Week 10 – Capstone design: problem identification

Date 11/9

  • Topic: Capstone design 1

Pre-Class

The research trend on the engineering design process has changed depending on the perspective of engineering. In the middle of the 20th century, research on engineering design process conducted in terms of applied science. Since the 1980s, some researchers viewed engineering as a problem-solving process. In recent years, many researchers agreed that engineering design processes are complex and amorphous; as a result, some researchers adopted an ethnographic approach to describe details of the engineering design process within the specific engineering contexts. In order to understand the engineering design process, we will review the discussions and arguments in the development of design theories.

1. Engineering Design as Applied Science

In the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. engineering education was science-oriented in its approach (Bousbaci, 2008). Since the Second World War, a number of theory-oriented European engineers—nuclear engineers and space engineers, in particular—moved to the United States (Seely, 1999). The science-oriented engineering research of the time influenced the U.S. engineering education curriculum, which primarily focused on theory-based science learning (Grinter, 1955). Moreover, the U.S. military supported this trend by providing science-oriented research funding (Bix, 2002). This context coincided with an engineering perspective called applied science (Howell, 2002; Pahl & Beitz, 2013; Simon, 1975). Fletcher and Shoup (1978) viewed engineering as

“an applied science which deals with the planning, design, construction, testing, management or operation of facilities, machine, structures, and other devices used by all segments of society” (Flether & Shoup, 1978, p. 2).

The applied science approach attempted to define the design process based on logical, systematic, and rationalist views. Herbart Simon (1973) argued that a design problem can be defined as a well-defined problem. He stated that a well-defined problem has the following properties:

  1. a definite criterion
  2. at least one problem space
  3. definable state changes, and
  4. representable states.

According to this approach, all problems are solvable if the problem solver decomposes the problem. On the other hand, if a problem is not solvable, its proponents believed, it is because the problem solver were not able to define the problem. Design science theorists believed that design processes could also be illustrated via step-by-step models that divided design processes into distinct phases, including problem definition, analysis, ideation, and evaluation (Simon, 1973). One representative model of this approach is Hubka’s systematic design process model (1983). Hubka presented the design process in comparison with the technical process, which depicted the design process as a wire drawing. For example, a design project is a technical process where space and time variables apply. Once the design project is initiated, the effects of human actions and technical systems lead the design process, which in turn influences the project output. The model attempted to define the basic elements of the design process and identify a unified design process model applicable to a variety of design tasks.

A Design Model through Technical Process Model (Hubka, 1983, p. 9). The model can be accessed through https://www.daaam.info/Downloads/Pdfs/proceedings/proceedings_2014/074.pdf

However, the applied science approach has failed to represent the dynamic characteristics of design processes (Sheppard, Macatangay, Colby, & Sullivan, 2008). Rittel and Weber (1973) argued that design problems cannot be defined by definite rules and operations. He labeled this characteristic of design problems as wicked problems that lack definitive formulation, stopping roles, operations, and definitive solutions. Accordingly, Dorst (2004) argued that most design problems have the following three characteristics: 1) design problems are partly determined by explicit needs and constraints; 2) a major part of design problems is underdetermined; and 3) most parts of design problems can be considered undetermined. The applied science approach has contributed to the foundation of design process research, but is limited in its capacity to represent complex, intertwined design processes.

2. Engineering Design as Problem-Solving

An alternative approach to study the design process focused on problem-solving activities (Clarkson & Eckert, 2004; Cross, 2000; Lawson & Dorst, 2013). This approach emphasized engineers’ problem-solving activities: generating ideas, exploring the consequences, and evaluating the results. The underlying idea of this approach is that problem-solving plays as a fundamental operation in human activities. Similar to the applied science approach, this idea views the full design process as smaller sub-processes, such as conceptual design, prototyping, and product manufacturing (Ball, Evans, Dennis, & Ormerod, 1997). The problem-solving approach considers problem-solving as a sub-process of the design process. This approach led to the development of design process phase models that solved engineering problems step by step (Lawson & Dorst, 2013). The phase models allow engineers to easily generate a comparable solution by treating the engineering design task as problem-solving.

Many researchers have investigated how engineers generate the best solution via problem-solving approach. Lawson (1979) compared the problem-solving styles of architectural engineers and scientists and concluded that architectural engineers tended to use solution-oriented strategies, while scientists preferred to use problem-focused strategies. Lu (2015) studied the relationship between problem-solving types and design quality. Lu compared four problem-solving style types: problem-driven, information-driven, solution-driven, and knowledge-driven. Lu’s study concluded that the solution-driven strategies yielded more creative design outcomes than the other types. Dorst and Cross (2001) examined the design process in terms of creativity and confirmed that iterations between problem-space and solution-space are key to the generation of creative ideas.

Some critics have claimed that problem-solving process models do not explain all aspects of the design process. Bucciarelli (2003) argued that design process models depicted by shapes and arrows can only reflect a narrow view of the design process. Engineers often experience frustration when they try to solve a certain engineering problem according to a design process model because the model does not work as described.

3. Engineering Design as Ethnography

The multifaceted nature of engineering has led many researchers to adopt an ethnographical approach as a research methodology (Bucciarelli, 2003; Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Vinck, 2009). This ethnographical research method provides a realistic description of engineering tasks within the specific engineering contexts. Vinck (2009) used this approach to illustrate engineers’ day-to-day lives. Vinck visited engineers’ plants, design offices, and laboratories to observe what real engineers do. Using the ethnographical approach, Vinck presented the natural characteristics of engineering as: socio-technical complexity, negotiation and optimization, and comprehensive job practices (from designing to presenting the design solution). One advantage of this approach is that it does not simply claim that engineering is complex; it also identifies how the complexity occurred and was managed. The ethnographical approach can describe the engineering design process with realistic and authentic illustrations.

4.  Discussion – Your assignments, we will discuss these questions in the class.

  • According to Lasser, what are the six steps of engineering method?
  • Why is there a variety of design process models?
  • Do you agree with the view from “engineering design as applied science”? Explain why you agree or disagree?
  • What are wicked problems? What are the characteristics of wicked problems?
  • What are the benefits of the ethnography approach to engineering design?

In-class:  Problem identification & ideation

  • Grouping
    • Group 1: Micheal, Alex, Esau, Jhorvi
    • Group 2: Raul, Richard, Victor, Saralynn
    • Group 3: Dennis, Ronaldo, Islam, Lowman

Design requirements

Your team defines a problem situation and solve it using your knowledge and skills. The design problem can be identified from everywhere including COVID-19, student learning, NAE Grant Challenges, STEM education, or issues in your daily lives. In order to define the problem situation, the class will provide techniques to identify problem such as “what is the matter?” “who is the client?” and “who is the end user?” Then, you will be required to present a design solution using at least one of an advanced technology including Arduino or 3D printing. As you develop your project, you will need to document all the processes of designing on your online portfolio platform with notes and reflections.

Problem Identification

In problem definition, you should begin with identifying a problem your will explore in your capstone project. The design problem can be identified from everywhere including COVID-19, NAE Grant Challenges, STEM education, or issues around your daily lives.

Recommended Technique: Mind map (or concept map)

A mind map is a diagram used to visually organize information. A mind map is hierarchical and shows relationships among pieces of the whole. It is often created around a single concept, drawn as an image or a word, in the center of a blank page, to which associated representations of ideas such as images, words and parts of words are added. Major ideas are connected directly to the central concept, and other ideas branch out from those major ideas. There are several tools that support an online collaboration while drawing a Mind map, but in this class, the instructor recommend to use Google Slide as a collaborative platform. Your group leader create a Google Slide and share it with your group members after changing sharing permission.

Research the Problem

Next you should further discuss your problem. A big question you can start with is

What about the current situation is unsatisfactory?

In order to identify the unsatisfactory of the problem, we can use the User Scenario method.

The User Scenarios Method

  • Use a product or service yourself, but in an aware and critical frame of mind. This is called User Trip. User Trip is to use the product or service in a deliberate way and note down your reactions.
  • The essential part of user trips is that as a whole process, you critically observe the product or service.
  • Use the product or service and report everything thing that you experienced. Your report can include your actions, impressions, ideas and thoughts.
  • If you are working in a group, your group can assign each member different role such as A as customer, B as operator, C as maintenance person, D as designer, and etc.
  • https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/user-scenarios#_msocom_5

Report: Problem Identification

Write a brief summary of your problem. Below is the grading criteria.

  • Problem should be matter. It worth to solve in terms of social, economic, environment, safety, or equity.
  • Problem is specific, challenging, and can be investigated given available resources,
  • Written description of problem the problem. Attach your process documents. e.g.) mind map, scenario report.
  • Due 11/15.
  • Template

Avoiding Free riders in Group Project

In order to prevent free riders in the group project, this class will administrate peer evaluation two times in Weeks 12 and  15. The evaluation tool has ten items and scores through 1-5 each item. The results of the peer evaluations will be reflected on  your final project score as

an average of 45~50: you will get 100 % of your group points

40~45: you will get 90 % of your group points

35~40: you will get 80 % of your group points

30~35: you will get 70 % of your group points.

below 30: your will get 50 % of your group points.

1. Attended every group meeting (both in and out of class).
2. Contributed greatly to the construction of the report.
3. Did his/her homework; brought data to the group as assigned.
4. Participated in the organization of the report’s content/layout.
5. Shared his/her perspectives/opinions during group discussions.
6. Assisted in the editing/proofing/revising of the group report.
7. Helped resolve group conflicts that arose.
8. Took a leadership role in the group’s interpersonal dynamics.
9. Completed his/her fair share of the workload.
10. Was a positive influence on the group.

Google Group Evaluation Form