Causality and interpretation: a new design model inspired by the Aristotelian legacy

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the technical, social, and integrated conceptualizations of design.

Author	Theory/model	Coverage of causal/technical	Coverage of interpretation/social	Coverage of the integration of the technical and the social
Simon (1969)	The Science of the Artificial (Design Science)	Design activity as technical problem-solving	Mentioned in the context of urban planning but not seen as most important (Huppatz 2015)	Not discussed
Rittel (1980, 1987)	Design Argumentation	Mentioned but not seen as the most important	Main focus: conceptualization of design communication as argumentation	Not discussed
Buchanan (1985)	Design Rhetoric	Technological reasoning considered a part of design argumentation	Main focus; conceptualization of design communication as argumentation	Addressed to a limited extent
Bucciarelli and Bucciarelli (1994)	Design as a Social Process	Considered as background knowledge in the social processes of design	Main focus: conceptualization of design as a social process (collective activity)	Addressed to a limited extent
Suh (2001)	Axiomatic Design	Main focus: the conceptualization of design as a technical process	Not discussed	Not discussed
Gero and Kannengiesser (2004)	Function–Behaviour–Structure Model	Focus on conceptualizing technical design activities	Social activities are oversimplified	Not discussed
Åman et al. (2017)	Integrating Technical and Human-Centered Design Knowledge	Technical design knowledge	Human-centered design knowledge	Focussed on the integration of technical and social design knowledge
Piccolo et al. (2019)	Iterations are a Result of Social and Technical Factors	Design activities and artefacts (documents, models, etc.)	Conceptualized as participants and relationships between activities	Conceptualized design processes as a system of social structures and technical systems

Figure 1. Design activity involves varying degrees of interpretation and causality.

Table 2. Comparison of the method of analysis and rhetoric according to design theory elements.

Elements of (design) theory	Method of analysis	Rhetoric
Scope (boundaries)	Strategy for solving and discovering solutions for geometric problems (two kinds of problems: theoretical and problematical)	Strategy for persuasive communication and studying communication (three kinds of rhetoric: judicial, deliberative, and epideictic)
Constructs (factors)	Contexts: States of geometrical problems and solutions (what is given and sought, solution principles, and means of construction in the analysis; assembly, proof, and decision in the synthesis) Objects: Definitions, postulates, causalities (cause and effect), and relationships (wholes and parts)	Contexts: Given situation, common ground Humans: Rhetor (intention and character) and audience (effects and emotions) Objects: Arguments (subject to character [ethos], logic [logos], emotion [pathos]), enthymemes, and medium (form, content, logic)
Relationships	Stages: Problem clarification, analysis proper, and resolution in the analysis; construction, demonstration, and conclusion in the synthesis Strategies: Heuristic, iterative, and determined Activities: Types of reasoning include transformation, regression (creative [abductive] and non-creative), and decomposition in the analysis; composition, deduction, and induction in the synthesis; external activities include assembly, testing, and verification	Stages: Invention, arrangement, style (implementation), memory (representation), and delivery Strategies: Iterative Activities: Types of reasoning include induction and deduction in logos; external activities include implementation and delivery by the rhetor and judgement by the audience
Justification and explanatory knowledge	Proven theorems, constructions of geometry, and logic	Common ground (endoxa: values, beliefs, and presumptions) and rules of logical argumentation

Figure 2. The philosophical framework constructed for design conceptualization.

Figure 3. The new design process model integrates causality and interpretation phenomena with object- and subject-oriented activities.

Table 3. Comparison of different design theories and models.

Aspects	Characteristics	FBS	AD	C-K	PA	V-model	HCD	New Model
Focus	Creativity			+
	Complexity	+	+		+	+		+
	Iteration	+	+		+	+	+	+
	Social					+	+	+
Process scope	Macro (project)					+
	Meso (phase)					+	+	+
	Micro (individual)	+	+	+	+			+
Analysis	Process focussed	+			+	+	+	+
	Product focussed	+	+			+	+	+
Synthesis	Process focussed				+	+	+	+
	Product focussed					+	+	+
Analysis and synthesis	Mirroring	+/−		+/−	+/−	+	+/−	+
	Interpretation					+	+	+
	Causality	+	+		+	+		+
Stages	Specifies stages/phases					+		+
Iterations	Progressive	+		+	+	+	+	+
	Corrective	+		+	+	+	+	+
	Managerial					+	+	+
Causal structure	Specifies causal structure	+	+	+	+	+		+
Activities	Mental	+/−			+			+
	External				+			+

Simon, H.A., 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

 Google Scholar

Huppatz, D.J., 2015. Revisiting Herbert Simon’s ‘science of design’. Design Issues, 31 (2), 29–40.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rittel, H.W.J., 1980. APIS, a concept for an argumentative planning information system. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California.

 Google Scholar

Rittel, H.W. J., 1987. The reasoning of designers. Boston, MA: IGP, 11.

 Google Scholar

Buchanan, R., 1985. Declaration by design: rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice. Design Issues, 2 (1), 4–22.

 Google Scholar

Bucciarelli, L.L. and Bucciarelli, L.L., 1994. Designing engineers. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

 Google Scholar

Suh, N.P., 2001. Axiomatic design: advances and applications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

 Google Scholar

Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., 2004. The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies, 25 (4), 373–391.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Åman, P., Andersson, H., and Hobday, M., 2017. The scope of design knowledge: integrating the technically rational and human-centered dimensions. Design Issues, 33 (2), 58–69.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Piccolo, S.A., et al., 2019. Iterations as the result of social and technical factors: empirical evidence from a large-scale design project. Research in Engineering Design, 30 (2), 251–270.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar