Applying the proto-theory of design to explain and modify the parameter analysis method of conceptual design

Abstract

This article reports on the outcomes of applying the notions provided by the reconstructed proto-theory of design, based on Aristotle's remarks, to the parameter analysis (PA) method of conceptual design. Two research questions are addressed: (1) What further clarification and explanation to the approach of PA is provided by the proto-theory? (2) Which conclusions can be drawn from the study of an empiricallyderived design approach through the proto-theory regarding usefulness, validity and range of that theory? An overview of PA and an application example illustrate its present model and unique characteristics. Then, seven features of the proto-theory are explained and demonstrated through geometrical problem solving and analogies are drawn between these features and the corresponding ideas in modern design thinking. Historical and current uses of the terms analysis and synthesis in design are also outlined and contrasted, showing that caution should be exercised when applying them. Consequences regarding the design moves, process and strategy of PA allow proposing modifications to its model, while demonstrating how the ancient method of analysis can contribute to better understanding of contemporary design-theoretic issues.

Keywords::

• design theory
• conceptual design
• parameter analysis
• design method
• reasoning

Notes

^1. Email: [email protected], [email protected].

^2. Of course, from the early days of modern engineering, engineering students have encountered the term “analysis” in mathematics. It was originally used to refer to algebraic analysis (Monge, 1807), and infinitesimal analysis (Cauchy, 1821). These senses connected to the historical tradition in mathematics, although the meanings of the term had already drifted from what it was in classical geometry. However, this usage of “analysis” refers narrowly to the mathematical treatment of an engineering problem rather than to parts of the engineering design process itself. It is worth noting that the tendency of giving new meanings to the terms ”analysis” and “synthesis” has been quite common. Thus, Otte and Panza (1997) list no fewer than 18 different interpretations, in which these terms have been used in the history of mathematics.

^3. We use “analogous” in its everyday meaning of being comparable and related; not in the more specific sense of design analogies.

^4. Note that the meaning of C-space in the C–K theory is epistemologically different from PA's “concept space”. C–K's concepts are tentative descriptions of the design artifact, while PA's concepts are ideas to be incorporated in the artifact. The former includes the latter as attributes, but will also have structural characteristics that come from PA's “configuration space” (Kroll, 2013).

^5. Does this imply that a proof does not require creativity? Actually, the terms “proof” or “proving” may be used in two senses, to refer to the whole process of preparing a proof, or to the part in the method of analysis that delivers the proof, namely synthesis. The latter meaning was used already by Euclid; the Elements mostly consists of (ready) proofs in the form of synthesis. Now, in theoretical analysis, the task is to prove an assertion, theorem, conjecture. That endeavor has two parts, analysis and synthesis, where analysis is the creative part but synthesis is predetermined by the path taken in the successful analysis stage. Consequently, the preparation of a proof, as a whole, requires creativity, but the synthesis stage (usually) not.

^6. “Regressive transformational” means that the backwards reasoning, from ends to means, transforms an original problematic issue into another or re-interprets the current situations as a new one.

Additional information

Funding

This work was partly supported by the Israel Science Foundation [grant number 546/12] to the first author.