4
2
Des|gne|
1
3
5
4
2
(a) (b)
Figure 1: The hrst game
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
74
`Let's say,' said the designer, `that each puck is one of your design requirements. !f a puck
is in the hole, then a certain percentage of your requirement has been met, depending
on the hole's score. However, if the puck is still on the board, your requirement has not
been met. The pucks that still have to be played are all the requirements we have yet
to look at. Because you cant get all the pucks into the holes at once and because not
all the pucks will ht in the hole with the highest score, !'ll have to play the game several
times to get the best score - or the best combination of requirements. How often will
! have to do this? When will ! have achieved the best combination? Who can say? !s it
indeed possible? And how can ! improve my chances?'
The client studied the situation carefully, remembering the game from his youth. Why
have you made things so difhcult by trying to use so many holes at once? !f you leave
a few open and close the rest it will be a lot easier, you'll be hnished a lot sooner, and
!'ll get my design more quickly'.
Of course the designer had expected him to say this. He called two experts from his
ofhce into the studio. They played the game together, on a shufheboard the designer
had prepared beforehand so that three people could play simultaneously. The experts
were told to send the pucks in a certain direction by pushing the sides of the board in
(Figure 2(a)).
The designer now pushed a number of pucks towards the holes, while the experts
pushed the sides so that the pucks landed in their preferred holes. After a few more
pucks had been played, the game nicely illustrated how reducing the number of holes
with the aid of experts could inhuence the outcome (Figure 2(b)).
1
3
5
4
2
Des|gne|
1
3
5
4
2
Expe| e }
Expe| e }
1
2
(a) (b)
Figure 2: The second game
If we dont use all the holes, explained the designer, there are fewer possible
combinations so there's more chance we'll get a quick result. As you can see, the
experts did a great job helping to reduce the number of holes that were in play. But
there's a big risk here. Did the experts send the pucks in the right direction? Was it
acceptable to ditch a number of requirements? !s the score really bad in the area the
experts weren't directing the pucks to?'
The client looked desperate. Listen, youre well known as a good and, above all, clever
designer. That's why ! chose you. So how exactly are you going to deal with this?'
Of course the designer had hoped the client would say this. To illustrate his planned
approach, he adjusted the shufheboard further so that more players could play at the
same time. The designer had a few more people from his ofhce come over to the studio.
They all, including the client, stood around the board. It had been adjusted so that the
direction of the pucks would be affected in a variety of ways. The players at the sides of
the board could steer the pucks by pushing or pulling at the sides, which were hinged
(Figure 3(a)).
After the designer had pushed a number of pucks towards the holes, between the now
hexible sides, the situation was such that he could explain precisely how he intended to
approach the design commission (Figure 3(b)).
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
75
1
3
5
4
2
Des|gne|
1
3
5
4
2
Ee e e e e
1 2 3 4 5
Ee e e e e
7 8 10
(a) (b)
Figure 3: The third game
Look, he said, now everyone has affected the outcome, but we dont know who had
what effect. We do know however that everyone had to take everyone else into account.
We were all connected by the box, the hexible sides, the pucks and the holes. The
outcome was not known at the outset. No one was able to steer the pucks entirely as
he wanted. If we play the game like this a few times, well get better at it, and be able
to arrange the sides properly, so that we eventually arrive at something that rehects our
group preferences. And we can also arrange to leave open the possibility of pushing the
pucks into certain holes at a later stage.
The client now fully realised what he had embarked upon. He was particularly pleased
with the idea that he could involve people other than professional designers directly in
the process.
3 Decision-based design by means of the combination of sub-solutions
The design situation illustrated above by the Sjoelbak game is known as design by means
of the combination of sub-solutions. This method was developed in the late 1960s and
early 1970s in the framework of what was known at the time as systematic design or
`methodical design'. At that time the basic ideas about and techniques for the rational,
step-by-step combination of sub-solutions into one design were developed. Initially
these ideas and techniques were intended for the individual designer. After they had
been successfully applied in practice by many designers they came to be used by design
teams too, and subsequently in the design processes of entire organisations. At the
time, problems were sometimes encountered by the last two applications. There were
designers who were beginning to see that individually oriented combination techniques
could not simply be applied to design teams and design organisations, especially not
in complex and large-scale projects, such as large buildings, residential areas, cities,
regions and trafhc systems. These projects often ran aground in the combination phase,
due to the impossibility of bringing together the large number of parties involved, all
with their own design goals and design ideas, and of incorporating the ideas into one
whole, one general design. They therefore began to seek combination techniques which
were aimed specihcally at large groups of people designing together and producing
large numbers of sub-solutions.
Systematic design emanated largely from classic conceptions of rational and modern
design. While the systems approach, which originated in the thirties, had a strong
inhuence in this respect, disciplines such as mathematics and logic and helds like
decision theory and management science also helped shape the combination method,
albeit to a lesser degree.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
76
ne c|oss|c
ccncep|cn cf oes|gn
ne sysems
opp|cocn
Monemo|cs ono
|cg|c
Dec|s|cn nec|y ono
monogemen sc|ence
Menco|co| oes|gn: ccmc|no|cn cf suc-sc|u|cns
Figure 4: Approaches to methodical design
The classic conception developed in the 1950s when the search for new design
methods was underway. Designers and design theorists had seen that commissions
were becoming more complex and that existing design methods were proving to be
inadequate and unable to cope with this complexity. Personal intuition and experience
were important features of these methods (Foque, 197S p. 9). However, the users of
products, whether these were houses, residential areas or trafhc infrastructures, were
beginning to ask why these products had been designed in a particular way. People
wanted to discuss the effectiveness and the effects of new products before they were
made. The designers personal vision was no longer enough. People wanted a rational
and even a scientihc foundation for design solutions.
At the time the systems approach and cybernetics had a strong inhuence on the
development of the new design methods which were needed. Jones (1970), Foque
(1975) and Tzonis (1982) wrote a great deal about this. A whole school emerged
around what is now known as systematic design. Even today there is interest in these
views and they are widely propagated in the framework of developments in computer-
aided design and the role of information systems in design processes, including those
used for complex design commissions. Designers are slowly beginning to realise that
the computer has created new techniques for which there is no foundation in the
classic conceptions of design. As Mitchell (1990 p. 13) put it: We must embrace the
possibilities of design that have ambiguous and unstable structural descriptions. He
goes on to say that we can no longer use only the stable, universal design rules of the
1950s and 1960s, on which computer-aided design is still often based.
Foque (197S) mentions two aspects in connection with classic systematic design: the
form-function dichotomy and goal orientation. In the 1950s, when new design methods
were being developed, there was a shift from ontological thinking to functional thinking.
It was felt that meanings are not immutable and exclusive entities that reside within
things and can be discovered by the creative force of an exploring subject, but are,
on the contrary, functions within a given context' (Foque, 197S pp. 16-17). Function
must determine form. The design process must begin with an analysis of functions and
then move to a synthesis of appropriate forms (sub-solutions). The systems approach
provided a conceptual framework on the basis of which all manner of systematic and
objective analysis and synthesis techniques could be developed. The integration of
cultural norms and values into design, which had dominated thinking on design until
then, faded into the background. The systems approach placed the goal orientation of
design activities in the foreground. From then on all design considerations and goals
had to be clearly and logically dehned. However, this requirement was never properly
put into effect.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
77
4 A general phase model for the combination of sub-solutions
The literature contains many general phase models for the division of the design
process based on the method of combining sub-solutions. Roozenburg and Eekels
(1991 pp. 92-96) provide an overview of these models in the held of product design.
Jones (1970) and Hamel (1990) do the same for architectural design. McLoughlin
(1969), Chadwick (1971) and Faludi (1973) provide overviews for the held of urban and
regional planning.
Roozenburg's and Eekels' (1991 p. 96) conclusion, with respect to their held of expertise,
would concur that these models all have the same structure, which is simply presented
in a different manner in each case. Figure 5 shows this structure in a form which is
suitable for our purposes.
This general phase model shows that the cycle of formulating and combining sub-
solutions (the divergence-convergence cycle) may take place many times during a
design process. In Figure 5 it takes place twice: from the outset, up to and including
the possible solution, and from then until the hnal solution.
Figure 5: The general phase model of the combination process
The general model does not show who determines the division of the search space and
the direction of the search pathway. This would require the expansion of the model to
include its decision-making environment.
IDE+A Case Study Analysis, IDE+A Workgroup TU Delft (2008), p. 11:
Interview with Fons Verheijen and Krijn Tabbers
Fons did not have time to do the whole interview. Therefore he contacted
Krijn, who worked on the project daily, to do the interview. Before the
interview Fons did have time to give us his view of the differences between
architecture and industrial design in the approaches to design. He is a
teacher at TU Delfts Faculty of Architecture but has also tutored to a few
students in Industrial Design.
- There is a big scale difference. The scale is much bigger in
architecture.
- !ndustrial Design requires much more training in protocols: this is
how you do it (hrst analysis, then you make a matrix with pros
and cons, and then you have your answer)
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
78
- Architecture puts less focus on analysis but it is still needed in
order to hll the mind with data
- The design process in architecture is much more intuitive
- Along the way you slowly discover the rules for the design,
rules you have to obey, everything can change
- !t is a trial and error process
- Slowly you combine what you, as an architect, want from the
project, what the materials can permit and what the projects
preconditions are. This is what you learn to cope with at the
Faculty of Architecture.
- Architecture uses sketching much earlier in the process.
- !n architecture how the building is made is very important. There
are companies that only do concepts. But according to Fons it
gets really exciting when you need the hgure out how you can
actually make what is in your mind.
Two big differences are:
- Architecture is like a equation with a hundred unknowns, you
have to learn to cope with this.
- How to cope with doubt:
- Be a daredevil
- Be skilful
- !t is important to know what is most important at any given
moment in time
- For this, intuition and experience is needed.
(In architecture this is much more necessary than in
industrial design)
- Therefore, it is very important to work with intuition instead of
with protocols.
- Architects have secret clients, in addition to the client who hired
them. These secret clients are society and the general well-being.
Unasked, architects take all of society into account, and this can
inhuence the design. Luckily, architecture is an old profession and
this is accepted. !n industrial design you have to hght a lot more
if you want to do something different.
5 Decision making in the combination process
Decision making in a design process that is based on the combination of sub-solutions
will be geared mainly to determining and restricting the number of sub-solutions and
combinations of sub-solutions. After all, this largely determines the progress and duration
of a combination process. The more sub-solutions there are, the more combinations
will be possible. Many combinations means that many evaluations and choices have to
be made. The number can be limited on the basis of the methods that the designers
themselves use to ensure that their combination process has a workable structure,
both for themselves and for each other. These methods provide a number of bases for
managing the process: the order of the combination process; the allocation of tasks
and decisions; the structure of the search space; and the laying out of the search path
and the combination strategy.
As described above, the combination process begins with a number of parallel individual
combination processes, in which the designers draw up their own plans and make
their own syntheses. This will present few decision-making problems, irrespective of
how these individual processes are carried out. At the outset, each designer has the
opportunity to work independently of the others, in terms of both content and method.
But thereafter, the process can become difhcult. Once he has made his own alternative
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
79
plans, each designer will want to know what the others alternatives are, in order to
select those of his own plans that give him the best chance of achieving his own goals,
in combination with the plans of the others. A plan that might in the hrst instance
function well in terms of the designers own goals could, in combination with the others
plans, create an overall situation in which these goals are achieved only partially, if at
all.
In practice, people will often hold a brainstorming session at this point, at which everyone
puts ideas forward freely and, in so doing, gains an idea of all the proposals. It is
assumed that the participants will have this freedom. If not, a decision-making problem
that is typical of the combination process will arise: each designer will wait for the
others to reveal their ideas before he is prepared to reveal his. In such a situation, one
designer or group of designers will probably take the initiative and propose an overall
plan which will include their own sub-solutions, and those that the other designers
were supposed to have produced, in an attempt to gain a lead on the others. The
party taking the initiative will formulate an overall plan that is favourable for them,
but which includes elements that actually belong to the decision area of others. If, at
such a moment, there is still confusion as to the allocation of the decision areas, the
process can run aground. Everyone talks about and decides on everything. If certain
parts of the plan drawn up by the break-away party taking the initiative seem to be
unfavourable or even incorrect to a designer who has knowledge of that particular held,
there will be little he can do about it. In such a situation, the designer has been known
to call on his own organisation or department to block the implementation of the plan
(on a hierarchic basis).
The rules that must be applied to ensure that the combination process runs smoothly
are similar to the rules of a game. In a game, the rules (the combination rules) are
hxed and each player has his own pieces (the resources). He can decide how to use
them, within the rules of the game. These are the two prerequisites for the game. With
resources of their own, but no rules, it is impossible for the players to devise a strategy.
With rules but no resources of their own, each player can use any resources.
For design in general, rules and individual resources are even more important than in
a game because there is feedback during the design process. A series of moves might
be stopped and reversed, if the outcome is wrong. The `design game' is not hrst played
to the end, but is partially repeated along the way. But which moves may be reversed,
which sub-solutions must be withdrawn, and who may decide?
We may conclude from the above that it is possible to control the combination process
only if we know in advance what each designers decision area is, and what the
combination rules are.
This does not preclude everyone proposing sub-solutions on any aspect, but certain
individuals are authorised to decide whether sub-solutions for certain aspects may be
included in the solution. !t is quite possible that changes might occur during the process,
shifts in decision areas and changes to the combination rules. These will be subjected
to negotiation and decision making.
6 Management of the combination process
Management can be described on the basis of its two main components, coordination
and control. Coordination is the linking of the activities and decisions of different
individuals. This allows a particular piece of work to be carried out as a complete entity.
Coordination is normally based on the allocation of responsibilities within the work
process; control is steering the process in the desired direction. This mainly entails
correcting any mistakes.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
80
Generally speaking, a process will have been managed properly only if the results are
consistent with the values and characteristics determined beforehand. Management
ensures that the process is steered towards those results. Representing this as a simple
control model, we can say that the management body determines the interventions that
are necessary to the process and its support to obtain an output with those particular
values and characteristics. This is represented in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Management of a process (after In t Veld, 1989 p. 47)
Since, at the outset, the outcome of the design process is at best vague, management
of this process will focus mainly on clarifying the outcome (= design, hnal decision) step
by step. Moreover, since it is not entirely known at the outset how the design process
will be structured, management will also have to focus on setting it up and altering it
during the process: changes in the phasing, reallocation of the tasks that have to be
performed, links between the phases, etc.
The design literature, and particularly the literature on decision theory, mentions a
number of ways of achieving an effective structure for the design-decision process
and a good design-decision result. I shall simply set out the general framework for the
structuring of the design-decision process, using the model Herbert Simon has devised
for a decision-making process (in: Davis and Olsen, 1985 p. 199). His model is simple
and, partly as a result of its simplicity, has become very well known. According to this
model, a decision-making process can be structured around three process phases (Figure
7): intelligence, the phase during which problems and possibilities are investigated;
design, the phase during which problems and possibilities are analysed, and feasible
solutions are generated; and choice, the phase during which options are selected from
the various possibilities, and the chosen option is put forward for implementation.
Figure 7: Process phases in a decision-making process (after H.Simon)
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
81
Each phase can be further divided, using the principle of phased decision-making
(Wijnen et al., 1993 p. 13). In other words, the process in each phase can be divided
into a number of logical parts, and there will be a moment of decision between activities
(see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Phased decision-making (Wijnen et al., 1988 p. 13)
If phased decision-making is incorporated into Simons decision-making model, the
result is as depicted in Figure 9. The diagram now includes intelligence activities and
decisions, design activities and decisions, and choice activities and decisions.
Figure 9: Decision-making process with phased decision making
7 A case study: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam
Two important elements of architectural design are the quantities of various architectural
resources that are applied (rooms, corridors, ofhces, entrance hall, etc.), and the location
of those resources in architectural space. Traditionally this was the architects problem
to solve; in modern practice the owner/principal as well as a whole range of technical
experts and organisations (e.g. the hre department) inhuence these allocations.
Increasingly, the prospective users themselves (as distinct from management or
developers) also demand and receive a voice in these negotiations. This has led to
a dramatic increase in the complexity of design processes, in which the design object
can sometimes be forgotten.
We will describe a design tool drawing from the helds of architecture, urban planning,
building design management, operations research, and measurement theory. It enables
a number of stakeholders from different disciplines to optimise and steer the design
together, each from their own perspective, by indicating preferences and restrictions on
function-location combinations, in an iterative search for a better design.
This new tool, the Architectural Design/Decision Room, builds on an earlier tool which
was successfully used in the design negotiations around the renovation and expansion of
one of Amsterdams major museums, the Stedelijk Museum. The Architectural Design/
Decision Room also shares many ideas and technologies with the Urban Decision Room,
a related tool which has recently shown great efhcacy in complex urban restructuring
questions.
The hnal section goes into ways of measuring stakeholders' preferences, and covers
a number of limitations faced by any preference-based system due to the nature of
preference and the current state of knowledge of measurement theory on this issue.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
82
7.1 Project history
The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, or SMA, houses the citys contemporary art
collection. Its main building is located on the Museumplein, a large public area in and
around which other museums such as the Rijksmuseum and the Concertgebouw are
also located (Figure 10(a)). The original SMA building was designed in 1895 by A.W.
Weissman. In the 1950s and 60s, its capacity was expanded with a number of annexes
and intermediate hoors. Half a century later, the amount of space required for a modern
museum has again outgrown that which was available at the SMA. There was need for
a large-scale renovation of the existing building, and the construction of a signihcant
extension behind the current building, which would also house a new main entrance.
The Portuguese architect Alvaro Siza Vieira made initial plans for both the renovation
and the expansion. These were used to write a preliminary bill of requirements, which
was approved by the municipality along with a budget. At this point a number of
architects in succession were asked to develop more detailed plans. Each ran aground
on conhicting ideas between the municipality and the museum staff. Additionally,
the latter group felt left out and ignored in the decision-making process. The project
management consultancy hrm PKB was then asked to rehne the bill of requirements. !n
order to address this question to the satisfaction of both the staff and the municipality,
PKB used a set of computer models developed in conjunction with TU Delft. These
models will be described in the following sections.
!n July 200+, hve architects were invited to develop sketch designs based on the hnalised
bill of requirements. The design by Benthem Crouwel Architecten was selected, and
construction began in 2006 (Figure 10(b)).
Figure 10: (a) Exterior view of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam;
(b) Artists impression of the new expansion, currently under construction.
7.2 Description of original single-input tool
The tool used by PKB in the development of the SNA bill of requirements consisted
of two connected computer models: one numerical, one geometrical. The numerical
model contained bandwidths for the amount of area required by the various functions,
and the budgetary restrictions imposed by the municipality. The geometrical model
contained the areas of spaces available in the main SMA building and a depot at another
location (geometrical restrictions), and dehned a hexibly sized space representing the
yet-to-be-designed extension.
Into the geometrical model, the PKB consultant entered the museum staffs preferences
on which functions were allowed to be allocated to which spaces: they could express
the htness of each particular room for use for every function, using Boolean values. For
instance, not all rooms were ht to be used for exhibitions (Barendse et al., 2006).
Combining the functions, spaces, and permitted allocations between the two, the
numerical model could generate an optimal allocation of functions to spaces. This was
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
83
output back to the geometrical model, by colour-coding the different spaces according
to their allocated function, so that the SMA staff could view the results. In other words,
the numerical results became graphical (Figure 11). Rehecting on these outcomes gave
rise to changed preferences for permitted allocations, which could be applied to the
next run of the models. !n this iterative way the staff could rehne their preferences until
they were satished with the proposed layout.
A detailed mathematical description of this numerical model was given in an earlier
paper (Van Loon et al., 2006). In brief, for allocable functions f, available spaces s,
allocation preferences p, and resulting allocations a, with the indices i, j identifying the
individual functions and spaces respectively, the function of the numerical model can
be given as:
given all f
i
, s
j
, p
ij
, maximise (1)
Figure 11: Visualisation of functions allocated to spaces in the original SMA tool.
(a) All hoors; (b) Close-up showing available area and allocation preferences per room.
7.3 Description of multi-stakeholder tool
A disadvantage of the tool used by PKB as described above is that it has only a single
set of preference inputs. In other words, all the various stakeholders involved in a
decision must agree on the allowed allocations to be entered into a model for a given
allocation run (Figure 12(a)). In the discussion round following the presentation of
the allocation, the participants rehect on the outcomes, and adjust their preferences.
As a consequence of the single-input nature of the tool, in the discussion round the
participants must also negotiate on the next set of preferences to be used (Figure
12(b)). Besides taking up valuable time, the distinction between the rehection and the
negotiation becomes clouded.
Figure 12: (a) A single set of preferences are used for all stakeholders; (b) The discussion
round consists of negotiations on the next set of preferences to run as well as rehection on the
results.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
84
There is a second reason why a single-input tool is less desirable than it could be. An
important factor in structuring a decision-making process following the open approach
described in earlier sections is the issue of the ownership of constraints throughout the
whole process. A decision-support model must accept individual constraints from all the
parties involved, and maintain the independence of those constraints. In the context of
an allocation model such as the one we are dealing with here, the various stakeholders
must be able to enter their own preferences for each of the possible function-space
combinations independently of the others (Figure 13).
Figure 13: (a) An independent set of preferences is used for each stakeholder;
(b) The discussion round consists only of rehection on the results.
The ability to accept multiple sets of preference inputs can be added to the model
described by equation (1) quite easily, subject to one assumption being true. The model
can be extended by adding a set of users to the input variables, which then allows the
function-to-space preference to receive an additional index k representing the user
whose preference it is. Ultimately, of course, the numerical model must optimise to
some aggregate or combined resulting form of these multiple preference sets; the
single preference set which describes this form can simply be substituted into equation
(1), which then functions as before.
For functions f, spaces s, users u, preferences p, and allocations a, the function of the
numerical model can be given as:
given all f
i
, s
j
, u
k
, p
ijk
, preference gives p
ij
(2)
then given all f
i
, s
j
, p
ij
, maximise a
ij
(1)
The intriguing question raised by equation (2) is of course the nature of the preference
operation. The hnding of a valid mathematical form for this operation is the necessary
assumption mentioned above. Unfortunately this is not a trivial question, and the issue
of preference values and operations involving preference will be looked at further in
section 9.
i j
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
85
Figure 14: Visualisation of functions allocated to spaces in the new tool.
8 The measurement and addition of stakeholder preferences
In models where there is only a single set of preference inputs, or where the various
stakeholders have unique constraint areas (which is often the case in urban planning
models), there is no need for any form of preference addition, as the constraints can
be applied independently. As soon as more than one stakeholder is able to express a
preference regarding the same thing here the allocation of a particular function to a
particular space these distinct preferences clearly have to be combined, somehow, at
some point, for the model to hnd a group solution. Depending on the type of preference,
this can be necessary in the constraints of the model or in the construction of the
objective function.
8.1 Boolean and tri-valued veto preferences
In the models we have constructed to date, the stakeholders preferences have been
implemented in a very limited way, namely as Boolean values allowing or disallowing
a particular function to be allocated to a particular space. The number 1 or TRUE
means that a function may be allocated, the number 0 or FALSE means that it may not.
These preferences effectively act as veto criteria, and as such are part of the model
constraints. They can be implemented as follows:
ij: a
ij
< s
J
x p
ij
(3)
Expressed in words: the area of function i allocated to space j must be less than the
area of space j multiplied by either 0 or 1, i.e. either less than 0 or less than the area
of space j.
If Boolean preferences are to be combined, there are two simple implementations:
a) each constraint is treated independently, so that every stakeholder must assign
TRUE for a function to be allocable; b) all constraints are evaluated, and if any one
stakeholder assigns TRUE, the resulting value is also TRUE. There are more complex
forms imaginable, for instance requiring a majority (0+1+0 0; 0 1 1 1).
For completeness, it is of course also possible to implement a Boolean veto preference
as may/must instead of may not/may. This is not often used, however. Alternatively,
one can easily extend the Boolean veto system to a tri-valued system, may not/may/
must. This has been implemented in a limited way in our urban planning models, with
the session leader being able to hx functions in the model with group approval. Where
preference combination is required, however, more questions are raised: do may not
and must cancel each other out? Or does one have priority over the other? Does a
particular stakeholder overrule the others?
We will now introduce an alternative extensible notation for preference values, which is
j
ij
a
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
A
86
also usable for tri-valued or higher systems. Its nomenclature is based on the meaning of
the preference rather than the accident of the corresponding method of implementation,
as with the Boolean notation above. After the terms used in the previous paragraph, the
negative veto preference will be labelled N for may not; the positive veto preference
will be labelled M for must; the neutral may or allowed preference will be labelled 0
(zero).
Using the new preference notation we can construct a combination table for two
stakeholders using a tri-valued veto system {N, 0, M} (Table 1). May not and must
both overrule may, being veto criteria; may not must yields a conhict (C). This
sounds like a problem, but is in fact quite acceptable within the broader approach:
an apparent conhict between the views of two stakeholders has been revealed, which
needs to be discussed prior to the next run. Either the problem is truly intractable,
in which case infeasible is the correct outcome; or one or both stakeholders can be
provided with an alternative solution elsewhere, relaxing the conhicting constraint; or
the organisational or contractual arrangements are such that one party can overrule the
others, transparently within the process. These rules hold when the system is expanded
for three or more stakeholders.
N O M
M
O
N
C M M
N O
N
Table 1: Combination table for {N, 0, M} (tri-valued veto system) and two stakeholders.
These rules can be expanded for an arbitrary number of stakeholders.
8.2 Multi-valued relative preferences
Participants in workshops using these models often hnd that the Boolean or tri-valued
veto approach described above is too restrictive to express their preferences as they
would wish. They want to be able to indicate relative values: I dont particularly mind
allocation x, but I would much prefer allocation y. I dont really like allocation z, but can
live with it if its absolutely necessary. An important change needs to be made to the
numerical model to support this. The model must no longer simply maximise the total
allocated area, but the objective function must maximise the stakeholders preferences
for the allocated areas.
An individual stakeholder can express relative preferences on an ordinal scale. An
approach such as the hve-valued relative preference set {--, -, 0, +, ++) often seen
in marketing surveys comes to mind, or grading on a scale of one to ten. However,
due to the ordinal nature of these scales, there is no information on how much better
++ is than +, or 8 than 6; only that it is `better'. Consequently it is not possible to
perform further comparative mathematical operations on these preferences, and they
are unable to be used as a measure for optimisation. (Strictly speaking, mathematical
operations can be performed; it is just that the outcomes are formally undehned and
hence meaningless.)
Preferences expressed on an interval scale can be worked with. In urban planning
models where a rent-based bidding system is used as part of the allocation (maximising
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
87
return), we have observed participants use different rent values as a mechanism to
introduce relative preferences implicitly. This can be implemented in the objective
function as follows:
given all f
i
, s
j
, p
ij
, maximise a
ij
x p
ij
(4)
It should be noted that preference itself cannot be measured on an interval scale
(Barzilai, 2005). There is no unit of preference, nor an absolute zero of preference
with respect to which a unit could be dehned. !n the urban planning example above,
the participants used a separate scale measured in rent-euros to approximate their
preferences. Though they are using the same scale, each participants mapping of
preferences to euros is different, and it is not possible to determine how far the resulting
group optimum deviates from the true group optimum.
Preferences for three or more alternatives can be expressed on a relative, proportional
scale. In recent years there has been considerable debate on preference in the
held of measurement theory, and for these models it is not immediately apparent
how to implement either the measurement of the preferences or their subsequent
implementation in the objective function. Research is ongoing in both these areas.
8.3 Implementing a limited veto and relative preference system
The {N, 0, M} veto system described in section 9.1 can be extended to include a
two-valued relative system, allowing the implementation of a limited mixed system
{N, 0, 1, M}. While 0 still represents may or allowed, 1 (one) represents preferred.
Clearly this is a purely ordinal scale, with all the limitations that entails. Nonetheless,
due to the nature of zero and one, the problem of measuring the difference between
the two categories disappears: only the area allocated in the category preferred, 1, is
counted. The problem of different participants different interpretations of the verbal
label preferred still remains; the participants need to be very aware of this if they opt
to try this system.
Expanding the combination table in Table 1 for {N, 0, 1, N) reveals another consequence
of these ordinal categories: preferred preferred what? !t may be tempting to
say that the relevant allocation is twice as preferred and so should have a value of
two, but in ordinal categories this is meaningless, and any non-veto operation involving
preferred maps back to preferred (Table 2). These rules are again extensible to three
or more stakeholders.
N 0 1
M
1
0
N
C M M
N 1 ?
N 0
N
M
M
N 0 1
M
1
0
N
C M M
N 1 1
N 0
N
M
M
Table 2: Combination table for {N, 0, 1, M} and two stakeholders.
(a) The problem of 1 1 ? (b) 1 anything (except veto values) always maps back to 1.
i j
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
88
9 Conclusion
The use of both numerical and geometrical models greatly reduced the time it normally
takes to develop a bill of requirements for such a complex project. The open process
made the staff of the Stedelijk Museum feel their wishes were taken seriously and
not swept under the carpet. In contrast to traditional approaches, PKB could provide
conhdence that the bill of requirements would satisfy both the budgetary restrictions
imposed by the municipality and the geometrical restrictions imposed by the existing
buildings. In the traditional approach some rules of thumb would be used to establish
whether the bill of requirements would meet both budgetary and geometrical restrictions,
which often give rise to unpleasant surprises later on in terms of overruns in time and
money.
The design process for construction projects has become increasingly complex in recent
decades, as more and more parties inhuence the decision-making process in diverse
ways. Ideas from management theory and operations research, and mathematical
models which make these ideas operational, can aid in bringing the design process to
a successful conclusion. This paper has shown how a preference-based single-input
tool which has already proven itself in this held can be extended to support multi-
stakeholder use directly. This new tool is currently being developed, using the SMA case
as experimental subject.
It has been observed that stakeholders wish to extend the range within which they can
express their preferences. However, a number of strict and severe limitations on the
ability to measure preferences for this purpose have been shown, stemming from the
current state of knowledge in measurement theory.
References
Barendse, P., Binnekamp, R., Graaf, R.P. de, (2006), Integrating linear
programming optimisation and geometric modelling, in: Aouad, G., et
al. (eds.), 3rd International SCRI Symposium, proceedings, University
of Salford, Manchester, pp. 295-304.
Barzilai, J., (2005), Measurement and Preference Function Modelling, Int.
Trans. in Operational Res., Vol. 12, pp. 173-183.
Binnekamp, R., Gunsteren, L.A. van, Loon, P.P. van, (2006), Open Design, a
Stakeholder-oriented Approach in Architecture, Urban Planning,
and Project Management, Research in Design Series, Vol. 1, IOS
Press, Amsterdam.
Chadwick, G., (1971), A Systems View of Planning, towards a Theory of the
Urban and Regional Planning Process, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Chen, W., Lewis, K.E., Schmidt, L.C., (2006), The Open Workshop on Decision
Based Design, in: Lewis, K.E., Chen, W., Schmidt, L.C., Decision
Making in Engineering Design, ASME Press, New York.
Davis, G. B., and Olson, M. H., (1985), Management Information Systems,
McGraw-Hill Books, New York.
Durham, D.R., (2006), The Need for Design Theory Research, in: Lewis, K.E.,
Chen, W., Schmidt, L.C., Decision Making in Engineering Design, ASME
Press, New York.
Faludi, A., (1973), Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford.
Foque, R., (197S), Ontwerpsystemen, een !nleiding tot de Ontwerptheorie,
Spectrum, Utrecht.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
89
Hamel, R., (1990), Over het Denken van de Architect, een Cognitief
Psychologische Beschrijving van het Ontwerpproces bij Architecten,
AHA Books, Amsterdam.
Jones, J. C., (1970), Design Methods, J. Wiley, London.
Loon, P.P. van, Burger, J., Graaf, R.P. de, (2006), Optimum architectural group
design as rehection in action', in: F. Scheublin et al. (eds.), Adaptables
06; proceedings of the joint CIB, Tensinet, IASS international
conference on adaptability in design and construction, Eindhoven
University of Technology, Eindhoven, pp. 12-103-12-107.
McLoughlin, J. B., (1969), Urban and Regional Planning, a Systems Approach,
Faber, London.
Mitchell, W. J., (1990), The Logic of Architecture, Design, Computation and
Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Newsome, S.L., Spillers, W.R., Finger, S., (eds.), (1989), Design Theory 88,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., and Eekels, J., (1991), Produktontwerpen, Structuur en
Methoden, Uitgever Lemma, Utrecht.
Tzonis, A., (1982), Het Architectonisch Denken, Socialistische Uitgeverij,
Nijmegen.
Veld, J. i. t., (1988), Analyse van Organisatie Problemen, een Toepassing van
Denken in Systemen en Processen, Stenfert Kroese, Leiden.
Wijnen, G., Renes, W., and Storm, P., (1993), Projectmatig Werken, Spectrum,
Utrecht.
A decision-based design approach - P.P. van Loon, R. Binnekamp and J. Burger
IDE+A
Design Processes - Wim Poelman and David Keyson (Eds.)
IOS Press, 2008 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
Technology Diffusion and Design
91
7 The metabolism of knowledge
Dr. ir. W.A. Poelman
Associate Professor Product Development
Faculty of Architecture
Delft University of Technology
Introduction
Discussing the subject of Technology Diffusion and Design can take place on different
levels. The hrst level is the role that design plays in technology diffusion on the macro-
level and the responsibility connected to society. The second level is the role design
plays on the micro-level in the context of design processes.
Of course the emphasis will lie in this paper on the second level, but in the context of
the subtitle, some attention will be paid to the macro-level.
Referring to this subtitle of the conference Life is a theater, a conclusion in the
introduction reads: Nowadays, the script of life is for a large part written by architects
and designers. Urban planning prescribes how we spread our activities geographical. The
design of modern residential districts determine for a large part how we communicate
with each other. The design of shopping centers determine how we acquire our
foodstuffs. Designers of means for transport decide how we move ourselves and kitchen
designers decide how we cook.
Of course these conclusions are too easy. We cannot just claim that the designers
of television sets and programs decide for us that we spend our evenings before the
television set and not around the table playing family games. However, we cannot deny
an immense inhuence of this developments on the behavior of people.
Research on this phenomenon, carried out as Constructive Technology Assessment is
in the hrst place a task for sociologists and psychologists, but it is welcome if architects
and designers participate actively in this discussion, and of course they do already.
Important in the introduction of new technology applications is the phenomenon: what
is may become ought. Let us discuss some examples.
Twenty years ago we would not even think about listening to music in trains with a
headphone and a portable audio device. However, it was already possible. In museums
you could hire such devices years ago for guiding purposes. The headphone culture
started however when Sony introduced the existing functionality in a new coat for the
purpose of listening to music in public spaces. After that it became part of the script of
life. If Sony says so you can do it.
The same thing happened with MacDonalds Drive Inns. It was not ought to eat in a
car and for many people it still isnt. However, when a brand as McDonald suggests that
it is acceptable, many people will accept a visit to a Drive Inn as an alternative for the
script of having lunch, which used to be a social event.
Coming back to television and the design of residential districts. Could you blame
designers of television sets and programs that the behavior of people has changed?
Could you blame the designers of the Bijlmer for social problems originating from
architecture? Of course some designers feel embarrassed by the inhuence they have,
but they have to keep in mind that they play a minor role in a process on a higher level
92 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
which acts like a train which is not easy to control.
New technology becomes available in a spectacular tempo as a result of research
activities and designers are always eager to hnd applications of that technologies in
products, either driven by their own ambition or by the ambition of clients who want to
earn money or score in another sense with innovative products such as buildings.
Probably this mechanism determines our future more than a mechanism in which
values of life are the starting point for concrete wishes which are translated in products
fulhlling these wishes.
Many writers have thought about the destination of this train and it could be heaven or
it could be hell. Aldous Huxley wrote his book Brave New World in 1932 and every part
of it is subject of discussion nowadays: mood drugs, biotechnology, consumer-society,
birth control, etcetera. (see www.huxley.net)
Figure 1: Cover of Brave New World Figure 2: Cover of Nineteen Eighty Four
The story is the same with James Orwells Nineteen eighty four: technology enables
new scripts of life and how will these scripts evolve?
In brave new world the necessary technological means to keep people happy are
all applied, effectively leading to a society which we would not want. The same we
see in the Natrix, the hlm released in 1999 by Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and
Warner Brothers, and claimed by Sophia Steward to be based on her book The Third
Eye, copywrited in 1981. Also the famous Ninority Report, a 2002 science hction hlm
directed by Steven Spielberg, loosely based on the Philip K. Dick short story of the
same name, hts in this range of attempts to describe a scenario which might result
from technological developments. Of course there are many other examples like 2001
Space Odyssey of Stanley Kubrick (1968), Alphaville of Jean Luc Godard and ExistenZ
of David Kronenburg.
93 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Figure 3 Poster of The matrix
How far are we with the evolvement of these scripts? Are we the frogs in the kettle
which is slowly warming up, keeping us inside? What inhuences have designers on
these scripts? !s there a concept of life on which architects and industrial designers
base their work? Do designers have a controlling task in the application process of new
technology or are designers just prostituting themselves for industry as professor Jan
Jacobs, former director education of the School for Industrial Design Engineering of
Delft University of Technology claimed once supposed during a conference.
Within the disciplines of industrial design engineering and architecture there is a lot of
organized discussion about their societal role. However, there is not enough discussion
about the way they are embedded in the overall process of technology development and
application. This is necessary in order to position them selves. With respect to rehection
on their position in society, architects can build on a long history, industrial designers
can not. Architects are consulted regarding social issues, industrial designers hardly.
However they could fulhll an important role in the process of scenario development in
general from their ability to imagine a non existing future. Design is nothing else than
creating a non existing future. A world in which a certain product does not exist is per
dehnition different from a world in which it exists. This fact represents an important
constraint in market investigation.
visualizing future worlds is now mainly done by science hction artists, but professional
industrial designers are not often employed for this purpose. Of course there are
examples like an industrial design agency which received an assignment to visualize
possible means for military defense in the future. However, many design engineers see
it as a risky affair. When Leonardo da Vinci would have worked at Delft University now,
probably he would be scientihcally shot down. !t is not ought nowadays to design things
that are not possible to produce yet.
1 Technology diffusion and design processes
What is the relationship between knowledge diffusion and design? All of the designers
who were interviewed in the eight cases acknowledged the matter of knowledge
diffusion, but they did not discuss what knowledge diffusion involves. The designers
apparently regarded technology diffusion itself as innovation, through the application
of technology from third parties. We should nevertheless take a more fundamental look
at the phenomenon of knowledge diffusion and design, and doing so requires sound
dehnitions of the concepts that are used. !n the context of this paper, knowledge is
94 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
dehned as the ability to apply information and resources to achieve a dehned goal".
Diffusion is dehned as the implementation of new or existing knowledge within new
helds of application". Design is limited to industrial and architectural design.
1.1 The cases
The cases provide several examples of the various characters of knowledge diffusion.
We consider each one separately.
The Westraven building by CePeZed provides an example of the diffusion of technology
from technical-textiles applications to facades. In addition, it involves the diffusion of
inhatable pillows from dome constructions to hat facades.
Figure 4: Westraven
The A230 chair by Ahrend apparently involves no direct
example of technology diffusion, although the development of the hinges seems to be
quite new. Bas Pruijser works as a designer for both a manufacturer of ofhce furniture
(e.g. Ahrend) and a manufacturer of garbage-management devices (e.g. Bammens).
He inevitably transfers technological knowledge from one application to the other.
Figure 5: A230 Chair
The image-and-sound (in Dutch, beeld en geluid) building by Neutelings-Riedijk offers a
clear example of technology diffusion between branches. They collaborated closely with
95 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Jaap Drupsteen, a graphical and media designer. In addition to technology borrowed
from the held of graphic arts, quality standards were transferred to the glass facade to
realise this remarkable building.
Figure 6: Beeld en Geluid gebouw
The BeerTender by NN!D is a hne example of a special kind of knowledge transfer, namely
from the professional market to the consumer market. This type of knowledge transfer
occurs on a regular basis. Examples include do-it-yourself tools, kitchen devices and
audio devices. Direct translations are seldom possible, however, because of the fact that
business structures differ. In the example of the BeerTender, professional maintenance
services cannot be utilised and ergonomics must be adapted to inexperienced beer
drafters. One of the most important differences is that the time span until a container is
empty is longer in the consumer market then in the professional market. This required
the development of a new system.
Figure 7: Beertender container
The 1-2-3 House by Martini is an interesting example of a different situation. This
case illustrates a match between knowledge about prefabricated buildings (from the
concrete industry) and industrial manufacturing systems.
96 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Figure 8: 123 huis 1
In this case, concrete, integrated building elements are handled in the same way as
objects in the car industry are handled. Building elements are manipulated by robots
for logistic purposes and ergonomic comfort.
One interesting aspect is that magnets are applied to keep cables and other inserts in
position during the moulding process. The integration of functions allows the use of
high-quality materials. This case reveals an important difference between the building
industry and other industries. Transport costs limit the geographical expansion, and
thus the room for investment, of products like the 1-2-3 House.
Figure 9: 123 huis 2
The next case involves Carver, which can be regarded as a clear example of knowledge
diffusion between pure, advanced mechanical engineering and industrial design.
The product is based upon the invention of a hydraulic canting mechanism, which
enables stability of narrow vehicles. The application of the system, however, inevitably
leads to both a striking driving experience and a striking visual appearance. In fact, a
new archetype of a vehicle is created which resembles a cross between a motorcycle
and a small car. The success of the design is a result of the collaboration between the
engineering company (Carver Europe) and the design company (Spark Engineering).
97 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Figure 10: Carver
The building in which this conference is taking place the Industrial Design Engineering
Building, designed by Fons Verheyen is an example of a project in which cooperation
between architects and industrial designers might be expected. In reference to a new
technology, Verheyen mentions that the fencing is done without balusters. Although
this is an obvious example of technology diffusion, it can also demonstrate the diffusion
of modern building technology to a project aimed at giving an existing building a
complete new function.
This kind of design, which is especially important in architecture, could be specihed as
Supply Driven Design (SDD), which proceeds from existing artefacts. Although we
cannot go into depth about this relatively new, sustainable type of design activity, we
can conclude that more creativity is needed to design something within the limitations of
an existing artefact than is needed to design something completely new. In this regard,
industrial designers could learn from architects, who do this on a regular basis.
Figure 11: IDE building
The last project to discuss is the inhatable care bed, which combines several technologies
from different applications in one product. The reason for this combination is open to
speculation. One option is that it was due to a different approach to the design process,
which proceeded from the design of goals instead of from the design of means. The
98 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
bed was not designed as a synchronous product but as a diachronic script. The physical
product was simply a way to enable that script. Because traditional care beds did not
ht into that script, it was necessary to design a completely new product. !n this project,
the product was not based upon available technology; the technology was selected to
meet the design goals. It was therefore necessary to look outside the technologies that
have traditionally been used in care beds. Because this diffused technology was not
developed for this goal, it was necessary to invest considerable effort in making this
technology appropriate.
Figure 12: Care bed
With these projects in mind, the following section discusses a new paradigm on design
and technology diffusion.
2 Design as information processing
The new paradigm can be dehned as follows: `!n principle, design is information
processing. The design process can be regarded as a black box, in which information
goes in and information comes out.
Black box
design
process
information about
user needs,
technological
possibilities,
etcetera.
information for
marketing and
manufacturing
Figure 13: Design process as a black box
How should we consider physical presentation models and technical prototypes?
Should they also be considered information outputs? Absolutely! Nodels, prototypes
and drawings are simply information carriers or media. It has been said that products
are not the result of the design process, but of the production process. Within the black
box, all manner of explicable and inexplicable event take place. In this paper, we do not
focus on the design processes that take place in the black box. We concentrate instead
on the aspect of information processing.
99 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Our concentration on information processing requires a dehnition of a product (which
could also be a building). As claimed by Kotler (2002), A physical product is just a
means to create functions
1
. People do not need the physical product; they need the
functions that products enable. The physical aspects are generally a necessary evil. The
physical aspects occupy space, need maintenance and pollute our world.
Enabling user functions requires functionalities, most of which continue to require
physical means. This may change over time. Consider the `roll of hlm', which has
disappeared as a physical means for storing and transporting pictures. Consider also
communication cables, which have largely been replaced by wireless technology.
2.1 Supply of and demand for information
In the context of this paper, we organise design information into two categories: supply
and demand. Starting with the last one, demand information is linked to the design of
goals, which precedes the design of means. In current times, more products (including
buildings) are failing because of defects in the design of goals than because of defects
in the design of mean. Although possibilities continue to expand in a technical sense, it
is not always easy to hnd room in the market for new productfmarket combinations.
functionalities
functionalities
functionalities
functionalities
functionalities
functionalities
functionalities
functionalities
potentialities
potentialities
potentialities
potentialities
potentialities
potentialities
potentialities
potentialities
properties
properties
technology
objective
functions
objective
functions
product to
design
Strategic
product plan
Operational
product plan
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
Figure 14: Product development and the diffusion of technology
In general, goals can be described in terms of objective and subjective functions,
2
each
of which is realised through functionalities. In this context, functionalities should be
interpreted as indivisible functions, such as keeps warm or changes colour. Product
functions can generally be described by arranging a large number of functionalities in a
tree structure. The design of goals can be described using descriptions of functionalities
in predehned contexts.
On the supply side, technology can enable potentialities. Although potentialities can
be dehned as indivisible functions, the fact that the functions themselves have yet to
be dehned requires a new noun, `potentiality'", which refers to the capacity to enable
functionalities. The number of potentialities increases at the speed of technological
1 We assume that Kotler included the realization of emotional values in his concept of
functions
2 We will not elaborate on these concepts in this context. See Poelman 2005.
100 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
development. New and interesting potentialities are discovered every day. Although
examples can be found in nanotechnology or other disciplines, they occur in nature as
well.
We could regard the design process as a process of association between the demand
side (as expressed in functionalities) and the supply side (as expressed in potentialities).
Because it is impossible to make associations with unknown information, we can
conclude that designers should have as many potentialities in their minds as possible.
It is important to note that technical background information is not necessary. In the
design stage, it is important to know only what might be possible. It is not necessary
to know how it is possible. More commonly stated, It is enough to have heard the bell
ring; we can use the internet to hnd the clapper'.
The lack of emphasis on technical explanations is not a matter of which designers and
architects should be ashamed, and most of the good ones are not. Nonetheless, even as
non-professionals in helds of manufacturing, they manage to obtain maximum results
from their suppliers (see the glass facade of Neutelings/Riedijk/Drupsteen). Suppliers
start by saying that something is impossible, as the costs of doing it differently are
sometimes high. Some degree of pressure by the designer is often benehcial to both
parties. This can result in a better product, ensuring that the supplier then has more
to offer.
2.3 Towards a new paradigm for the knowledge-diffusion process
Assuming that designers are able to develop sound designs of goals, and assuming
that they have enough knowledge about potentialities at their disposal, the process
of matching potentialities and functionalities is the key activity for designers. Although
industrial designers should be trained for this task, traditional design methodology
unfortunately does not provide solutions for such training.
The process of associating functionalities and potentialities involves more than simply
a designer sitting and thinking. It is a complex process involving many media, people
and organisations. It cannot be explained by traditional organisation models. Many sub-
processes can be distinguished that usually have nothing to do with the design process
itself.
Analysis of these processes has led to an attempt to use the metaphor of an organism
rather than an organisation to describe the general process. The difference can be
explained as follows. An organisation is created to enable a process and often more than
one process. In contrast, an organism is not created but evolved, and it is dedicated to
dehned tasks.
In nature, even in one-celled creatures, we can observe processes taking place in an
organism that can do nothing other than carry out that specihc process. A process and
an organism can be seen as two sides of the same coin. The process is the diachronic
organisation of activities. The organism is the synchronic, functional organisation that
facilitates the activities (see hgure 1S).
101 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Acting system
(material organisation)
Concerning system
(to be transformed)
Functional organisation
Method
Acting process
Synchronic
Diachronic
Relation between method
and organisation
Action subject
Action object
Figure 15: Relation between method and organization
!t is not sufhcient to state that the design company represents the organism that carries
out the design process. Every interviewee in this preliminary research expressed in their
own words that the situation is much more complex. Many efforts have been made to
describe the external design organisation in traditional schemes (Poelman 2005). In
general, but cover only part of the situation.
Let us analyse the process of knowledge diffusion. Assuming that some kind of organism
is carrying out this process, we considered the possibility of using metaphors from other
domains to describe the organism. This exercise resulted in the knowledge metabolism
model.
Figure 16: Model of knowledge metabolism for development projects
102 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Design
Processes
In this model, a set of mechanisms can be distinguished, which can be projected onto
the eight cases. Before presenting this projection, we must explain the one-celled
organism that represents a design project (not a design company).
Each project has a strategic level (1), a tactical level (2) and an operational level (3).
1. The strategic level represents know-what. It is the planning level, which can be
compared to DNA. When something is wrong with the DNA of the project, it will fail or
lead to an unexpected outcome. Such outcomes are sometimes better than expected.
After all, evolution is partly based upon imperfections in copying genes. Naturalis in
Leiden has probably become more successful because the planning changed from city
centre to the outskirts.
2. The success also emerged from the hexibility of the project team at the tactical or
know-how level (second level). At this level, skills are developed that can be compared
to the proteins in a biological cell. As before, the biological organism represents the
project as a whole and not the design company. Skills represent both the skills within
the design company and those of every involved party. One important skill of the
design company, however, is to involve the right parties. This proved a crucial aspect in
nearly every case. According to Neutelings-Riedijk, We do not have preferred supplier.
Companies involved in creating a building can be compared to a travelling circus. One
moment, they are all there with their knees in the Dutch clay; the next moment, they
are all gone, back to where they came from.
3. The real work of design takes place at the third level: the operational or know-where
level. This level involves hnding the right information and the right people. At the
operational level, output information is produced and packaged in such media as texts,
drawings, models or computer simulations.
The next question concerns the process itself, which is executed within the project
organism. This process is freely derived from research done by Hargadon (1997) in
IDEO, an international design agency. Hargadon discovered that, as soon as knowledge
enters the project, it is processed in several steps: acquisition, generalisation, association,
application and recording. The interpretation in this model is as follows:
Acquisition: the actual transfer of knowledge
Generalisation: the analysis of knowledge and dehnition of
potentialities
Association: the creative process of hnding potentialities to realise
dehned functionalities (through product-function
analysis)
Application: the integration of knowledge in industrial product design
Recording: preparation of information for later use, in which the
identihcation of potentialities plays an important role
Knowledge acquisition is a complex process. This process is easier to understand by
breaking down the process into leads, follow-up and transfer. This breakdown is
borrowed from the discipline of direct marketing. Because it is impossible provide the
whole world with information about a product, it is necessary to hnd leads: indications
that particular prospects might be interested (e.g. they returned a reply card. After
prospects have shown interest in the product, it is necessary to follow up in order to
learn whether they are truly interested. The third phase, the transfer of the order, is of
course the most important.
103 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
The same applies to the process of knowledge acquisition. !t is impossible to involve
all of the information in the world in a given project. Leads (or potentialities) are
necessary. Leads are the capital of a direct marketing hrm, and they are likely to serve
the same function in a design hrm. Designers who are inept in follow-up, however, will
not be successful. Designers should be skilled in motivating suppliers to provide more
information and invest in the project.
In the third step, knowledge transfer, learning and engineering capabilities become
important. While any of the cases could be used to illustrate these steps, let us consider
the media building of Neutelings-Riedijk. One (external) party in the project team was
Jaap Drupsteen, an expert in exploiting the potentialities of new technology. He knew
that glass could be moulded and printed with modern computer-supported techniques.
This lead was followed up with visits to companies who could accomplish this. The
transfer was realised through a difhcult iterative process, in which quality goals of
Drupsteen competed with economic goals of the glass producer. Drupsteen is skilled
in translating potentialities (the tricks that we know) into visually spectacular effects.
With respect to recording, according to Neutelings-Riedijk, all knowledge is common
knowledge in architecture.
As mentioned above, having leads is an important selection criterion for knowledge
acquisition. Other mechanisms play a role as well, however, and we refer to them as
constraints. Constraints operate in both positive and negative ways. One negative
function is that they can prevent useful knowledge from coming through. A positive
effect of constraints is that they can serve a pre-selection function. Knowledge that
triggers no interest will not be processed and will thus be prevented from entering.
For the sake of clarity, the various kinds of constraints are not shown in the hgure. As
a former CEO of a chemical company, Prof. Johannes Eekels advised using piping as a
metaphor for dehning the following series of constraints:
Valve: A valve is a mechanism that prohibits knowledge from howing into or out of
the project, as with an embargo on speaking with certain companies. Such valves can
also be identihed in the eight projects, in some cases blocking the how of knowledge
between governmental parties and companies. Intellectual property (IP) considerations
form another common reason for blocking knowledge transfer.
Narrowing: Narrowing is a mechanism that limits the how of knowledge into or out
of the project, as illustrated by a lack of capacity. There is no time for reading. The
stacks of information that we wish to consume increase throughout the course of our
careers.
Semi-permeable membrane: A semi-permeable membrane is a mechanism that
selectively prevents knowledge from coming through, as in the case of marketing
information that is withheld by the management. Everyone has specihc hobbies, and
people tend to defend their own areas of specialisation.
One-way valve: A one-way valve is a mechanism lets knowledge through in only one
direction (e.g. from source to recipient); no information is provided to information
sources about information needs. Students should be told about the importance of a
win-win situation. One receives information only when one provides information. In
order to understand the kind of information that is of interest to a particular contact, it
is essential to be interested in the activities and opinions of that contact.
Filter: A hlter is a mechanism that prohibits complex knowledge items from passing
104 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
(e.g. dehciencies in education concerning the analysis of scientihc information). This
mechanism is widely familiar. Faced with the choice between a two-page article and a
+00-page report, we tend to choose the article hrst. There are so many articles to read
that we often do not manage to read the more profound materials.
Labyrinth: A labyrinth is a mechanism that slows down the information how (e.g. a
manager who insists upon seeing the information hrst and then passes it on to the wrong
person). A familiar example involves magazine issues that arrive on an employees desk
half a year after publication.
Leakage: Leakage is a mechanism that leads to the loss of knowledge (e.g. hling systems
that do not function properly). Because knowledge is a crucial asset of a company, the
leakage of knowledge is a severe crime, and guilty parties should be punished. Jan
Pesman (CePeZed) states, All knowledge that is gained is stored in the project and for
use in future projects. This knowledge increases the toolbox. Every project is a learning
process, and the key moments from this process can be reused at any moment even
after hfteen years'. !t would be interesting to learn more about he accomplishes this.
Compatibility: Compatibility is a mechanism that prevents information from diffusing
(e.g. the extent to which the source and the recipient of the knowledge are able to
communicate). This is probably the most interesting constraint in this world of polarisation.
Every discipline has its own language, culture and set of ontologies. Although this is
often perceived in a negative light, the successful development of disciplines depends
upon these aspects.
The successful diffusion of multi-disciplinary knowledge can be stimulated by paying
more attention to the interface between disciplines the designer. Designers should
have an interdisciplinary attitude, be conversant (but not necessarily huent) in more
than one jargon and feel empathy with professionals from other disciplines.
With regard to the organism in Figure 16, two concepts have yet to be discussed:
the sensor function and the ejector function. The sensor function is quite simple.
The ability to notice `weak signals' (Payens 1996) is quite important to the process of
knowledge diffusion within a project. A project is not a closed entity; it develops itself
in a cosmonomy, as represented in Figure 3.
105 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
Figure 17: Cosmonomy of projects and knowledge diffusion
A project can be regarded as an entity hoating in an `information soup', together with
other projects. Sensors detect what is going on in their own neighbourhoods.
Ejectors send out information in order to allure interesting partners (pheromones). In
some cases, this can lead to the mating of projects. This is an essential function in the
project. Good project teams communicate intensively about the activities with which
they are occupied. This increases the chance that other parties will take an interest in
collaboration.
Discussion
The metabolism model for knowledge diffusion should be regarded as a result of an
attempt to make the complex issue better understandable. Fishbone diagrams do not
describe sufhciently the real way people work together in development processes.
Sociograms do better because they pay attention to the informal organization which is
often of greater importance than the informal organization. However, also sociograms
present only a part of the organization as such, just the synchronic part. The diachronic
part is mostly described apart in the context of methodology.
Models in methodology can be divided in three basic categories (Roozenburg/Eekels
1995): activity models (fundamental design cycle), phase models (VDI 2221, Pahl &
Beitz) and aspect models (eekels, Andreasen, Archer).
The metabolism model could be added in a fourth category: function models.
Activity models refer to hours to be spent. Phase models refer to results in-between
and aspect models refer to points of attention. A function model refers to skills needed
in the development process in different stages. In that sense a function model forms
a bridge between the process and the organization. Furthermore this function model
forms a bridge between the design process and technology diffusion issues. Finally, a
function model hts in the way of thinking of designers. After all, a designer is a creator
of functions as Kotler claims.
106 Technology Diffusion and Design - W.A. Poelman
With respect to the relation between architecture and industrial design engineering we
can conclude that hgure 17 provides an opportunity to think about cooperation between
the two disciplines. Industrial designers and architects meet each other more and more
in the cosmonomy of development projects such as the creation of new buildings,
transport facilities and the composition of public space.
Knowledge of the two disciplines has, since the 40 years of existence of the faculty of
industrial design engineering become more and more complementary. It is time for
intensifying knowledge diffusion between the two disciplines.
References
Poelman, W.A. (2005,) Technology Diffusion in Product Design, thesis, Chair
Design for Sustainability, Delft University of Technology, Delft
Kotler, Ph. (2002), Marketing Management.Analysis Planning & Control, 11
th
edition, Prentice Hall International, London
Hargadon, Andrew & Sutton, Robert I. (1997). Technology Brokering and
Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly, vol. 42, December, p 716-749.
Payens, Ruud. (1996). Het Zesde Zintuig, Stichting Innovatiecentrum Noord &
Oost Gelderland, Apeldoorn.
Roozenburg, N.F.M. & Eekels, J. (1995), Industrial Product Design:
Fundamentals and Methods, Wiley , New York
107
IDE+A
Design Processes - Wim Poelman and David Keyson (Eds.)
IOS Press, 2008 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
Closing Speech
109
8 Closing Speech
6 June 2008 IDE+A symposium Design Processes
Prof. dr. ir. A.C.J.M. Eekhout
on behalf of the dean of the faculty of architecture.
One of the objectives of the conference `Design Processes', concerning the scientihc
held of Design Nethodology, is to make the invisible visible" in the immaterial held.
The literal meaning of this is to make the invisible preparation process, which precedes
the production of new building and industrial products and components, visible and
understandable by a textual and visual description.
But hguratively making the invisible visible also means to partly unravel the mysterious,
the unknown and the unsaid and pass it on to architects, building technologists,
industrial designers and to students as a new knowledge and insight. The mysterious
brings along some uncertainty about objectives. Mysteries are challenging, they are a
motivation to go and do research and therefore, as far as I am concerned, they never
need to be solved completely. When one mystery is solved, new mysteries will have to
appear, new challenges, ever further on the way to the future. Yet, in the meantime
knowledge grows, the skill, the insight and hopefully also the vision on the specialism
of product design and development.
Dutch Design and Dutch Architecture are internationally appreciated for its powerful
value-for-money quality and its surprises within the set limitations of the challenges.
Dutch architects and industrial designers often have to dance on the rope. Solid
design approximations have contributed to this quality of Dutch Design and Dutch
Architecture.
This Conference Design Processes is dedicated to the methodology and processes of
designing, developments and research of building and industrial products, systems and
components, as well as to the applications of industrial products in buildings.
Therefore, it is of importance to product designers and building product developers,
who are mainly concerned with developing products and components at the side of
producers, as well as to materializing architects and component designers who, at the
architect's ofhce, are concerned with the materializing of the functional and spatial
building concept as a whole and in parts.
The conference hrst and foremost meant to bridge the knowledge helds of Architecture
and Industrial Design Engineering, but also for professionals and students in the
professional held of both faculties.
Design Methodology
Design Methodology has a long and thorough history at industrial design Engineering,
thanks to the books of Norbert Roozenburg and the late Johannes Eekels.
In architecture the situation is more varied. There is a lot of talk on designing in the
architectural world, but there seems to be little openness and uniformity when it comes
to the process of designing and what design methods are being used.
Nowadays, the computer became an accustomed medium in every design ofhce and
even conceptual design possibilities are being carefully explored.
110
But the systematics and methodology of design have to go through a renaissance before
the full fruits of the computer in the conceptual designing process can be gathered. In
my observation design methodologies in architectonical designing are only reluctantly
used and there is hardly any systematical and methodical account for the originating
process of the design.
Indeed, the bridge between the non-cognitive intuitive design process and the ultra-
systematic computer as a potential design medium, is missing. So then the computer
cannot be used other than a current medium for the hnal development of the design:
It facilitates the drawing, but not the thinking. And, therefore, it cannot be inserted as
a full valued reciprocal design medium which is stimulating from self-esteem. To make
considerations explicit, as is done with methodical designing, does not just advance
insight and clarity in ones own activities. In practice it stimulates the communication
between the ever growing group of professionals which has to co-operate in a building
team, aimed at realizing a specihc building (complex).
Design Phases
Methodologists speak of a hrst phase of conceptual design because of the 3-D concept
with its degree of abstraction, leaving many liberties to choose materials and sub-
systems the architect has at his disposal.
Compared to designers in related technical specialisms (like ship- and aeroplane
designers) the architect has an enormous freedom, through the given freedom of
choosing structural systems, constructions, structures, building components with their
specihc shapes and production techniques, the topological placing of components and
geometrical freedom, and with all that to attain a purposeful sculptural quality of the
building. Seldom we realize how jealous other designers could be of him in this respect.
In order to make a whole new design concept of his building, the architect has (almost
too) many possibilities at his disposal.
The second phase of the process is the materialization design concerns choice of
materials, structural schemes and structural composition up to details. The second
phase is as important as the hrst conceptual phase. As compared with this luxurious
situation, the (poor) aircraft designer knows only one or a few degrees of liberty
of designing every part of the aeroplane because of the high functional and safety
demands. We call this parameter designing: the degree of freedom is only one variation
on one single parameter.
The leap from the conceptual design to the materialized design mainly takes place in
the mind of the designer: sometimes it will be intuitive, often routinely and sometimes
methodical. The execution of an intuitive and non-argumented choice and its perfection
can, nevertheless, very well be done methodically.
After the functional and spatial building concept, a purposeful and efhcient design
process and the development of materialized and technical building components have
become of fundamental importance for the design process of the building. Like the
product designer, who usually operates at the side of the producer, a good project
architect also knows how far he can go as a consumer of building products in the
market and how far he can develop new one-off components to be specially ordered.
He should have insight in the iterative development processes for building products,
systems and components. The interchangeable relation between technical components
and architecture is indispensable for the materialization of the architectonic conceptual
design in an inspiring manner.
Closing Speech - A.C.J.M. Eekhout
111
This conference is the fruit of joining hands between the faculties of Industrial Design
Engineering and Architecture. Although they started their relationship as a mother
and an unwilling daughter, they now seem more like sisters under the skin to quote
Rudyard Kipling.
In the months after the Fire of Architecture the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
is hosting a number of staff, researchers and students from Architecture, for which
they are extremely thankful. Hopefully also this regrettable cause will contribute to the
intensihcation of the relationship between both worlds, both faculties.
Closing Speech - A.C.J.M. Eekhout
IDE+A
Design Processes - Wim Poelman and David Keyson (Eds.)
IOS Press, 2008 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
Appendix 1
113
2 Chairmans impressions
Prof. dr. ir. T.M. de Jong (Chair)
Introduction
The main issue of the conference was:
1 the contemporary interrelationship of Industrial Design and Architecture
2 a confrontation of contemporary design practice in both domains with
academic theory and education
Details about eight cases of design processes in practice (four industrial design and four
architecture) were collected by students. The students were stimulated to be not too
strict in handling their query, because practice can raise new questions that may be lost
in a poll structured by academic suppositions. The query of the interviews contained
questions about:
1 the project in general
2 social complexity in collaboration
3 design process
4 decision making
5 visualization
6 project management
7 knowledge diffusion
Specialists regarding the topics 2 till 7 were invited to analyze the cases and to write a
paper from their point of view.
Although the speakers of the conference each rehected on the outcomes of the
interviews, it appeared that some of the experts reviewing the cases missed questions..
This was more than compensated by the resulting rough material which provided some
interesting details beyond the chosen themes.
As an urban designer and ecologist ! learned a lot from the interviews and the rehections
of the speakers. However, from both also raised many remaining questions. Some of
these questions ! addressed the speakers after their lecture. ! will come back on these
topics, but let me hrst cite some statements from the interviews that triggered me
most.
The interviews
From the interviews I selected some interesting propositions to introduce the projects
at the conference. They are listed below in the hrst column with small modihcations for
the sake of readability. In the second column I try to analyze why they triggered me.
114
propositions refIection of the chairman
CePeZeds Westraven building interview
Every advisor has solutions. n an urban design team you often have to
disappoint the advisors, because they
answer partial problems in a whole field of
locally connected, context sensitive
problems.
The architect has to take all ideas to a
higher level.
To create surplus value at a higher level of
scale you need an encompassing concept.
A concept like that changes the whole field
of problems, the field of aims and the
direction of solution.
The architect introduces problems, the
advisor provides solutions.
That is an interesting statement contrary to
the idea that design is always problem
solving. t sometimes creates problems.
Copies are compliments. Here the returning debate about patents
emerges.
Ahrends A230 chair
Clients have questions. That is seldom the only inspiration for the
architect. After all, such questions seldom
survive the life time of a building with
changing users.
Decision making mostly means: 'how large
is the demand'.
For the architect the next users are
unknown. For the urbanist the users are
numerous. For both the stakeholders and
specialists are different for every project.
The sales agency is our antenna. Architects and urbanists seldom do have a
sales agency.
The purchasing agency is an interesting
source.
Architects consult the building materials
documentation and references. Urbanists
their numerous specialists.
We write our program of requirements
ourselves.
The program of requirements develops in
interaction with the design sketches since a
concept changes the whole field of
problems, the field of aims and the
direction of solution for all participants.
n an office, meeting may be more
important than work.
t resulted in a table and chairs suitable for
quick meetings at the table of the host.
Styling is 10% of our work. Does that mean education has to give 90%
of the time to other item?
Neutelings-Riedijks Image and sound
building
The scale of a project is not relevant for
the way of communicating.
But the scale has a relation with the
number of possible participants.
Steps are similar to those taught at TUDelft
+ geographical centered communication.
The plus-sign indicates the many always
different contexts architecture and
urbanism have to operate in:
administrative, cultural, economic,
technical, ecological and spatial contexts at
different levels of scale and changing in
different periods of time.
Chairmans impressions - T.M. de Jong
115
propositions refIection of the chairman
Different mock ups to simulate different
research questions.
nstead of 'mock ups' would like to speak
about 'models', including mathematical
ones. Models are partial representations to
analyze and evaluate partial effects.
All knowledge in architecture is common
knowledge.
Anyone is 'hands-on' expert, but what
about the technical details and changes?
MMIDs Beertender
Beertender is produced in very large
series.
Except in chains of shops architectural
evaluation is avoided by the owner,
because it can harm the value of its
property. Urban evaluation happens after
the retirement of the designer. So, (s)he
does not care so much about the
performance.
My own style isn't important in this project. How different form architectural designers!
Style is work method f-d-p (Functionality &
technology, Design (look & feel),
Production & assembly)
t would be interesting to study the impact
of the work method on style. However, the
work method of an architect changes by
her or his experience. Unfortunately
experienced architects are not aware of
their tacit knowledge, they forget to
mention hidden suppositions beginners do
not share. So, experienced architects often
are bad teachers. However, there are
exceptions where architects are aware of
the roots of their experience ,
e.g.Hertzberger. He saved and numbered
all his sketches, including the instructive
mistakes.
cannot recall decisions that explicitly. Even the movements of my hands are
decisions. To make them all explicit would
hamper designing.
But there have been moments like that
during the project. Time, Money and
Quality.
That is the selection of decisions to make
explicit as asked by the client.
Chairmans impressions - T.M. de Jong
116
propositions refIection of the chairman
Frank Vermeulens Spark
A car consists over more than 1200
components.
Shortly after my chairmanship designed a
device to keep the pages of differently
sized books straight for scanning from
above (see Fig. 1). t contains 22 Meccano-
components and it took 5 hours to restore
all mistakes of putting the rightly-sized
screws at the right place, to change the
size and order of the components and to
understand the rotational behaviour of
adaptable paralellograms in three
dimensions.
Small steps have to restrict high risks. Equal steps do not have equal risks, but
smaller steps are easier to evaluate on
risks. However, steps in designing are
often related to each other making next
steps (im)possible. To evaluate the
possibilities of next steps is not easy, it
supposes design.
Architecture is a specified direction in
product designing.
n Delft, product design was split off from
the Faculty of Architecture into a separate
Faculty. This proposition reverses history,
but upscaling a profession will meet many
problems. The separation was not without
reason.
Media like to attach a name of an architect
to a building.
Architecture and urbanism are public, local
and long term. They are often part of a
public debate, asking for publicly
responsible names. The value of your
property is affected by your neighborhood,
you cannot buy the product without
influencing your neighbors.
A mass product has a lifecycle of one year,
but a building has a lifecycle of 50-100
years.
And if your neigbours sell their property it
still affects the value of your property.
Verheijen and Tabbers' ID building
Small series, big scale difference. Fons Verheijen gave an exellent summary
of differences between ndustrial Design
and Architecture. refer to that interview
below, concluding that the most important
factor is scale.
The first big decision was to decide to do
such a big renovation project, then
deciding upon the final amount of square
meters and where to place which function.
'To preserve or to change' is a crucial
decision, often taken before design. n
urban design and architecture it is more
precise: 'what to preserve and what to
change'. These decisions are often the
consequence of a program of
requirements. This proposition suggests
they precede it.
The whole idea, to create one big space in
which everybody would be able to enjoy
what others are doing, was one big risk.
n general, connecting causes more risks
than separating.
Chairmans impressions - T.M. de Jong
117
propositions refIection of the chairman
Indes' care bed
Not much attention was given to
aesthetics.
With such a firm statement not many
architects would survive as designers.
Users played an important role, from the
start they were consulted and later they
were involved when prototypes had to be
tested.
n architecture the expensive testing in a
prototype is replaced by referring to
preceding examples ('precedents').
The people involved in the engineering
phase are already looking over the
shoulder during the concept development
stage.
That practice penetrates in Architecture,
but its scale forces to choose cheap, less
mobile materials in less complicated
mechanisms.
For an industrial designer a mock-up is a
category of models
Conclusion?
Extremely interesting: difference between
historical relations and causal relations
s that the reason?
These propositions already raise many subjects discussed in the conference
Scale (frame and grain)
The larger scale of architecture and urbanism causes may other differences from
product design:
1. a prominent role of gravity: vertical structures with horizontal
hoors and connecting spaces;
2. a ground bound unique, always different and specihc
governmental, cultural, economic, technical, ecological and
spatial context;
3. small series, many external parties, different by context;
4. boundaries of prefabrication by transport possibilities;
5. many solutions for the same overall problem: to climatize,
separate or combine activities;
6. changing scale changes terms and legend units of the drawing;
7. upscaling in space and time affects the composition of the team;
8. upscaling decreases decision making based on the size of the
demand and pay-back time.
Shortly after my chairmanship I designed a device to keep straight for scanning
from above the pages of differently sized books (see Fig. 1). As an urbanist with a
task to teach technical ecology, I wanted to understand the difference of designing
at the largest scale form product design by doing:
1. In this product gravity plays a role, but not a prominent one
much inhuencing the construction. There are two horizontal
planes, but the vertical structures are mobile.
2. !t is not bound to different and specihc governmental, cultural,
economic, technical, ecological and spatial contexts.
3. There were no external parties, but if it had to be produced in
large series much effort still would have to be done and more
parties would have to be involved.
4. There are no boundaries of prefabrication.
Chairmans impressions - T.M. de Jong
118
5. The problem has a limited number of solutions.
6. The character of the legend units are in the range of architecture,
but drawing an urban plan requires an other kind of legend, other
categories and other ways of thinking.
7. There was no team, but see 3.
8. There was no decision making based on the size of the demand
and pay-back time, but see 3.
Figure 1: A device to keep the pages of differently sized books straight for scanning from above,
designed by an ecological urbanist.
The reections of the speakers
I will not summarise the contributions of the speakers here, but I will make some
additional remarks probably useful for further inquiry.
Social complexity in collaboration
The integration of a group compared to its integration in a larger context is proportional
to the time budget they spend internally and exernally. If management askes for many
external contacts, the result is sprawl of effort increasing internal entropy.
Design process
A short term goal is a long term means. A goal is a design. So, design cannot be goal
directed. Design directed design does not say much. Engineering is design driven
research to solve problems risen by design. So, design also raises problems to be solved
by engineering. Engineering is the problem solving activity.
Design creates improbable possibilities. So, it changes desirable futures, changing the
expected undesirable futures, the held of problems. There is never one goal or one
problem. There is always a held of problems and goals.
Solving one problem creates new problems. Reaching one aim creates new goals.
Wicked problems are not wicked they are simply helds of related problems. Design
does not solve
Chairmans impressions - T.M. de Jong
119
Decision making
!s everything a decision?
Visualisation
Schetching is another language.
Project management
Internal integration causes external disintegration and the reverse at any level of
scale.
Lack of time causes specialisation. Specialisation saves time, integration saves space.
Knowledge diffusion
!ntuition is experience to tranferable by words. What is knowledge?
Discussion
See questions
Chairmans impressions - T.M. de Jong
IDE+A
Design Processes - Wim Poelman and David Keyson (Eds.)
IOS Press, 2008 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
Appendix 2
121
Program
10.00- 10.10 Introduction
Prof. dr. C.J.P.M. de Bont
Dean of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft
10.10- 10.30 Explanation Cases
Prof. dr. ir. T.M. de Jong (Chair)
Professor, Chair of Environmental Planning and Ecology
Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
10.30- 11.00 Design Processes
Dr.ir. H.H. Achten
Assistant Professor, Architectural Modeling
Faculty of Architecture, TU Eindhoven
11.00- 11.30 Coffee/Tea
11.30- 12.00 Visualization
Prof. G. Goldschmidt
Professor,The Mary Hill Swope Chair in Architecture & Town Planning
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Israel Institute of Technology
12.00- 12.30 Project Management
Prof. dr. ir. J.W.F. Wamelink
Professor Design- and Construction
Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
12.30- 13.30 Lunch
122
13.30- 14.00 Social Complexity in Collaboration
Prof. dr. P.G. Badke-Schaub
Professor Design Theory and Methodology
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft
14.00- 14.30 Decision Making
Dr. ir. P.P.J. van Loon
Associate professor Design and Decision Systems
Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
14.30- 15.00 Tea/Coffee
15.00- 15.30 Technology Diffusion
Dr. ir. W.A. Poelman
Associate Professor Product Development
Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
15.30- 16.00 General Discussion
Prof. dr. ir. T.M. de Jong (Chair)
16.00- 16.10 Afterword
Prof. ir. W. Patijn
Dean faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
This page intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank