-

men and workers in a society based on slavery. In

this way it was possible to secure the privileges of a

class of men that did not do any physical labor, but

that was in fact in its material self-preservation dep-

endent on a class of enslaved people. Dewey thought

that the hierarchy of knowledge by contemplation and

knowledge by doing survived not only the abolishment

of slavery, but also the disappearance of essentialism.

The distinction between the pure and the applied

sciences, between universities and mere polytech-

nics, still pays tribute to this hierarchy of different

forms of knowledge. But what happens if things have

no essence to contemplate and if the people who are

creating things are no longer socially dependent on

those who merely contemplate? Dewey’s answer was

clear: As soon has this becomes obvious, one sees that

all knowledge is in fact gained by doing or designing

things. Dewey thought that this insight should also

have pedagogical consequences: learning should hap-

pen by doing things and not by telling pupils about

things.

According to Dewey, knowledge, including “pure”

theory, is an instrument for action and problem-solving

(Dewey 1986). Since then, a great variety of theories

of knowledge have developed, which all consider

knowledge as a product of construction and not of

contemplation, as something that is actively crafted

by man and not passively conceived by the mind. The

varieties of constructivism not only made knowledge

into something that human beings design with their

minds but it led to a relativization of the distinction

between pure and applied science. Especially the con-

centration on the technological foundations of experi-

mental science, the insight that science is as much

about representing as it is about intervening in the

world (Hacking 1983), reshaped the view of the rela-

tion between theory and technology in the philosophy

of science. If human beings are engaged in processes

of design when they create theories, experiments, or

machines, then in what sense is the knowledge that is

necessary for developing a machine or a building

subordinate to the one that is needed in order to create

a theory? Is the complexity involved in the design of a

machine not much greater than the one involved in

creating a “pure theory?” Why should the design of an

experiment that is a stage in the design of a theory be

considered as pure science, whereas the design of a

material, a machine, or a building is “only” applied

science according to the cascade model of knowledge

that starts with theory on top (Bacon 1990)? Recent

investigations into the nature of the relation between

science and technology suggest that the design of a

technical gadget is very often much more than an

application of theoretically prefabricated knowledge

and that even theoretical insights that are as “pure” as

Einstein’s relativity theory are not gained indepen-

dently from technical problems (Gallison 2003,

Carrier 2006, pp. 15–31). A complex technical problem,

such as the one Einstein was facing when he thought

about the synchronization of the clocks in the railway

system, can lead, if it is seen against the background of

the general knowledge of the field (in Einstein’s case

against the background of physics of moving bodies), to

fundamental theoretical innovations. Thus, trying to

solve a concrete technical problem or a problem of

design can lead to very general new knowledge.

1.3 Design of Languages and Worlds

Theories are often considered as structures in a lan-

guage. As long as languages were considered as natu-

rally given, constructing a theory was working in

something that was not designed. This must not neces-

sarily mean that one does not consider theories as

products of design. For a machine is designed in a

material, such as metal, that need not itself be

designed. But since the mathematization of science,

the picture has changed. It was Newton who invented

or designed his own mathematics for his physics of

accelerated bodies, the infinitesimal calculus. Since

then physics has been dominated by the artificial,

man-designed languages of mathematics. The “natu-

ral” language or ordinary language plays only a peda-

gogical role in physics.

Since the development of computers, the design of

languages and machines for solving scientific pro-

blems has become even more prominent. The printed

circuit copied on a silicone board transforms the rep-

resentation of a machine into a real machine that can

solve problems in a language that is man-made, the


Boolean algebra. Designing a language for program-

ming a computer, designing a computer as a material

machine, and solving a theoretical problem of science

can become very tightly connected tasks in those areas

that use computer simulations. Insofar as we consider

systems that solve problems by using symbolic repre-

sentations as minds, the design of artificial languages

and artificial symbolic problem solvers is the design of

artificial minds.

But the design of minds and languages is not a

specialty of the epoch of artificial intelligence. Although

every person is born into a “natural language,” there is

hardly anybody who does not react to this language

by deviating from it. In most people this will not lead

to intentional design of languages. But for any poet

the natural language is a material that is to be changed

into something else: a designed language that serves

different purposes and shows different things in a

different light than the undesigned natural language.

At the very beginning of European fiction, in Homer’s

epics, this design is obvious. As the stories of these

epics were conveyed orally for a long time, the lan-

guage in which they were told had to support the

memory of the singer. In order not to mix up events

and characters, a verse was produced as well as

phrases to fit this verse that could not be exchanged

easily. Thus, Odysseus is always the sly one and

Achilles the fast runner. It has been suggested that

this design of a verse and mode of description that

serves memory was also influencing the way the peo-

ple who were telling these stories and were listening

to them perceived their world (Feyerabend 2009, pp.

107–156). Thus, the design of a language forms the

minds of the user of this language as much as the

minds of the user (e.g., their capacity to memorize

things) form the language they design.

If we consider experienced worlds as the result of

the way the minds shape languages to describe the

world and the way languages shape minds to experi-

ence the world, then we can say that the process of

designing languages and minds is a process of design-

ing worlds. “If a new way of speaking spreads, it will

affect the mental life and the perception, and man finds

himself in a new environment, perceives new objects,

he is living in a new world” (Feyerabend 2009,

p. 169). One famous version of constructivism, the

one developed by the American philosopher Nelson

Goodman, says exactly this: worlds of experience

(and these are the only ones we know of) are made,

and making languages is a way of making a world

(Goodman 1981; Steinbrenner et al. 2005). Critics of

this view may say that the world we experience is the

product of a natural development, whereas the world

man is able to create by designing languages is artifi-

cial worlds. This is true under the presupposition of a

superficial understanding of the “natural” and the

“artificial,” an understanding that is challenged by

recent developments in design and simulation.

1.4 The Natural and the Artificial

Creating intentionally artificial worlds is an activity in

which humans were probably always engaged. Plays,

paintings, and epics are artificial, man-made worlds.

The programming of the artificial worlds in computer

games is just the latest version of this creative activity.

When we look, on the other hand, at the ways human

beings thought the world they did not create them-

selves came about, we have three fundamental models:

The world did not originate at all, but was from eter-

nity and will be in eternity – the Aristotelian Model

(1), the world developed in a process of evolution that

involved elements of chance – the Democritean Model

(2), and the world was designed intentionally by a

designer – the Platonic Model (3). Today, models (2)

and (3) are favored: physical cosmology and biolo-

gical evolutionary theory develop modern versions of

model (2), and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam favor

model (3). Therefore, we consider model (2) to be a

naturalistic one in which the world came about by a

natural process without any intentions involved,

whereas the religious views are considered supernatu-

ralistic, because they involve a non-human, divine

intention as responsible for the design of the structures

of the world we consider to be natural.

The fact that the world seems to have an order and

that it contains many things useful to man was long –

in the so-called argument from design – considered to

be an indication (or even a proof) of the intelligent

creator who designed the world in such a way that man

can live in it (since Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth

century till Robert Payley in the nineteenth). David

Hume criticized this argument in his “Dialogues

Concerning Natural Religion” from 1779. Do we not

know as many or even more principles of creating

order besides intelligent design, like growth or instinct


or generation? Hume asked (1948, p. 49). And if we

suppose that a divine mind designed the world by

planning it, how did he produce an order of ideas in

his intellect? Since Darwin’s theory of evolution and

the theories of natural self-organization, design has

disappeared entirely as a principle of explaining natu-

ral order. What happened is that evolutionary princi-

ples became tools for intentional design.

For if we now look at modern design processes and

at modern epistemology, the picture about the relation

between the natural as the unintentionally and the

artificial as the intentionally created becomes much

more complicated. Some modern methods of design-

ing and simulating things use evolutionary algorithms.The computer applies in these algorithms evolutionary

strategies like the reproduction, variation (mutation),

recombination, and selection onto structures in order

to simulate and design things like materials, markets,

organisms, pharmaceutics, biological populations,

states, and much more (Ashlock 2006). These strate-

gies are at the same time believed to be the most

fundamental mechanisms behind biological evolution,

i.e., behind the “natural production” of organisms.

Darwin found his theory of evolution originally by

applying observations about the social development

of human populations from Malthus and about the

methods of breeding on farms onto wild nature

(Bowler 2003). His term “natural selection” already

indicates that the process of selection was first consid-

ered a cultural one: the intentional selection of plants

and animals for breeding by the farmer. By imple-

menting evolutionary algorithms in a computer sel-

ection as a method of design that was theoretically

first intentional (at the farm), then discovered to

happen also nonintentionally in “wild” nature, design

becomes “semi-intentional”: the designer, e.g., in

search of a material for constructing an airplane, inten-

tionally installs an intentionally developed algorithm

that searches unintentionally for the best mix of com-

ponents for a material in a computer. The autonomy of

the transformation processes of algorithms in compu-

ters makes computer-aided design a semi-intentional

process: natural processes are intentionally simulated

in order to optimize design processes. If we now take

into account that our view of natural processes is

increasingly shaped by the processes of simulation

and design in computers, we see that the border

between the natural and the artificial becomes increas-

ingly blurred: nature, originally seen as a product of

design (in Model 3) and now seen as a product of

evolution, is imitated in its creative potential in evolu-

tionary algorithms that are installed in artificial brains

that shape our view of nature. Perhaps the distinction

between the natural and the artificial that dominated

western thought in a normative way for many centu-

ries will disappear or at least become a superficial one

if we develop a deeper understanding of the processes

of design and creativity in general.

If we take into account that the most advanced

computers, those that use evolutionary algorithms,

are also able to learn, i.e., to develop their own

minds, once they have been set up by man, we get an

even more complicated picture. Man’s mind has been

developed by biological and cultural evolution in such

a way that human beings were able to design artificial

minds intentionally. These artificial minds were con-

sidered most efficient if they ran evolutionary strate-

gies and were able to undergo developments that are

not planned intentionally. The way these artificial

minds develop will, the more they are used in science,

shape the way man sees the world. Thus, the human

mind of the future and the future human view of the

world will be developed in part by the artificial minds

man designed himself in such a way that they can

develop in a quasi natural fashion. This blurring of

the distinction between the natural and the artificial

has led theoreticians like Bruno Latour to the idea that

the whole concept of purely natural and purely artifi-

cial things is a fiction to be replaced by the idea of

hybrids (Latour 2000). The vision of a man who is

using glasses is as much a hybrid as the thinking of a

scientist about the world that is aided by a computer.

1.5 Pursuit of Perfection

1.5.1 What is Design?

In English the term design is used as both a noun and a

verb. As a noun, a design mostly refers to the final

product or the result of a design process. As a verb, todesign refers to the process of creating the product.

Designing includes the consideration of esthetic and

functional aspects.

In English and French, the terms for design trans-

late more to Gestaltung and Entwurf, whereas in


Italian disegno and Spanish diseno relate more to an

approved activity. Translating design into German

results in a broad range of meanings. In the German

language, the term design relates to things and is

targeted at their formal and artistic aspects, whereas

in Anglo-Saxon design also involves technical and

constructional aspects. Design itself is an iterative,

creative, but controlled process. It needs clear defini-

tions and controlled aims. In all disciplines the role of

the designer involves specifying the principles of:

need, describing the vision, and producing the result.

So far within design there has been a strong differ-

entiation between theory and practice. Research on

design theory didn’t have much impact on practice

until now. Designers in practice have, therefore, oper-

ated free from any design theory. But for all that

designers use empirical insights, concepts, and logical

systems, and their gained experience, all of which is in

practice used for making decisions, these are often

misinterpreted as intuition. Design theory, however,

deals with design on a different level than design in

practice. Research on design investigates models to

explain and to assemble design experience in practice.

The goal is to gain insights that can be used in practice

in the future. The proposed theories, however, neces-

sarily have to be generalized and border on at the

limitation of descriptiveness.

1.5.2 Perfection by Design

It is noticeable that designers work towards an

improvement and a perfection of their products

beyond disciplinary boundaries. Admittedly, the

design itself will never be perfect, only the imperfec-

tion will be minimized. Since design conforms to

constraints, requires choices, and involves compro-

mise, it will never be perfect. Design nowadays is in

most areas used to increase the user satisfaction, the

brand identity, as well as the competitiveness in the

sense of being better, quicker, cheaper, etc., than

others.

Armstrong defined design as the essential part of

the creative process of engineering that makes it dis-

tinct from science (Armstrong 2008). The design pro-

cess in engineering involves: imagination, creativity,

knowledge, technical and scientific skills, and the use

of materials. Creativity requires the ability to think

laterally, to anticipate the unexpected, to delight in

problem solving, and to enjoy the beauties of the

mind as well as of the physical world.

But what makes a design good? Are there para-

meters or models that define whether a design is

good or poor? In many disciplines evaluation criteria

exist to assist in achieving high quality results. Princi-

ples exist that are fundamental to the discipline and

that have to be fulfilled. In engineering, for example, it

is possible to identify basic principles that can be

applied to any other discipline when it comes to the

initiation of work or the testing of design decisions.

These principles in engineering should not be con-

fused with postulates, definitions, hypotheses, stan-

dards, or rules. However, design is related to art;

therefore, it is difficult to quantify and model it

completely. No checklist of rules or fixed set of ques-

tions exists that can be applied or answered to deter-

mine that a design is good. Fundamental principles are

generally well known to experienced designers, but

may not have been clearly formulated. Principles in

design are intended to provide assistance to the context

of the design. They are not scientific hypothetical

principles and are not necessarily rooted in physics

and mathematics.

But because man has always applied technologies

onto himself, processes of design have led to ideals of

human perfection as well. Perhaps the concept of

perfection is most intimately linked with human self-

understanding. Sportsmen have shaped or designed

their bodies since ancient times according to certain

ideals, and the design of drugs that will enhance our

mental capacities and emotional makeup is already

under way, i.e., man has started to design himself

mentally and physically according to ideals of physi-

cal and mental perfection. In the mosaic of religions

man, is designed by God according to his image, and

he has no right to shape himself according to other

images, which would be “unnatural” or a violation of

piety in this view. But in pagan Greece and in modern

times, when man sees himself as a product of evolu-

tion, this is different. Knowing the rules of evolution

and considering himself at the same time as a free

being (which is considered by some philosophers as

a contradiction), human beings may take every liberty

to improve themselves, e.g., their genetic material by

genetic engineering or design. Perhaps in the future

ideals for the genetic design of man will develop, such

as already exist for the so-called lower organisms.


It could well be that the industries that develop a

means of designing oneself physically and mentally

will also develop ideals of perfection in order to make

their products successful on the market. By such

means, at least in capitalist societies, the ideals of

perfection in design will probably always be

connected with marketing strategies.

1.6 Design Parameters

Unlike with recognized scientific disciplines, which

study what already exits, the field of activity in design,

and respectively, the discipline of design can hardly be

reduced to a common denominator. Scientific meth-

ods, that obtain and test knowledge that is covering

general truths of the operation of general laws underlie

science (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). In

science, something can be proven either by observa-

tion or by measurement. This means if design is a

science, we have to investigate a model that describes

design in terms of a logical representation.

If we assume that man-made design is a production

process and its objectives are not simply the creation of

physical objects but also all sorts of processes, ser-

vices, interactions, entertainment, and ways of com-

municating and collaborating, we can recognize that

design is one process step to optimize the product,

bring it to perfection, and create value. The processes

therefore determine the quality of the products. The

improvement of the products calls accordingly for the

improvement of the processes. Consequently, not only

the products have to be redesigned, but so does the way

we design. In order to improve our designs we there-

fore have to understand what we do and how we do it.

Designing as a process is more or less creative. This

usually includes the: intuitive, iterative, recursive,

opportunistic, innovative, ingenious, unpredictable,

refined, striking, novel, reflective, and also a search

for elegance and beauty (Schoen 1983). The design

process could be seen as the management of negotiable

and non-negotiable constraints. Design as a process

has many different forms depending on the resulting

product and the discipline. Each design group devel-

oped a method for solving problems that evolved over

time. Depending on the school of thought, different

groups look at the problem from different perspectives.

The results differ and so do their goals, as well as the

scales of the projects and the methods they use. Even

the actions appear to be different. However, looking at

different design processes, we can notice that general

similarities often appear in their approaches. That is to

say that every process can be structured with the same

few laws. Therefore, fundamental patterns exist within

the process they follow.

So if design is a process, the design process is the

transformation process (method) between an input and

an output. Assuming that design is a process, it fulfills

the usual process definition. Processes can be defined

as the way taken to achieve an end, and accordingly,

the individual steps can be described as process skills.

If the end is the response to a defined need, it can be

called the design process. The design process contains

three basic elements: inputs, outputs, and, in between,

the method used. This may seem obvious, but identi-

fying these three basic elements within design helps to

improve the operation. Furthermore, once these ele-

ments are made clear, and roles are defined in advance,

the probability of success is increased, and the risks

are reduced. Uncertainties and fears can be narrowed

down, and results can easily be improved, repeated,

and modified by identifying and fixing broken pro-

cesses. Therefore, design can be quantitatively mea-

surable and could be evaluated and optimized.

Nevertheless, it is important not to restrict creativity.

1.6.1 The Design Process

People often think that the designer has an idea, does

some not describable things (creativity), and suddenly

the result appears (see Fig. 1.1)

From this assumed course of action the following

simplified process can be derived (Fig. 1.2).

There is an input and an output, and in between a

process, a transformation. This simplification neatens

a complex approach and may suggest the illusion of

linearity.

A basic abstraction of the design process is shown

in Fig. 1.3. First there is an input, a clearly defined

need or desire. The output is the response of the need

or desire, for example, a product, system, project,

product description, or the use of something. To arrive

from the input to the output, we need a method, the

design process. The design process transforms the

need into the result. The process consists of two


basic parts: activities and resources. The overall pro-

cess is convergent, but within the process there are

periods of deliberate divergence.

1.7 Design and Evaluation

If things are designed because of human needs and if

human needs change because humans are confronted

with new things or live in changing worlds, then there

can be no eternal standards for evaluating designs. A

design is good or bad relative to a fixed system of

desires in a fixed world. But the constant use of a

new design will change the needs of those using it,

and the world from which the design originated. For

instance, the desires for people to communicate with

each other were changed by inventions like the tele-

graph and the telephone; these led to developments

like the Internet and e-mail, which will again change

the ways people communicate and the desires they

have. The history of design is often described as a

progressive process: the telephone is progress in com-

munication over the letter, the Internet progress over

the telegraph, and e-mail progress over the telephone,

and so on. But the mere fact that letters, telephones,

and e-mail all exist side by side shows that the devel-

opment of designed things is not necessarily one of

linear improvement. If the design of things is a more or

less intentional or unintentional design that is derived

from human desires and of experienced worlds then it

is also a design of principles of evaluation.

Fig. 1.2 Simplified design

process. There is a stated need,

and between the need and the

result there is the process

Fig. 1.1 Creative design

process: Some not describable

things result suddenly in a

solution

Fig. 1.3 Basic abstraction of the design process


Having said this, the evaluation criteria of design

emerge and change over time. They depend on the

values, desires, needs, possibilities, etc., of the re-

spective society. This is briefly illustrated using the

example of automotive design (see Fig. 1.4). The

development of the automobile is a good example of

how technological evolution is sometimes based upon

major design and technology shifts. In 1769, Nicolas

Joseph Cugnot built the first recognizable automobile

for transportation of people and used a steam engine to

power it. In 1888, Benz and Daimler invented the

four-stroke internal combustion engine, which is still

used in most modern automobiles. In 1924, when the

American automobile market started reaching satura-

tion, General Motors pursued the strategy of annual

model-year design changes with the goal of persuad-

ing car owners to buy a new replacement each year.

This strategy was intended to maintain unit sales.

Henry Ford, on the contrary, adhered to notions of

simplicity, economics of scale, and design integrity.

GM surpassed Ford’s sales and became the leading

player in the automotive industry in the US. The yearly

restyling influenced the design and made further

changes necessary. Therefore, the lighter but less flex-

ible monocoque design was changed to a body-on-

frame. Another change came in 1935 when designs

became driven by consumer expectations rather than

by engineering improvements. Automobile design

emerged after World War II with the introduction of

high-compression V8 engines and modern bodies.

Throughout the 1950s, engine power, vehicle speed,

and design gained in importance. Another shift came

in the 1960s with the international competition among

the US, Europe, and Japan. This era was affected by

the use of independent suspensions, wider application

of fuel injection, and an increasing focus on safety.

The modern era is characterized by increasing stan-

dardization, platform sharing, and computer-aided

design. Today aerodynamics, safety, and mainly envi-

ronmental aspects such as fuel efficiency, engine

output, carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, and gas con-

sumption influence car designs.

Another phenomenon that can be observed is that

some car models like the Isetta, Volkswagen, VW

Kafer, Fiat Cinquecento, and Citroen 2CV became

archetypes of modern spirit. The Isetta was built for

the man on the street in a time when cheap, short-

distance transportation was needed after World War II.

In 2009, the Mini celebrated its 50th anniversary:

in 1959 the British Motor Corporation (BMC) gave

Alec Issigonis clear instructions to construct a car

with a spacious passenger compartment, but with

short external dimensions, space for four passengers,

and amazing handling characteristics. In 1974, the first

VW Golf rolled from the assembly line. The VW Golf

is one of the most successful cars built in Germany in

the last three decades and also stands for a part of

cultural history for a whole generation. In the mid

1970s, the VW Golf was considered as sporty, even

with the smallest available engine capacity. Its design

criteria were economical engines and being affordable

for the masses.

But not only cars gain cult status. One of the newest

examples of good marketing and promotion is the

clogs from Crocs shoes, imitated from other manufac-

turer and sold worldwide. These beach and camping

shoes became fashionable as normal street shoes. You

can even buy shoedoodles (Jibbitz), stickers that fit

into the holes of crocs shoes, to individualize them

(Fig. 1.5). So why do people wear plastic shoes in

goofy looking colors with normal clothes?

1.8 Contents of this Book

Since design is so broadly defined, there is no univer-

sal or unifying institution of all disciplines. Therefore,

many differing philosophies of and approaches to

design exist. What they all have in common is that

they are designing. Their goals, actions, and, therefore,

their results differ, but they are all also similar as they

all follow processes. Serious research on design

demands focusing on the design process.

Fig. 1.4 Evolution of the

automobile: From the ox cart

to the horse-drawn carriage to

the motor carriage to the

automobile


Within this book we present how design is used in

different disciplines and point out uniform as well as

diverse principles within different design processes. In

the first place, we are not asking What is design? We

are asking How do you design?In their articles the authors give answers to the

following questions:

1. How is design used in the discipline and what is

designed?

2. Why is it designed?

3. Are there uniform as well as diverse principles

within the respective design processes?

Essentially, the book is organized to follow three

main design classifications (see Fig. 1.6): Design of

Objects and Materials, Design of Living Environ-

ments, and Design of Minds.

Chapter 1 acquaints the reader with how objects

and materials are designed as exemplified by Product

Design, Automotive Design, Game Design, Drug

Design, and Material Design. Fritz Frenkler, in his

article “The Design of the Environment and the Sur-

roundings,” focuses on product design, which not only

refers to products, but also to the configuration of

complete environments and surroundings. By means

of examples, this generally very diverse field and

accompanying diverse design approaches are

described. Design is based on perception of the envi-

ronment/surroundings as well as the social develop-

ments or trends resulting from an accountable

perspective. Design is not the honed application of

guidelines and rules, and design criteria are not static

rules. Furthermore, they must be regulated and

adapted to social changes. The goals of good design

are to improve the quality of life and to create comfort

and user friendliness. In product design, design is a

process that cannot be packed into reusable, general

rules or principles. Product designers initially scruti-

nize the actual task, develop several methods of

resolution, compare quality levels, and provide a rec-

ommendation. A subsequent article follows a disquisi-

tion on a specific product: the brand MINI. Here,

Gerhard Hildebrand points out the importance of

empathy for design. The principles of empathetic

design are explained using the example of automobile

design. So that design does not become random, social

and ecological progressions have to be taken into

account. Nowadays, good design is strongly related

to economic success. Hildebrand explains how this

factor of success is integrated into the structure of a

company. Indeed in comparison to other factors,

design is low cost. For example, at MINI the design

costs are low, less than 10%, but are 80% of the reason

for the purchase. Therefore, the most significant factor

for design at MINI is the client. The focus of the

designer is not to realize his own dream, but to create

a product that fits the brand and the target group. One

basic principle for the MINI design is “form follows

function,” and another is the “human body archetype.”

A good product is able to address all senses. Away

from the automotive area, Markus Gross, Robert Sum-

ner, and Nils Thuerey address the young and evolving

field of game design in their article. Within a graduate

course at the ETH, the Game Programming Labora-

tory, concerning the fundamentals of game design, the

various stages of the design process are thought out

and realized within prototype game developments.

The most important and persistent principles in game

design are, for example: iteration, peer review, proto-

typing, evolution, testing and evaluation, consistency,

Fig. 1.5 (a) Crocs Shoes Beach Color Variety (retrieved July 20, 2009 from http://www.sporthaus-ratingen.de/Crocs/crocs.html).

(b) Crocs with Jibbitz (retrieved July 20, 2009 from flickr # jespahjoy)


http://www.sporthaus-ratingen.de/Crocs/crocs.html

logical correctness, and simplicity. In the first part of

the article, the authors give a brief overview of the

history of game design before going deeper into the

stages of game design: the concept phase, preproduc-

tion phase, production phase, and quality assurance.

Besides formal elements, technology also plays a cru-

cial part in game design. Information technology and

computer science, for example, not only have a signif-

icant impact on the production costs, but also on the

feasibility of the project. Conceptualization, prototyp-

ing, and play testing are also major stages in the design

of a game.

Moving on from the design of computer games,

Folkers, Kut, and Boyer show that the design of

drugs has changed since 3D models of molecules can

now be handled computationally in such a way that in

Computer Assisted Drug Design (CAAD), the

machine will create a set of structural proposals for

molecules that should have a certain effect in a living

body. They also show the limits of this design method,

since it works on the (false) hypotheses of a one-to-one

correlation between an artificially created molecule

and a target structure in a living body with which it

interacts. Despite the enormous amount of structural

knowledge about complex molecules, “nobody has

been able to predict the most exciting new drugs” as

the molecular interaction between proteins is more

complex than the computer-assisted drug design

method presupposes. They also discuss the “dark

side” of drug design: drugs that are similar to pharma-

cological substances but have effects that cannot be

controlled and that were designed for drug abuse.

They show that the culture of neurological enhance-

ment, which may lead to the ability to design moods

and minds, is possibly the meeting point of the “dark”

and the medical sides of drug design. This chapter

ends with an article by Paolo Ermanni on the design

of materials and shapes for airplanes, cars, and other

Fig. 1.6 Organization of the book


technologies, which shows that modern design is no

longer purely a process of intuitions by inventive

individuals, but a collective process. Intuitions still

play a role, but the more the development of a struc-

ture proceeds, the more the freedom to make changes

on the structure decreases, or the more knowledge

about an ideal solution for a certain function is gath-

ered, the less freedom is left for intuitions. There are

several criteria one might use to evaluate for designed

products. The number of alternative solutions devel-

oped is as important for an evaluation as the amount of

time and costs that have gone into a design process.

The competition between alternative designs as a solu-

tion for the same problem within a market can, in a

certain sense, be simulated by evolutionary algorithms

in which a computational search for structural optimi-

zation takes place.

Chapter 2 is devoted to the design of environments

for living. The first part addresses the design of cities.

The article by the architect Meinrad von Gerkan pre-

sents dialogical design in architecture. In the first part

of this article, Gerkan describes the use of design and

summarizes analytical reflections arising from his own

work. The architect is an expert on design and architec-

ture as a social commodity. Designing our environ-

ment requires dialogue and the ability to react to

changing conditions. The key principles, which are sim-

plicity, variety and unity, structural order, and unmis-

takable individuality, are identified and explained.

The second part of the article strengthens the theory

presented in the first part, using the city Lingang as an

example. Lingang is a newly planned satellite city

close to Shanghai and is being designed and developed

from scratch based on the ideals of a traditional Euro-

pean city. Within their article “City Design – Design-

ing Process for Planning Future Cities,” Halatsch,

Kunze, Burkhard, and Schmitt investigate the design

process using the example of future cities. They dis-

cuss how computer-based technology has changed the

way architects and urban planners think, plan, and

communicate. They have also developed a framework

that allows simulating and evaluating urban environ-

ments to manage projects using GIS information and

to collaborate over large distances. This framework

contributes to solving urban planning issues and to

establishing participatory planning processes. The

last article in this chapter addresses the issue of land-

scape design. Interactive Landscapes by Christophe

Girot, James Melsom, and Alexandre Kapellos points

out the influence of new technology in the design of

large-scale environmental design. New technologies

used as tools inserted into the design process provide

new methods of verification and visualization that

cannot be easily attained using traditional processes.

However, in landscape design it is also essential to

work with models. Computer numerical controlled

(CNC) machines and CAAD-CAM technologies pro-

vide greater flexibility than traditional models, and the

information obtained through the traditional modeling

process feeds back into the design process, creating a

synergy.

Chapter 3 presents the design of minds such as

Text Design and Synesthetic Design. This chapter

begins with a discussion of theory and design. Focus-

ing on the concept of virtuality, Vera Buhlmann

investigates, from a philosophical point of view, the

conceptual and epistemological consequences of

design becoming increasingly important in various

sciences and for all relations of humans with the

world in general. Starting from the problem of local-

ity, as stated by the French philosopher and historian

of science, Michel Serres, Vera Buhlmann shows that

since antiquity an external stance to human knowl-

edge has blurred conceptual contrasts like the natural

and the volitional, the given and the made, the created

and the evolved. With digital design and simulation

becoming one of the most important methodologies

of handling the world, this external stance becomes

the standard one. Thus, the idea that science solves

naturally given problems by applying adequate rules

to it becomes more and more obsolete. The whole

idea of a fit between the natural and external to the

mental and internal is going to disappear. Buhlmann

shows that even “material,” “organism,” and “mind”

are terms that might need recategorization once the

distinction between the natural and the artificial is

gone. Wibke Weber points to the fact that texts con-

sist of sentences that have been built. Not only can

buildings be interpreted as texts, but texts and their

sentences also have an architecture that is designed.

Her article gives rules for designing good texts. It

proposes a technique for visualizing the design of a

text by using different colors for the different gram-

matical constituents. Keeping in mind that texts may

be seen as graphical structures, are read as semantic

structures, and were originally heard as acoustic phe-

nomena, Weber proposes different criteria in order to

design an optically, semantically, and acoustically


good text. By means of the project Sound-Color-

Space, Natalia Sidler discusses the synesthetic design

of music visualization. The first part of her article

gives insights into the phenomena of synesthesia

and defines synesthetic design. Inspired by the field

of Color-Light-Music, and the Color Light Organ, the

research project “Sound-Color-Space” emerged. The

transfer of synesthetic phenomena and characteristics

from neuropsychological research into artistic-

esthetics studies provides the basis for the design of

the unique Color Light Organ as well as for various

visualization software developed for this instrument.

The final section of this article illustrates the design

criteria for the development and construction of this

new instrument. After the instrument’s completion,

three visualization programs were written with the

goal of reproducing the sounds generated by the

Color Light Organ into two- and three-dimensional

geometries, structures, animations, and color arrange-

ments to couple sound and color.

1.9 Quintessence

At this point we are able to present the ways in which

design is used in the fields described in Sect. 1.8 and

point out that both uniform and diverse principles

coexist within different design processes. The key

discoveries looking at all articles are:

1.9.1 Design and Design Process

� Product Design is based on perception of the envi-

ronment and the surrounding.

� Product Design is a process that cannot be packed

into reusable, general rules or principles.

� In Product Design social aspects are crucial.� Product Design is self-sustainable and a serious

force.

� Design is the development and creation of indus-trial products that are produced in series and as

such takes into account the following parameters:

technology, ergonomics, sociology, and market rel-evance.

� Design produces a physical (material) object.

� Architectural Design evolves from a dialogue

between the existing conditions and the ideals and

models of the architect involved.� Design is an iterative process.

� Design is a creative process, based on knowledge

and intuition.

� Landscape Design is a very tangible exercise.

� Text Design begins with an idea to shape words, to

form phrases, to build sentences and then para-graphs, etc.

� Technology is a tool within the design process.

� Constructions designed by peoples are driven bythe environment.

� Synesthetic Design coordinates sensory impres-sions.

� In engineering the design process has four main

phases: (1) planning and clarifying, (2) conceptualdesign, (3) embodiment design and, (4) detail

design.

� In engineering the design process is motivated by

an idea or need for improvement.

1.9.2 Designing

� Designing moved away from art and became a

technical discipline.

� Product Designers are flexible and able to deal withan exceptionally wide range of different themes in a

very short time.

� Product Designers recognize and analyze deficitsand deficiencies.

� Product Designers scrutinize the actual task,

develop several methods of resolution, comparequality levels, and provide a recommendation.

� Product Designers require the ability to think in a

conceptual and holistic manner.� Product Designers must look ahead to the future

and create today what they expect to be fashionable

in 5 years.

1.9.3 Design Criteria

� Design Criteria must be regularly examined, eval-uated, and adapted to social changes. They cannot

be static rules.


� The constants of design are ergonomic criteria and

safety guidelines.

� Form follows function.� Technology follows function.

� One MINI design principle is the Human Body

Archetype Intuition.� Design principles in game design are: iteration,

peer review, prototyping, evolution, testing and

evaluation, consistency, logical correctness, andsimplicity.

� Key principles in architecture are: simplicity, vari-

ety and unity, structural order, and unmistakableindividuality.

� Gestalt laws like proximity, similarity, closure,symmetry, law of continuity, and law of proximity

as well as writing style can be considered as design

principles for texts.

� Synesthetic phenomena and characteristics can be

transferred into artistic-esthetic studies and works

to visualize music.

1.9.4 Design Evaluation

� The design process is measured in terms of time,

costs, and quality of the final design.� Good Design makes a considerable improvement in

everyone’s quality of life.

� Successful design is empathetic design.� Successful design is self-explanatory.

� Successful design creates a need.

� Fun is crucial in game design.

Design is not a topic that can be investigated by an

axiomatic science that starts from general principles

that are universally applicable.

1.9.5 Design Science versus DesignEngineering

Regarding design and science, we distinguish among

three different areas: Scientific Design, Science of

Design, and Design Science. The term Scientific

Design goes back to the time when industrial design

became more complex and intuitive methods no lon-

ger worked. Scientific design merges intuitive and

rational design methods, and is simply an indication

of the reality of modern design practice. Herbert

Simon defined Science of Design as a body of intel-

lectually thorough, analytic, partly formalizable,

partly empirical, teachable doctrines about the design

process. In 1969, he also postulated the development

of a science of design. Natural science describes exist-

ing things according to natural laws. In contrast,

design deals with how things ought to be. In our

understanding, design is used in devising artifacts to

attain defined goals. According to Simon, everybody

who changes existing situations into preferred ones

designs. In order to improve the understanding of

design, the logic designers’ use has to be considered.

Science of design can be considered as the proper

study of mankind (Simon 1996). Abstracted, the sci-

ence of design is concerned with the study of design

with the aim of defining a design methodology. So, as

previously described, Design Science is, in contrast to

Science of Design, a systematical approach with the

aim of defining rules and laws that lead to the design

method.

In further contrast, design in engineering is a feed-

back process engaging the following engineering

activities: understanding the problem, concept genera-

tion, analysis and optimization, testing, and construc-

tion. Engineering design, therefore, refers to the chain

from research and development, to manufacturing,

construction, and on to marketing, and is based on

scientific principles, technical information, mathemat-

ics, practical experience, and imagination. The focus

is on the development of mechanical structures,

machines, or structures based on predefined functions

with the maximum of economy and efficiency

(McCrory 1966, pp. 11–18, Eder 1966, pp. 19–31).

Nowadays, engineers increasingly realize technical

functions by immaterial and software technologies.

The outcomes of these developments are the design,

the production, and the process. Hubka and Eder

(1996) defined the process of designing as the trans-

formation of information derived from the condition

of needs, demands, requirements, and constraints into

the description of a structure. This structure is capable

of fulfilling these demands, which include the wishes

of the customer, the stages and requirements of the life

cycle, and all the in-between states the products must

run through. Petroski (1997) describes engineering as

the art of rearranging materials and the forces of nature

based on the constraints given by the immutable laws


of nature. Engineering itself is seen as a fundamental

human process.

To recap, the most important differentiation

between science and engineering in this context is

that scientists search for understanding. While scien-

tists do not aim at rigidly specified goals, engineers

work toward very concrete objectives requiring cri-

teria and specifications. Design can therefore be con-

sidered as a hybrid. Design is part of fine art with its

esthetic and artistic aspect, and is part of the engineer-

ing disciplines as well as part of the science disci-

plines. To a large extent, designers, architects,

business managers, engineers, software developers,

etc., are unaware of the practices and processes in

other disciplines. They are not thinking about overlaps

and do not bring together work from different areas.

However, it is ultimately people who create things and

environments to improve their situation, and the situa-

tion in turn alters the world view of those who live

within it. This, then, subsequently shapes the persons

who are born into this new situation. In this way,

people design their worlds, and in so doing they also

design future human beings.

So can design be a scientific discipline? Or can the

combination of Design Science and Design Engineer-

ing seen as Applied Science? Or is it something else?

References

Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard

University Press, UK, Cambridge

Archer LB (1965) Systematic methods for designers. The

Design Council, London

Archer LB (1981) A view of the nature of the design research.

In: Jacques R, Powell JA (eds) Design science: method.

Surrey: IPC Business Press Ltd, Guilford, USA

Aristotle (1924) “Metaphysics.” Ross WD (Transl. and Ed.),

2 vols. Oxford

Armstrong J (2008) “Design matters.” Springer, London

Ashlock D (2006) “Evolutionary computation for modelling and

optimization,” Springer, Heidelberg

Bacon F (1990) “Novum Orgnanum/Neues Organon,” Philoso-

phische Bibliothek, Hamburg

Bowler PJ (2003) “Evolution: the history of an idea, Berkeley,”

3rd edn. Los Angeles, London

Broadbent C, Ward A (Eds.) (1969) “Design Methods in Archi-

tecture.” Lund Humphries, London

Carrier M (2006) The challenge of practice: Einstein, techno-

logical development and conceptual innovation. In: Ehlers J,

Lammerzahl C (Eds.) “Special relativity: will it survive the

next 101 years.” Springer, Heidelberg

Cross N (1984) “Developments in design methodology.” Umi

Research Pr, New York

Dewey J (1986) Logic: the theory of inquiry, In: Boydston JA

(Ed.): “John Dewey – the later works”, 1925–1953, Vol. 12:

1938, Carbondale

EderWE (1966) Definitions and Methodologies. In: Gregory SA

(Ed.) “The Design Method.” Butterworths, London

Feyerabend P (2009) “Naturphilosophie.” Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

am Main

Gallison P (2003) “Einstein’s clocks, Poincare’s maps” the

empire of time. New York

Goodman N (1981) “Ways of Worldmaking.” Indianapolis

Gregory SA (1966) “The Design Method.” Butterworths,

London

Hacking I (1983) “Representing and intervening: introductory

topics in the philosophy of natural science.” ISBN-10:

0521282462, Cambridge

Heath T (1984) Method in architecture. Wiley, New York

Hubka V, Eder WE (1996) “Design Science,” ISBN

3540199977, Springer

Hume D (1948) “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,”

Indianapolis

Jones JC, Thornley DG (1963) “Conference on Design Meth-

ods.” Oxford University Press, Oxford

Latour B (2000) “Die Hoffnung der Pandora. Untersuchungen

zur Wirklichkeit der Wissenschaft,” Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

am Main

Le Corbusier (1929) CIAM 2nd Congress, Frankfurt

McCrory RJ (1966) The design method in practice, In: Gregory

SA (Ed.) “The Design Method.” Butterworths, London

Pask G (1963) The conception of a shape and the evolution of a

design. In: Jones JC, Thornley DG (eds) Conference on

design methods. Pregamon Press, Oxford

Petroski H (1997) “Invention by Design,” ISBN 0674463676,

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Schoen DA (1983) “The reflective practitioner: how profes-

sionals think in action,” Maurice Temple Smith Ltd, New

York

Simon HA (1996) “The sciences of the artificial,” ISBN

0262193744. The MIT Press, Cambridge

Steinbrenner J, Scholz OR, Ernst G (2005) Symbole,

Systeme,Welten, “Studien zur Philosoph Nelson Goodmans,”

Synchron Wissenschaftsverlag der Autoren, Heidelberg

van Doesberg T (1923) “Towards a Collective Construction.”

De Stijle


Documents

Why Design is Important