Monday Morning (August 5)
A plethora of tools aim to support the modelling and management of design processes, e.g. MS Project, Cambridge Advanced Modeller, Omni Project, Contact Project Office, MS Office (Visio, Excell, Powerpoint), Lucidchart, BizAgi, ProcessModeller, Ardoq, Trello, Asana, Pulse, … The offered functionalities vary considerably, from pure visualisation and project management to process navigation and simulation addressing the different needs of modellers and model users, which differ depending on their role and type of project/process.
Choosing the right tool is a challenging task as assessing properties of tools such as functionality, usability, adaptability and compatibility with other tools is difficult without testing and proper reflection about one’s own needs and requirements. During this workshop we would like to start the development of a benchmarking protocol for process modelling and management tools that supports the assessment and selection of tools, thus enables tools users to find a tool that suits their needs.
For this workshop we invite practitioners, researchers and educators that are actively using tools for modelling and managing design processes, e.g. as part of their professional activities in industry or teaching activities. Based on their experiences and needs for the support of modelling and managing design processes (projects) we aim to identify criteria that should be considered for benchmarking.
Chairs:
Kilian Gericke & Claudia Eckert
Central Point of Contact
claudia.eckert@open.ac.uk
Biomimetics and related bio-inspired design, biomimicry, and bionics (here referred to as “biom*”), involve the practical application of ideas and concepts extracted from the study of biological systems ranging from unicellular organisms to ecosystems. Biomimetics/biom* is a relatively new source of ideas for design – it has scored a number of successes in technology and architecture, but there are no accepted or practical methods for its effective use; it may be that without such methods we are missing a significant input to design. The proposed SIG will examine current design protocols and see what is necessary for biom* to be incorporated in an objective and practical manner.
A recent survey of some 440 people (106 replies) in industry who had expressed an interest in biom* and its application exposed as one of the main problems: how can biom* be accepted as a ‘normal’ design tool?
A brief description and preliminary results are presented in item 9 on this proposal, which emphasises a general lack of skill and awareness in those trying to popularise biom*. Rather than being viewed as some sort of design panacea, or as just another romantic approach to design and the solution of non-existent problems that have been solved anyway, biom* needs to be integrated as a standard component of accepted design practice. Any benefits of biom* need to be conveyed in a manner consistent with industry priorities: e.g. Triple Bottom Line, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, reduction in use of energy and scarce materials etc., rather than the oft-quoted improvement in inspiration or creativity.
This SIG also seeks to amass and examine a repository of industry case studies for use in: understanding what processes were used; where biom* integrates with standard practices; what challenges were overcome; the adoption cycle for biom* within the organization; and benefits both in terms of product outcome and organizational change.
Chairs:
Julian Vincent & Norbert Hoeller
Central points of contact
Today’s society, and today’s design and engineering context in particular, are getting increasingly complex. A proven format to unravel and to ultimately tackle complex problems, is making information visual (pictures, figures, sketches, graphs). Specifically the language of ‘sketching’ helps to clarify and summarize, appears to be very helpful and flexible in structuring processes and relationships between factors, stages, phenomena. This hands-on ‘sketching’ workshop addresses the conference theme of ‘Responsible design for our future’, and issues of complexity, dynamic contexts, and interaction.
So, let’s visualize!
In this hands-on workshop, participants will be instructed and guided to sketchingly unravel the various elements which together represent a specific challenge or problem. The subject could be of any kind. The facilitators however will offer interesting cases to explore. Workshop will be about structuring in a visual way the factors that together form the context of a certain problem statement/ challenge. Posing specific questions to the participants (or they may bring their own): ‘What are optional effects on nature caused by commerce and globalization?’. ‘Which factors play a part in a specific design case?’ But of course you’re invited to bring your own cases to (visually) discuss.
By doing so, factors become clear and structured, and ultimately help defining the problem essence and potentially optional solutions, hence a great design engineering skill. This sketching workshop helps you reflect and organize.
Research questions as potential input for the workshop: ‘Does visually subdividing (unravelling) the problem help to structure a certain situation or case/ problem?’; ‘How to provide structure though remain flexibility?’; ‘To what extend is the visual activity of sketching helpful in organizing thoughts and data? Which advantages, which disadvantages?’
Chairs:
Jan Willem Hoftijzer
Central Point of Contact:
Previous research has highlighted that early decisions in the design process need to be informed by a system understanding of sustainability criteria and other design aspects. This is to address the challenge industries today are facing while attempting to improve their designs from a sustainability point of view, when the desired sustainability performance exceeds either customer requests or regulatory compliance. From a business- and sustainability perspective it is also necessary to adopt systems thinking as a means to avoid sustainability sub-optimisations, i.e., design decisions that may improve a certain sustainability aspect but instead cause another, or e.g. lead to unexpected costs.
Requirements are crucial for the design process, both as guidance for innovation and concept generation as they provide the foundation and guidance for what needs to be developed. They also constitute the ultimate quality controlling agent, by allowing tests to be conducted to assure that what has been developed meets the expectations. Therefore, companies put a lot of effort in the formulation of requirements, and the verification processes actually matches stakeholder needs and expectations.
The overarching product specification, consisting of the high-level product requirements, is formed in a very early stage of a product development project. It generally takes place in a group of managers, representing different functions of a product developing organisation, who together discuss a prospect project and together they define the initial product specification. This specification may describe a product as a system, using functions, and it is based on this specification that concept generation can begin in a product design team. The same group usually selects a concept based on this specification. To understand sustainability and how sustainability criteria relate to other design variables is therefore necessary in this group.
The purpose of this workshop is therefore to test a novel methodology where systems thinking is applied in a group model building environment. The aim is to create a shared understanding of how a design problem affects, and is affected by, sustainability criteria. The results will be collected and used for further improvements of the method.
Chairs:
Sophie Hallstedt, Matilda Watz
Central point of contact
This workshop aims at:
- sharing experiences on the complexity of Design Decisions-Making with respect to the other design-related fields and the human-in-the-loop;
- discussing on recent research on modelling and visualizing in the Decision-Making area for the early phases of new Product, Service, or PSS development process;
- and identifying the landscape for future research projects in Decision-Making, as a cross-disciplinary field.
Chairs:
Julie Le-Cardinal, Sandro Wartzack & Camille Jean
Central points of contact:
julie.le-cardinal@centralesupelec.fr; wartzack@mfk.fau.de; CamilleJean@ensam.eu
Traditional Robust Design (RD) research is heavily relying on the use of costly (virtual/ physical) experimentation strategies and the corresponding statistical analyses. As these approaches are costly and usually require detailed geometry information, traditional RD is commonly criticised for not being applicable in early phases of development.
In a new direction, the RD SIG would therefore like to bring Robust Design thinking and research into earlier stages of the design process. This includes new and pragmatic tools, which are also applicable in short iteration cycles and enable to exploit the enormous benefits of designs that are less sensitive to variation. The SIG’s key objectives include:
- to stimulate a discussion on the potential of as well as limitations for early RD consideration.
- to test out robust design tools, methods and theory on real case examples in a workshop format.
- to propose and debate a coherent RD toolbox as well as a Robust Design process.
- to share results, insights, data, etc. from empirical case studies.
The planned workshop will be structured into three subsequent parts:
1. In the first part of the workshop, the organisers will briefly present the analysis of RD-related publications at previous ICED and DESIGN conferences. Complemented by additional insights from other research communities focusing on product robustness-related research (RD, RD Optimisation, Tolerancing, etc.). The workshop thereby aims at raising the questions how important RD and adjacent research areas are for the community, and how traditional RD can benefit from a design mindset.
2. In the second and main part of the workshop, the participants will then be given an active role in a hands-on exercise related to early RD approaches for mechanical designs based on trade-off avoidance strategies. While in general, fewer assembly components imply less logistical effort and greater flexibility, the corresponding functional integration usually also implies a number of trade-offs. Trade-offs in mechanical design occur when one or more design objectives in a system cannot be improved upon without detriment to others, due to contradicting relationships to shared design parameters, and therefore come at the cost of a reduced robustness and/or require costly optimisation.
In form of a guided tutorial, the participants will be introduced how these seemingly conflicting objectives can be balanced systematically during conceptual and particularly also embodiment design. By means of guided exercises, the workshop illustrates the relevance of the underlying technical trade-offs for the later product robustness, introduces a systematic trade-off analysis, and will provide background for the successful analysis and development of integrated products in early design.
3. Based on the initially presented analysis, as well as the experiences from the hands-on exercise, the concluding open discussion will then be dedicated to laying out future RD research topics as well as future activities of the RD SIG. Expected key results of the workshop thereby include:
a. A better understanding of embodiment design decisions and their impact on robustness.
b. Discuss potentially interesting topics for future research or SIG collaboration (e.g. possibilities for joint papers, special collections, future workshops, etc.)
Chairs:
Tobias Eifler, Benjamin Schleich & Nökkvi Sigurdarson
Central points of contact:
Linkography is a method of notation and analysis that was developed for design processes but is applicable also for other processes, by individuals or teams. It uses protocols parsed into bigger or smaller moves, or derived entities such as decisions, or ideas, as the units of analysis. Every pair of moves (or other units) is analyzed in order to answer the question: is there a link between the two moves? A link is determined based on the contents of the moves, and common sense, provided the analysis rests on familiarity with the discipline and the specific process in question.
The resultant network of links among moves, which is notated in a linkograph, makes it possible to measure various parameters of the process which are related to its structure, effectiveness and creativity. In the case of a team, linkography facilitates the understanding of the role of each team member. Linkography is particularly useful for comparisons among processes (e.g., novice and expert designers). Linkography can be used in combination with classic protocol analysis to reach a deeper understanding of the ideas advanced in the process under scrutiny. Various other concepts and measurements can be used with linkography (e.g., entropy). The figure below is an example of a short demo linkograph.
The purpose of this workshop is to familiarize interested participants who are new to linography with the methodology, and provide a platform to participants who are already experienced with linkography to showcase their work.
Chairs:
Gabriela Goldschmidt
Central point of contact:
Structure
Tutorial and presentations. Short presentations are solicited from interested participants; they can be original work, work in progress, or advanced versions of work that was previously published. For proposals please contact Gabriela Goldschmidt.
The economic feasibility and realization of new technical systems is only possible reusing existing knowledge by working based on references and by developing products in generations. In addition, the use of modular product architectures aims at providing a broad range of product variants with acceptable effort. Using and developing modular product architectures for and across several product generations successfully is a key challenge and need for research. Besides the fields of product architecture design (PAD) and PGE – product generation engineering areas such as e.g. engineering change, design reuse, PLM/ PDM but also open innovation provide potential to address this need.
Within the workshop we want to discuss the expected challenges more in detail as well as the potentials that lie in the different related fields and their connections. We want to display these connections by building up a research map. We will then use this research map as basis to build networks for future research activities to address the identified research needs.
We will work in four steps:
- Brief overview on product architecture design and product generation engineering and current challenges in these fields
- Collecting and linking related topics to form a research map
- Derive and discuss upcoming research challenges, in particular based on the topic relations
- Connect with each other and foster collaborative research based on common interests in related topics on the map
Chairs:
Albert Albers, Dieter Krause
Central point of contact:
Albert Albers, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany albert.albers@kit.edu
Dieter Krause, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany krause@tuhh.de
Monday Afternoon (August 5)
The background:
Research within the Design Society community offers many possibilities of exchange and collaboration between fellow researchers. While these opportunities cover a broad scope from young researchers to senior members of the community with a range of research interests, we aim to support the specific needs of PhD students.
The aims:
- To foster the exchange of ideas and research approaches between younger researchers
- To provide opportunities for discussing personal research topics, methodologies and potential problems with experts
- To enhance networking and collaboration
The objectives:
The forum will be an opportunity for PhD students to discuss their research questions and ideas with their peers and experienced researchers in order to support their research. Small discussion groups will be organised in which individual research topics are presented to and discussed within the group. Discussion groups will consist of 5-6 PhD students and 1-2 experts.
Central point of contact:
The generation of creative ideas is an important topic for design creativity, both for design practice, education and research. The ultimate aim of understanding the generation of creative ideas is to develop more effective idea generation processes in design practice (e.g.: use what works better and reject what does not work or does it inefficiently). Design research on creativity frequently uses the output from the sessions to draw conclusions – often measured in terms of the fluency of ideation (i.e. quantity of generated ideas) as well as their intrinsic diversity (typically “variety”). Contrary to that, this series of workshops (the first one held at Design2018) aims to discuss a wider variety of approaches that researchers can use to study creative moments/behaviour during typical team design sessions. The specific aim of this workshop is to explore how researchers can identify and characterise the moments when a creative ideas occur.
RQ: what characterises the creative moments prior and during ideation in teams?
Can we recognise the instant when someone gets inspired and generates a creative idea? Does it happen in an instant, as a sudden insight, as creative literature claims? Or is it composed of a combination of semi-creative moments, which ultimately evolves into a creative idea? How do shared design representations support the generation of creative moments?
This ‘hands-on’ research workshop will consist of:
- A dynamic warm up exercise where participants share their: background in design; any expertise in creativity; and experience with research tools.
- Mixed teams will be given a selection of videos of design teams in typical team design sessions. Participants will then explore ways to characterise the creative moments using this ‘real data’.
The workshop will then attempt to: draw together both shared and diverging views of what characterises creative moments; reflect on the variety of different research approaches that were taken in the workshop.
Chairs:
Niccolo Becattini, Elies Dekoninck & Milene Gonçalves
Central point of contact:
This symposium will give the opportunity to present a historical perspective on the development of design theory and will discuss some of its impact in the scientific disciplines and for contemporary societal challenges. It is open to researchers who are not necessarily experts in design theory but would like to know more about design theory history and design theory impact in disciplines.
Design theory deepens the scientific foundations of design and engineering; it bridges the gap with other design professions (such as industrial design) and helps in addressing critical, contemporary innovation issues; providing scientific models of generativity, design theory also contributes to address generativity issues in many disciplines (biology, agronomics, chemical engineering, philosophy, management, etc.). The symposium will provide some illustrations of these results.
Part 1 (90 Minutes): history of design theory – a cycle of three unique testimonies from CMU
In this first part we will listen to three testimonies that will enlighten the history of design theory and design research at CMU
- Charles EASTMAN – architecture design
- Dan SIEWIOREK – computer engineering
- Art WESTERBERG – chemical engineering
These testimonies will be followed by a discussion on contemporary challenges in design theory.
Part 2 (90 Minutes) : industrial and socio-economic impact of design theory
In a second part, two top-level practitioners will present how they rely on design theory to organize their innovative design activities in their company. They will show the results they got. We will discuss with them how their company today address contemporary design challenges such as energy transition, inclusive mobility, digitalization, smart cities, etc.
- Dominique LAOUSSE, innovation head of SNCF (French National Railway Company)
- Prof. Sebastiaan Meijer, KTH, Sweden with the Project Manager of redesign of Design processes at ProRail (Dutch National Railway Company)
Chairs:
Pascal Le Masson, Eswaran Subrahmanian
Central point of contact:
Successful collaborative engineering practices have demonstrated significant benefits to industry: improving efficiency; eliminating rework due to information inconsistencies; managing complexity and automating parts of the collaborative design process. Despite these benefits, collaborative endeavours fail due to obstacles such as: sharing knowledge through ineffective communication methods; co-ordinating stakeholders with divergent objectives; managing teams with cultural and leadership differences; and configuring collaborative networks towards a long term and strategic vision. Changing innovation landscapes have the potential to radically advance collaborative practices to develop more user-centred, innovative and customised products in a timelier manner.
At DESIGN 2018, the Collaborative Design SIG ran a workshop that addressed the following questions:
- What are the factors that contribute towards and constrain successful collaborative engineering?
- Can the factors be modelled in relation to each other towards a definition of successful collaborative engineering?
- What are the future collaborative engineering challenges to meet the changing innovation landscape?
The key factors identified within the cause/effect diagrams highlights the breadth of scope for understanding and modelling collaborative design success and failure. It incorporates a significant focus on human factors and interaction from social and trust perspectives; requires appropriate consideration of the organizational structure, processes and governance; and is influenced by the construction and operation of teams.
The next stage is to consolidate this output and establish the approach towards creating a causal loop diagram. This workshop will again bring together collaborative design and innovation researchers with the aim of facilitate networking and knowledge exchange and developing causal loop diagrams to illustrate the interconnectedness of the factors identified within the DESIGN 2018 workshop. A design-centred approach will be used within the workshop to address the following questions:
Do the previously identified factors accurately reflect the boundary of successful collaborative engineering?
- The Collaborative Design SIG – The Design Society ICED 2019
- Can the factors be modelled in relation to each other towards a definition of successful collaborative engineering?
- How might we evaluate a model of successful collaborative engineering?
Chairs:
Ian Whitfield, Avril Thomson & Ross Brisco
Central point of contact:
ian.whitfield@strath.ac.uk
Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies have the potential to unlock unparalleled manufacturing and design freedoms, but design capabilities must be expanded and empowered to successfully exploit those opportunities. AM technologies enable fabrication of complex multi-functional, highly integrated, customised, multi-material and free-form physical objects. However, is the design engineer’s mindset prepared for tackling this multidisciplinary and complex design challenge?
This workshop will explore the role of computational thinking and ideation in building such a mindset and in the development of next-generation Design for AM tools that facilitate mastering such a multifaceted mix of design capabilities. Indeed, design engineers are increasingly capable of rapidly and effectively exploring alternatives, through advanced parametric and generative strategies, optimisation approaches, and modelling/simulations tools, but it is challenging to apply these tools in such a way that they empower design, rather than limit it.
This workshop will provide the opportunity to explore the potentials of computational thinking and ideation and computational tools in mastering design complexities and stimulating design engineers to develop more responsible solutions. To this aim, the workshop will start by presenting the state-of-the art in the field of computational design and ideation with a focus on the link to fabrication via AM. Then the audience will be challenged with a design problem and guided, by workshop facilitators, in generating solutions, taking into account Design for AM heuristics and their background knowledge in AM; after the ideation phase, they will be asked to explain the logical thinking intuitively followed to conceptualise these solutions.
- Are current design tools able to adequately support them in this reasoning?
- If not, could such logical thinking be translated into design tools able to help them explore further design alternatives?
These questions will be used to stimulate an open discussion moderated by workshop facilitators who collect and eventually share with participants any suggestions and practical implications for the development of the next generation of Design for AM tools. This workshop is offered not only to 3D printing experts but also to anyone interested in exploring the possibility to combine creativity, intuition, and logical reasoning when designing to develop value-added solutions for AM.
Chairs:
Carolyn C. Seepersad & Serena Graziosi
Central points of contact:
The workshop intends to support the goals of the Design Practice SIG, namely, to capture, study and share authentic, relevant and tough design challenges in their contexts.
More specifically we aim to:
- Encourage practitioners to challenge researchers
- Encourage academics to understand design practice
- Express the value of design research
- Increase awareness to industry and other sectors of the availability of practical design methods, ‘theory’ and tools
The workshop will provide an opportunity to have academics and practitioners to address a design case study. For the DESIGN2018 workshop, we were successful in providing this opportunity to them, and audio recorded design activity of a group of practitioners, and 2 groups of academics. This resulted in a paper that was submitted to ICED19 that analyzed the conversations against Gero’s FBS ontology. Based on this very initial activity, the paper offered the following hypotheses in anticipation of a much larger activity and data set of groups of academics and practitioners designing:
- H1: Practitioners begin to construct their solution space earlier than academics
- H2: Practitioners spend a greater portion of their design activity in the solution space
- H3: Practitioners exhibit more System 1 thinking than academics
- H4: Practitioner’s designs exhibit great utility than academics’ designs
- H5: Practitioner’s designs are less novel than academics’ designs
The objectives of this workshop are to group practitioners, and academics and to video and audio record design activity (conversations, and representations) while they address the same design case study. We intend to coordinate this with a global multi-site activity in order to increase the data set.
Chairs:
Alessandro Bertoni & Massimo Panarotto
Central points of contact:
alessandro.bertoni@bth.se; massimo.panarotto@chalmers.se
On a global scale, 20% of the world’s population continue to exploit more than 80% of its resources and climate change is agreed to be an extreme threat to our civilization, and the UN Agenda 2030 points out many of the challenges.
We need to raise questions about the future and how innovative solutions to development issues, that are not only solving the pressing needs of the present, but are enhancing the ability of future generations to meet new complex challenges. As a consequence, increasing our knowledge on the specific characteristics of a global development context, unearthing the true needs and what this implies for engineering design education and research approaches is crucial. By this, the creation of a mutual innovation capacity can be spurred; a capacity we believe is a necessity in order to successfully meet the global challenges we are facing.
We hereby invite colleagues from any area that have an interest in global sustainable development and how it can be linked to areas within engineering design to a workshop at ICED 2019 in Delft. The two overall research questions for the workshop concern:
- how design science research and education can improve current ways of meeting sustainability challenges in global development
- in what way design science research and education can be enriched through engaging in global sustainable development.
The objectives of the workshop at the conference is to spark a discussion on the mutual relation between engineering design and sustainable development in global development contexts. We hope to identify overarching research themes and potential new research and education collaborations with respect to cultural and resource differences.
Chairs:
Susanne Nilsson, Margareta Norell Bergendahl
Central point of contact:
When we speak about perceived quality (PQ), we are dealing with a complex, multifaceted adaptive system; a system where a human is the main agent. Therefore, as in any human adaptive system, single all-effective “causes” cannot exist (Smil 2017). For an average individual the gap between prior expectations and “objective” quality determines the perceived quality (Pirsig 1999).
Ability to control PQ during the product development process can be expressed in the single open question, “Which PQ attributes do engineers have to focus on to receive the highest level of a customer’s appreciation?” This normative question is usually followed by the prescriptive question, “How can we measure the importance of a single PQ attribute or a group of PQ attributes for the customer?”
It is time to take a critical look at quality and reflect what impact the changes brought forth by Industry 4.0 and the changing customer preferences mean for the quality definition and evaluation.
For this purpose, problems and solutions will be presented and illustrated in this workshop by practical examples and methods, including but not limited to
- Perceived quality of luxury cars: McLaren Automotive (UK) representative with the appx 20-30 min speech time.
- Perceived quality of the premium cars: Volvo Car Group (SE) representative with the appx 20-30 min speech time.
- Use of the Extended reality (xR) technologies for the PQ evaluation: A demonstrators of VR and AR technologies to the audience.
- Activity: evaluation of the PQ for consumer products. Customer-centric approach: Participants will take part in the interactive activity assessing PQ of a given consumer product. Live-data display and follow-up analysis of the results. Conclude workshop with the discussion.
The workshop aims at increasing awareness regarding Perceived Quality for designers and practitioners. It will actively involve the audience in the process of Perceived Quality quantification as well as present showcases of various design activities along the product development process.
Chairs:
Konstantinos Stylidis
Central point of contact:
Important Dates
2018 2019
Full paper submission opens
Full paper deadline
Full paper deadline extension
Notification of paper acceptance
Camera-ready version of the paper deadline
Author registration deadline and Early-Bird registration
ICED19 Conference
