Although there is a visible increase in the number of publications in the area of design thinking and signs that it is becoming a serious area of research, there is a lack of theoretical approaches that directly address its domain-specific characteristics. This study is an attempt to develop such a theory directed towards design reasoning based on a protocol study and formal notation, among other things. Three domains of reasoning are described: construction, object, and representation. Inference making within and between these domains is described in terms of operations called functions and states called structures in a state-space representation of design. Five types of mapping which are illustrated by the protocol study are described by means of structures and functions. Shortcomings and strengths of the proposed theoretical formalisms are both discussed. Future work is indicated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkinÖ, 1978, “How do architects design?”, in Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in Computer-Aided Design Ed. LatombeJ-C, (North-Holland, New York) pp 65–104.
2.
AkinÖ, 1986Psychology of Architectural Design (Pion, London).
3.
AkinÖDaveBPithavadianS, 1992, “Heuristic generation of layouts (HeGeL): Based on a paradigm for problem structuring”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design1933–59.
4.
AlexanderC, 1964Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
5.
BachusJ W, 1960, “The syntax and semantics of the proposed international algebraic language for the Zurich ACM-GAMM Conference”, in Information Processing (UNESCO, Paris).
6.
CarollJ MThomasJ CMalhotraA, 1978, “Presentation and representation in design problem solving”British Journal of Psychology71143–153.
7.
ChanC, 1990, “Cognitive processes in architectural design problem solving”Design Studies11(2) 60–80.
8.
CuomoD L, 1988A Study of Human Performance in Computer-aided Architectural Design: Methods and Analysis, unpublished PhD thesis, submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of State University of New York at Buffalo.
9.
DarkeJ, 1979, “The primary generator and the design process”Design Studies1(1) 36–44.
10.
EarlC F, 1980, “Rectangular shapes”Environment and Planning B7311–342.
11.
EastmanC M, 1969, “Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design”, in Proceedings of the First Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Eds WalkerD ENortonL M, Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, pp 675–699.
12.
EastmanC M, 1970, “On the analysis of intuitive design processes”, in Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning Ed. MooreG T, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
13.
EckersleyM, 1988, “The form of design process: A protocol analysis study”Design Studies9(2) 86–94.
14.
EricssonK ASimonH A, 1980Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
15.
FlemmingU, 1989, “More on the representation and generation of loosely packed arrangements of rectangles”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design16327–359.
16.
FozA, 1973, “Observation on the designer behavior in the parti”, in The Design Activity International Conference, Volume IPrinting Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, pp 19.1–19.4.
17.
FreemanP ANewellA, 1971, “A model for functional reasoning in design”, in Proceedings of the Second International Joint Computer Conference on Artificial IntelligenceBritish Computer Society, 13 Mansfield Street, London W1M OBP, pp 621–640.
18.
GobertJ D, 1989, “The interpretation of architectural plans by expert and sub-expert architects”, unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
19.
GoorA, 1974, “Problem solving processes of creative and non-creative students”Dissertation Abstracts International, University of North Carolina74(3) 3517A.
20.
GoumainP G, 1973, “Design methods and designer's methods”, in The Design Activity International Conference, Volume IPrinting Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, pp 23.1–23.8.
21.
Grattan-GuinnessI, 1970The Development of Foundations of Mathematical Analysis from Euler to Riemann (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
22.
HuntE B, 1975Artificial Intelligence (Academic Press, New York).
23.
KraussR IMyerR M, 1970, “Design: A case history”, in Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning Ed. MooreG T, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 11–20.
24.
KrishnamurtiR, 1980, “The arithmetic of shapes”Environment and Planning B7463–484.
25.
KuhnT, 1970The Structure of Scientific Revolutions2nd edition, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Volume 2, Number 2 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
26.
McDermottJ, 1982, “Domain knowledge and the design process”Design Studies3(1) 31–36.
27.
MillerG A EGalanterEPribramK H, 1960Plans and the Structure of Behavior (Henry Holt, New York).
28.
MitchellW J, 1990The Logic of Architecture (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
29.
MitchellW JSteadmanPLiggettR S, 1976, “Synthesis and optimization of small rectangular floor plans”Environment and Planning B337–70.
30.
NewellA, 1970, “Heuristic programming: Ill-structured problems”, in Progress in Operations Research, Volume 3 Ed. ArnofskyJ A, (John Wiley, New York) pp 360–414.
31.
NewellASimonH A, 1972Human Problem Solving (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
32.
PiagetJ, 1947The Psychology of Intelligence translated from French by PiercyM, (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).
33.
ReitmanW R, 1964, “Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints and structure of ill-defined problems”, in Human Judgments and Optimality Eds ShellyM WBryanG L, (John Wiley, New York) pp 282–315.
34.
ReveszG E, 1988Lambda-Calculus, Combinatorics and Functional Programming (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
35.
SchönD A, 1983The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Basic Books, New York).
36.
SimonH A, 1969The Sciences of the Artificial (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
37.
SimonH A, 1970, “Style in design”, in Proceedings of the Envirnmental Design Research Association Conference IIDepartment of Architecture, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 1–10.
38.
SimonH AFeigenbaumE A, 1964, “An information-processing theory of some effects of similarity, familiarization, and meaningfulness in verbal learning”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior3385–396.
39.
SteadmanJ P, 1970, “The automatic generation of minimum standard house plans”, in Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference II Eds ArcheaJEastmanC, Department of Architecture, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
40.
StaufferL AUllmanD C, 1988, “A comparison of the results of empirical studies into the mechanical design process”Design Studies9(2) 107–114.
41.
StinyG, 1976, “Two exercises in formal composition”Environment and Planning B3187–210.
42.
StinyG, 1990, “What is design?”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design1797–103.
43.
WaldronM BWaldronK J, 1989, “A time sequence study of a complex mechanical system design”Design Studies9(2) 95–106.
44.
WasonP CJohnson-LairdP N, 1972Psychology of Reasoning, Structure and Content (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
45.
ZengYChengG D, no date, “On the logic of design”, unpublished report, Research Institute of Engineering Mechanics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116023, China.
