Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-wlffp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T17:04:49.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Part of: Design Innovation, Information and Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

L. S. Knudsen ,
L. M. Haase  and
M. G. Goncalves
L. S. Knudsen*
Affiliation:
Aalborg University, Denmark
L. M. Haase
Affiliation:
Aalborg University, Denmark
M. G. Goncalves
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
*
*lsk@create.aau.dk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Keywords

conceptual designdesign processdesign teamsdesign rationaleframing

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1315 - 1324
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 303–331.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), “Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design”, In: Friedman, K. and Stolterman, E. (Ed.), The MIT Press, London, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 267–294.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T.R. and Russell, D.M. (1992), “Derivation and use of design rationale information as expressed by designers”.Google Scholar
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)Google Scholar
Hauser, J. et al. (2006), “Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for ‘Marketing Science’”, Marketing Science Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 687–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 3999–4008.Google Scholar
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. 793–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolko, J. (2011), Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner's Guide to the Methods and Theory of Synthesis, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
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. 21–51.Google Scholar
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. 53–106.Google Scholar
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. 619–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, H.G. and Stolterman, E. (2012), The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World., 2nd edn, The MIT Press, London, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, B. and Dorst, K. (2011), “Briefing and reframing: A situated practice”, Design Studies. Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
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. 603–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 1131–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ylirisku, S. (2013), Frame it simple: Towards a Theory of Conceptual Designing. Aalto University.Google Scholar