Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

DESIGN RATIONALE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TEAMS’ PRACTICE

  • L. S. Knudsen (a1), L. M. Haase (a1) and M. G. Goncalves (a2)

Abstract

A design rationale is a representation of the reasoning behind a design concept, explaining why the solution is designed the way it is. This makes design rationale a critical part of concept development. However, there is little exploration on how to build a design rationale. This study sheds light on professional designers’ reasoning in conceptual design, as we examine how design rationales for different concepts are built based on a longitudinal study in the context of two design studios. Particularly the study provides insight into how a design rationale is initiated, matured and finalized.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      DESIGN RATIONALE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TEAMS’ PRACTICE
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      DESIGN RATIONALE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TEAMS’ PRACTICE
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      DESIGN RATIONALE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TEAMS’ PRACTICE
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Springer.
Conklin, J. and Begeman, M.L. (1988), “GIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion”, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 1988, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 303331.
Dorst, K. (2015), “Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design”, In: Friedman, K. and Stolterman, E. (Ed.), The MIT Press, London, England.
Fischer, G. et al. (1996), “Making Argumentation Serve Design”, In: Carroll, J.M. and Moran, T.P. (Ed.), Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and Use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 267294.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219245.
Gruber, T.R. and Russell, D.M. (1992), “Derivation and use of design rationale information as expressed by designers”.
Haase, L.M. and Laursen, L.N. (2017), “Framing Innovation : Product Reasoning Model for Early Phase Innovations”, in ISPIM Innovation Symposium 2017 : Building the Innovation Century. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM)
Hauser, J. et al. (2006), “Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for ‘Marketing Science’”, Marketing Science Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 687717.
Hey, J., Joyce, C.K. and Beckman, S.L. (2007), “Framing innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases”, Journal of Design Research, p. 6.
Knudsen, L.S. and Haase, L.M. (2018), “The Construction of Meaning in Design-Driven Projects: A Paradox Initiated Process”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 129143.
Knudsen, L.S. and Haase, L.M. (2019), “‘Seeking Insights into an unknown Future: Exploring Designers’ Strategies to Discover Key Insights’”, in Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39994008.
Knudsen, L.S., Tollestrup, C. and Haase, L.M. (2018), “The Characteristics of Successful Meaning Construction in Design Teams”, In: Marjanović, D. et al. (Ed.), International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 793804.
Kolko, J. (2011), Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner's Guide to the Methods and Theory of Synthesis, Oxford University Press, New York.
Lee, J. and Lai, K.-Y. (1991), “What's in Design Rationale?” In: Moran, T.P. and Carroll, J.M. (Ed.), Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 2151.
MacLean, A. et al. (1996), “Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis”, In: Moran, T.P. and Carroll, J.M., (Ed.), Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 53106.
McNally, R.C. and Schmidt, J.B. (2011), “From the special issue editors: An introduction to the special issue on decision making in new product development and innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 619622.
Nelson, H.G. and Stolterman, E. (2012), The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World., 2nd edn, The MIT Press, London, England.
Paton, B. and Dorst, K. (2011), “Briefing and reframing: A situated practice”, Design Studies. Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 573587.
Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
Shum, S.B. and Hammond, N. (1994), “Argumentation-Based Design Rationale : What Use at What Cost ?”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 603652.
Ylirisku, S. et al. (2009), ‘Framing Design in the Third Paradigm’, in Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2009. ACM, pp. 11311140.
Ylirisku, S. (2013), Frame it simple: Towards a Theory of Conceptual Designing. Aalto University.

Keywords

DESIGN RATIONALE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TEAMS’ PRACTICE

  • L. S. Knudsen (a1), L. M. Haase (a1) and M. G. Goncalves (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.