The Theory of Design Processes should contain the complete process knowledge about the transformation "designing" as a holistic unit. This means, in contrast to empiricism (the present condition), that each scientific knowledge unit should be processed with its knowledge (facts) or hypotheses into a whole, whereby the relationships among the individual knowledge elements (and those of the coordinated Theory of Technical Systems) are explicitly recognized and explained. The knowledge units should be systematically completed, until the overall knowledge system emerges.
The contents of the Theory of Design Processes can be outlined by following themes:
In the treatment of designing in history (Chapter 3), only "designers" were considered as its operators. The design process was for a long time given almost no scientific regard, and at least that part of the design process starting from an idea and leading to the concept sketch was considered as a more or less irrational phase or "black box." The necessity of new knowledge was recognized, but not further explored, by Reuleaux. He wrote in 1856:
The knowledge of principles borrowed from mechanics does indeed not suffice, to execute the draft layout of a machine. Only through a combination of the theoretical results with the practical demands can rules be formulated, such that their application is an easy matter and which in the ordinary case lead to correct results. Generating such rules for designing of machine parts and of the complete machines, and the explanations for applying those rules, form the task and the object of design instruction for machine engineering.
In the course of time some new works were written in which the authors wanted to transmit to the reader, under the title "design instruction" (Konstruktionslehre, design apprenticeship, study of designing), the knowledge about designing. From that view, design instruction (machine engineering basics) should teach how a machine system (TS) which carries all necessary properties can economically be generated, originated, designed. In contrast to most of the books in figure 7--1, the object of observation is not only the machine, but particularly also the design process. The knowledge of engineering sciences and the machine theory are appended in necessary breadth.
If we compare the contents of several works on design instruction, we find:
We will derive the structure of contents from the model of the design system, figure 7--10--C.
The definition (see figure 7--10--A) is formulated very generally, and in accordance with the "transformation process." The many available definitions (for example those quoted in Chapter 1) deal with almost all possible aspects of designing. However, they often operate with certain quality attributes (optimal, favorable solution), which is fundamentally wrong. The result of designing can also be an imperfect, unfavorable or even impossible technical system (however undesirable that may actually be).
In practice, several designations exist for such a transformation "design process." According to our definition, figure 7--10--B shows that all of these other designations can be subsumed under "designing" as an inclusive term. Even organizing can be interpreted as designing of human systems, whereby it is subjected to the general design theory.
It is important to stress that our explanations concern the general plane of designing, this is a consequence of the definition.
The model of the design process (or design system in figure 7--10--C) is derived from the transformation model, if all elements (according to figure 7--2) are concretized for "designing." The interpretation of the model is: The transformation of the needs, demands, requirements, wishes and constraints into the (manufacturable) description of a technical system is reached because of the inputs (influence, effects) of operators. The transformation proceeds in a certain space (environment) and time.
The last part of figure 7--10--D shows that the design process can be interpreted in a wider or a more narrow sense (compare Section 1.2.3 and figures 1--1 and 1--2). In the wider sense the interpretation starts from the (customers') needs, if the product planning and development process is integrated within the design process system, for transforming these needs to demands, requirements and constraints on the technical system. In the next sections we will treat the partial areas of the design process, and we will derive these from the "design system."
Questions:
Even if these questions may not have as high a value in comparison with the range of problems of designing, they must be completely answered and justified by the theory, and any variants of answers must be evaluated.
We have up to this point stated many concrete facts especially to these questions (compare Chapter 1). To sum up:
An important description of each concrete process emerges through its assignment to a characteristic class. The classes can be arranged according to several features like degree of originality or complexity of the operand (the system to be designed), or of the state of embodiment of individual operators. Some examples are offered in Chapter 1, figure 7--10, or figure 7--16.
Questions:
Requirement, goal: As the main result of designing, the optimal quality of the proposed technical system should be reached with respect to the given requirements for the TS, but within a shortest possible design duration, lowest possible design cost, and considering the organizational constraints of the company.
In this phase the technology of the design process should be ascertained, which should make possible not only the transformation of the information (from the needs to a description of the TS ready for manufacture), but at the same time also its optimization. We must find the laws of this transformation, as well as the influences of individual elements. To guarantee that the process progresses in an effective way, all the psychological, technical and organizational elements and their mutual relationships must be standardized.
The problem treated here is usually discussed in the literature about design under the term "method" (in different combinations) rather than that of technology. Two reasons may be given:
However, more general goals have been formulated for Design Science, and the term technology is then more suitable as a general designation, an inclusive term for the ways of performing the transformation.
Two further remarks are useful. The first affects two possible interpretations of technology:
The second remark refers to the term method:
The designation of the contents of technology is also implied by other expressions, such as algorithm, but they generally cover only some aspects of the term.
An analysis of present and future design processes allows us to recognize at least three typical classes of transformation technologies (compare figure 7--16 and Section 7.2.2.8):
Supporting the transformation of information in the design process by technical means (e.g. computers) is a different aspect of the problem (see figure 7--16 rows E, F and G).
The tasks of the individual operators (see figure 7--10) are obviously different within these types of design process and technologies.
Other parameters of the design process are also influenced by the design technology, particularly quality (of design of the product), time to completion of the design work, and especially the transparency of the design process -- this latter factor can permit or hinder such procedures as team cooperation, design audits, product liability litigation (and preparing in anticipation to defend against it), passing a project on to another designer, etc.
We need some added considerations in this respect about the position of Design Science:
In addition, the traditional (intuitive) way should be explained in and by the theory, its apparent mysteries discussed and clarified, and its mythology destroyed. Some of this task was performed in Chapter 1.
Without doubt many successful technical system ("designs" and constructions) were realized even when design methodology as such did not yet exist. Observations and analyses of good design works could have led to certain generalizations and to introducing a tendency towards improvements. That was the first consideration for rationalizing.
In the attempts to describe the individual activities (operations) within the design processes, as well as the outputs, different individual "leaps of thought" were discovered which did not allow generalization, and were not able to be performed by a method. This shows that the technology of "intuitive" processes (compare Section 1.4.1) as a promising basis is not transferable (i.e. not teachable) because the process remains obscure and closed.
Transparent and repeatable are only discursive operations. The formulation of the system of discursive operations and their methods, used as technology of design processes, has become the goal of design methodology. It is also known as methodical, systematic, planned or structured designing.
The method should guide the process purposefully and as planned. In the available procedural models, three classes can be found according to the type of guidance (regulation and control):
A planned process of designing cannot be built only on the general, logical methods, but it must develop particular, empirical methods, which are determined by the individualistic characteristics of the object of designing (compare also figure 5--4).
Methods, as instructions, have strictly speaking a prescriptive rather than descriptive character. Therefore we will discuss methods again in the prescriptive parts of this Chapter, Sections 7.3 and 7.4. In contrast, the theory must treat the study of methods as basis for the whole area. In figure 7--11 we try to present the most important facts of methods, especially the terminology.
To make the area of methodology clearer, we distinguish between design strategy, which should determine the general direction of the procedure, and design tactics, which treats the methods and working principles of the individual design steps.
In the context of the systematic discursive instructions for procedure, the question must emerge whether the whole design process is algorithmically solvable. Franke [157] denies this on the grounds that "algorithm" should only be interpreted in its strictest sense of machine instructions. Even so, procedural models of designing have emerged and continue to emerge, as "flexible algorithms," not only in design strategy but also in design tactics.
On which considerations, bases and knowledge do these methods rest? Because we are dealing with thinking processes, knowledge from the psychology of thought is utilized, and especially association is explored. In addition, we look for means to eliminate thought errors and fixations. Contacts are also made to general works from the study of knowledge, and logic, as was reported in Chapter 1 (Descartes, Polya, see also Chapter 5).
Scientific organization of work is also an important source of references. Especially the principle of decomposing a complex task into a series of part-tasks is consistently followed.
The essential knowledge applicable for methods must, however, originate from the technical system, the object being designed. As figure 5--4 shows, the method is influenced especially by the object. Because designing tries to establish structures, the essential task consists of finding suitable structures of technical systems (compare figure 7--3) and empirical laws of transformation.
Seen from the structural side, the design process can be recognized generally as system of operations. The type, quantity and arrangement of the operations depends on the technology of designing -- the technology creates one possible way of structuring the design process (see figure 7--13) by describing a recommended procedure (how should or can the transformation proceed, what should a designer do?)
Another possibility aims at determining all operations with respect to their complexity. This hierarchy (see figure 7--12) offers a favorable starting point for many considerations.
Each operation at a particular level in figure 7--12 contains the operations in the next lower level, and forms simultaneously an element of the operations in the next higher level. Level 1 presents the overview of the design process, with a crude subdivision into the three main stages (the general viewpoint suitable for management):
Conceptualizing, laying out (embodying), and elaborating (detailing).
The design operations on level 2 are repeatedly utilized parts of the main stages, which fulfill certain purposes of changing information in the design process, including the work of designing. Level 3 contains the group of the basic operations which is generally known as the problem solving cycle (compare figure 6--1), with additional operations referring to providing information, verification and representing. The elementary activities on level 4, although frequently used during design work, and operations on level 5 are no longer specific for designing and problem solving.
Apart from the hierarchical relationships, other relationships can be seen within each level, namely the ones among blocks on each level, as is clear on level 3 for the basic operations. The secondary and leadership (management) operations must not be forgotten as necessary elements of the design process.
The design methodological knowledge can with advantage be presented in form of flow charts (with explanations). These can clearly show the complete process and define the design steps and their inputs and outputs. Such representations are especially suitable for the strategic design knowledge, and partially also for the tactical knowledge. In figure 7--13 this type of representation is illustrated using the example of a general procedural model for designing -- this figure presents a finer subdivision of level 1 in figure 7--12, and contains the operations at level 2.
The top block in figure 7--13, part 1, shows that the task should first be defined, and indicates some steps suitable for generating a design specification (refer also to figures 7--4 and 7--5). Within the larger block labeled "conceptualizing," the upper part describes steps to establish the transformation process according to figure 7--2, and the applicable or available technologies. This continues by establishing the needed effects, figure 7--3, level (I), and the TS-internal and trans-boundary functions and their relationships, the function structure, figure 7--3, level (III). The second part of "conceptualizing" intends to establish inputs to the TS, modes of (internal) action, and classes of organs (as function carriers). This part continues by progressing to suitable arrangements of organs into an organ structure (concept), level (IV). Laying out (embodying) to establish the component structure, level (V), takes place in three distinct stages. In the first of these, progress is made by preliminary investigation of arrangements, sizes, forms, etc., usually in the form of sketches -- mainly executed by hand. The second stage transfers to a largely dimensional representation, the common layout, supported by calculations, simulations, etc. A management procedure is usually inserted here to audit the design results and approve further expenditure on this project -- a connection to the second "house of quality" in QFD is suggested. The third stage allows production of all detail and assembly drawings and parts list, and completion of the instructions for manufacturing. Further explanations to these operations are available in [219,228,229].
Each such design step should permit and encourage an investigation of alternative solutions. It should also support and encourage validation and verification (checking), iteration and recursion (decomposition), evaluation and selection (decision making). The results of these processes are indicated in figure 7--13, part 2. Selection of the most promising alternative(s) at each modeling level helps to control potential "combinatorial complexity," which could yield an inordinate number of combinations of alternatives -- the numbers of alternatives at each successive level of abstraction are, in effect, multiplied.
All conditions for which such an idealized model is valid must be indicated, e.g. that it covers the general direction for progress in novel design situations. Further the possibilities for entry into the procedure should be shown, indications should be given about what iterations and recursions can be executed with the help of feedback loops, and what information is needed.
A researcher would normally consider such an idealized general model with broader validity as a satisfactory result. It can, however, serve a practitioner only as preliminary model for working out concrete procedural plans. These must reflect the situation and design problem to be processed. Figure 7--14, part 1, shows some directions for moving from the general situation (procedural model) to specific cases, which the designer must traverse. We can speak of different depths of concretization in this context.
The ability to perform the described concretization is apparently not as widespread in engineering practice as would be necessary. The concretization steps demand much knowledge about the individual design operations. The lack of knowledge leads to not using these possibilities, and thereby also to unsatisfactory application of design methodology in engineering practice. Most likely, working designers can be effectively helped if they are given appropriate advice and references for the respective situation, which should answer the current question "What should I do now to make it more likely that I can find a suitable solution to my design problem?"
Such a form of methodical knowledge is not available at present. It demands, beside the classification of such "design situations," a costly revision of the existing knowledge. An important question usually remains open, i.e. whether this form of knowledge is meaningful at such a level of abstraction, or whether the necessary concreteness and quality is achievable only on the level of product families.
A further possibility for structuring the design process starts from considering the design process as a system of design situations.
To describe a such situation in the design process (when designing), we introduce a new term, "design situation," and determine suitable parameters. Again the elements of the design system (figure 7--10) help us to find the features. They are, as examples:
| in the area: | characteristics, features: |
| Operand (TS): | TS-Family, degree of originality, degree of complexity |
| Technology: | |
| Designer: | Education, experience; Lone designer, group, team, cross-disciplinary team |
| State of knowledge: | Which state of knowledge is available for the particular problem? |
| Working means: | Types of available means |
| Management: | Organization; location and time when designing |
Another guideline for establishing an effective information system uses the hierarchical classification of design situations. Some classes of design situations occur perhaps once in ten years, other classes occur much more frequently. Accordingly, the information systems which rest on design situations should be expanded only for such meaningful, concrete situation levels which appear sufficiently often in the design process.
Very pragmatically, according to their use in designing, design situations are established either from the design operations and basic operations (figure 7--12), or by certain features of the operand. We can describe the structural element (figure 7--20 A) as follows:
Another class of design situations emerges when considering the design operations dimensioning (size calculations), form-giving, determining of raw materials, and others. These are repeated several times during designing (also as an iteration process), and different methods, but also different elements of knowledge are utilized in each situation. That means that different elements of the branch knowledge must be available to the designer, according to state of the relevant design situation. Thus, completely different stratagems are used for example in the conceptualizing stage for the first assumptions about form, dimensions or raw materials, than in the solution of these problems in the preliminary layout or in detailing. We underline the importance of determination of property values as exactly as possible in the early design phases (shorter or longer control circuit and feedback loop, compare figure 7--15).
Every design situation can be described by a model such as figure 7--14, parts 2 and 3: a contract which contains particularly the characteristics of the ordered TS and its delivery, is met by a certain design potential, consisting of the company's design system with its capacities and capabilities for performing design work. It should be clear from this model that the contract contains information about the operational and environmental factors. If some of these factors are unknown, a more or less abstract situation results that must be concretized in successive steps.
Designers establish the individual structures of technical systems. These structures become carriers of the necessary and desired properties of future real products. The difficulty in designing lies in the uncertainty of predicting the future properties, which are detectable (measurable) predominantly only when the technical systems is put to use. Other properties come to light in production, storage, transport, maintenance, etc. All reveal themselves (as measurable or assessable) only a considerable time after conclusion of the real design work, when a substantial amount of money has already been invested.
In order for designers to be able to plan all properties in advance, by establishing the needed design properties, they must know the relationships among all kinds of external properties and the design properties (see Theory of Technical Systems [219]) and the right "master" of procedural technology. A good available method should then become clear. A method for strength calculation can serve here as example, it allows determination of which loadings are associated with the corresponding values of material, geometry, surface quality, etc. The existing methods affect predominantly the component structure, i.e. they are only usable from the late parts of the layout phase onwards.
The effectiveness of each method is measurable from the magnitude (time span) of the feedback loop which must be traversed to be able to change unsuitable values of the design properties. This is therefore the length of path between establishing a design property (in the design process) and determining its real value (in TS-use, etc.) from the achieved properties. This determination and measurement can be done either by a reliable predictive method or by factual measuring, experiments, trial operation, or other ways. This statement can be demonstrated on the example of manufacturing cost calculation, as shown in figure 7--15.
The manufacturing costs for a component depend generally on material, geometry, anticipated manufacturing process, surface quality and treatment, among others. The values of these design properties are established during layout, detail design and drafting. The question of whether the manufacturing costs correspond to the cost goal or whether they are acceptable, can in fact only be answered after manufacture, by means of post-calculation of cost. If a negative result should occur (i.e. the costs are too high), the designers would have to go back to the layout phase, redesign, write off all investments, and invest new money in design, production planning, material and production. The feedback loop is too long and costly, and negatively influences the delivery time.
The situation is much more favorable if the anticipated manufacturing costs can be determined in production planning (work preparation) by means of a reliable pre-calculation method, and if necessary to send the proposed components back for revision. But even here we must reckon with loss of money and time, because the feedback loop is still too long.
The goal of determining the properties must be to bring the inquiry as near as possible to the point of establishing these properties -- designing. With this objective in mind, the computer method of obtaining manufacturing costs during designing was developed (HKB [150,151,152,153]). It allows the designers to determine directly the manufacturing costs of proposed components and assemblies, and to optimize the design properties with reference to the costs. This computer program can augment and partially replace the advice and cooperation needed in concurrent engineering, to "design the product and the manufacturing process at the same time." Manufacturing enters and maintains its expertise in this knowledge-based system, designers call on the expertise when needed. Face-to-face negotiations are still important, the system can only maintain a limited range of expertise (in this case about costs), but especially because personal interactions can improve the quality of considerations and ideas.
This effort can be further continued in this direction, to eliminate the possible causes for the unfavorable design properties. In our case the function structure would have to be examined with respect to potential costs (function costs [150,151]).
The same guideline is valid for all other properties listed in figures 7--4 and 7--5.
As recapitulation of this section we will specify the kinds of the design processes which possess characteristic properties. The kinds of process in figure 7--16 are described from several viewpoints, especially from applications of design methodology and computers.
The machine process, when the design process is (completely or partially) performed by a machine (e.g. a computer), in other words "automation of the design process," is discussed in more detail in Section 7.5 about CAD.
Questions:
-- Terminology
Starting from the transformation system (figure 7--2), the operator "designers" can include all staff members which cooperate in and contribute to the transformation in the design process. In our model (figure 7--10--C) the inclusive term "designer" covers therefore not only development engineers and layout engineers but also draftsmen. This view differs from the normal professional designation, which defines only a particular employee class with rather exact duty statement ("terms of reference" or "job description") as designers.
Besides the people directly active in the transformation (i.e. designers) the complete design system (figure 7--10--C) contains also several further staff members who fulfill the general functions necessary for the progress of the design process: providing information (including standardization), managing (leadership), administrative processing, archiving, etc. This group of employees is understandably not included in the collective term "designers."
The design process (designing), viewed as execution of the transformation, demands from the operators a large quantity of different effects, which are described in figure 7--12 through the activities of the designers. The individuality of designers meant that the predominant share of the effects were accomplished by designers themselves. The fulfillment of all qualitative characteristics of the design process has measurably influenced the designer-operator. Only in the later phases of automation of the design process (as part of the CAD efforts, see Section 7.5) can we expect that a part of these tasks is taken over by the computer. For this reason the great importance of designing for the company rests with the designers. (This circumstance is, however, in blatant contrast to the reality, where the designers are generally held in low respect, as previously mentioned. Even so, a positive world view on the part of the designers, both socially and technically, is indispensable.)
The duties of the designers are, however, not only limited to the transformation "designing," itself. Many other activities exist which support designing, but cannot be allocated directly to the real design process (see also Chapter 1 and figure 7--11, two lowest levels). Further ranges of tasks are formed in this sense by activities such as planning, preparing and supplying information, consultation with production planning or assembly, experimentation section (e.g. research laboratories or development sections) or company operation [180].
The aspiration to minimalize the proportions of such tasks in design work should be supported by the theory through corresponding knowledge. It is also expected from the theory that it thoroughly explores all task ranges of the designers and places at their disposal a basis (or a pattern) for concrete cases.
The answer to this question can be given especially under consideration of two points of view. On one hand the designer-operator is embodied from the point of view of structure as:
On the other hand it is possible to form certain species of designers according to their employment and qualifications. The result will not be equal in different places or countries. In the German language area, mostly the following species are named:
The definitions also contain complete conditions for each species.
Another point of view can be obtained from the hierarchy in management and/or in the designation of salary groups.
The species and classes of designers have a close relationship to the problem of specialization and organization in the design office, and these are discussed in the operator "leadership, management" (Section 7.2.2.7).
The demanding activity of designers puts correspondingly high requirements on them, their abilities, skills, knowledge and attitudes. In this part of the theory we deal especially with the general specification of all knowledge (about the general and about the branch/domain/expert knowledge), abilities and skills, and the personal characteristics and outlooks, which are necessary for the profession. This "model of the ideal designer" should serve to derive pictures of the profession and terms of reference. A possibly useful model is contained in figure 7--17, in which the necessary knowledge, abilities and personal characteristics are listed.
The development of a student to a successful designer should be guided, and should not be left to chance (compare Section 1.5). Therefore it must be one of the goals of this theory to propose suitable models and didactic instruments, which consider all elements (school, practice, etc.) and integrate them into a total system. The main task remains, however, to process the Design Science generally and particularly for students (further discussions appear in Chapter 9), and to develop the necessary pedagogic and didactic principles, tools, procedures and teaching materials.
The assignment of this task designation to Design Science could be disputed (does it not belong more into the sphere of education?). The task is so special that it can be solved only by design specialists. Of course educationalists must also be included as cooperators. This cooperation shows an important role for specialized organizations combining engineering and education elements, for instance the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the Internationale Gesellschaft für Ingenieurpädagogik (IGIP -- International Society for Engineering Pedagogics), and Société Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs (SEFI -- European Society for Formation of Engineers).
Questions:
The application of working means is in general very different for individual kinds of design transformation. It is particularly dependent on the kind of transformation, the quality of the available technical means, and the knowledge of the technology. From all these aspects, the application of working means in the design process, before the origin of Design Science and before the invention of computers, was limited to resources for the designers" own activities (compare figure 7--11).
The importance of the operator "working means" increases with the new resources, especially with the computer as independent supplier of effects.
The theory should especially consider questions 2 and 4. The creation of conditions and requirements belongs to the most important tasks of Design Science. The regulation of the conventional means (for example through good classification) brings also positive consequences in the rationalizing process. Further in the section about CAD (Section 7.5).
Questions:
Branch (domain) information is (apart from the designers) the most important operator of the design process. Designing in engineering under conventional circumstances can be done without methodology, almost without working means and without management (except possibly self-management), but by no means without knowledge of the laws of nature, materials and their characteristics and processing, without standards, patents, etc. Also, rapid provision of important information is decisive for the effectiveness of the design process.
As already indicated, from the point of view of terminology the words information (in the arts and colloquially), knowledge and awareness are used practically as synonyms, even if deviations of content are often implied.
As branch information (technical or domain knowledge) we consider above all the contents of the Specialized Design Science in that certain area (see Chapter 8). The general knowledge and ability is regarded as a general requirement.
Technical knowledge is divided into branch object knowledge and design process knowledge. Branch object knowledge concerns the object of designing (the technical system to be designed), process knowledge concerns designing itself (as activity and technology).
These definitions answer the questions 1, 2 and 3, because we have now arrived back at the discussed content of Design Science (see Chapter 5). Essential ideas to the range of problems of branch information are explored also in the next sections, in which the object and design process knowledge are treated, and in particular the form and sources of knowledge (see figure 6--2).
In this connection we must refer to a further area, information and documentation science (library science). Their object is also information, they look for optimal methods and means of presenting, registering (referencing, cataloging), processing, storing, retrieving (searching), evaluating and interpreting of information, manually and/or with the help of computers (almost without regard to the content and its meaning for a special branch of application). The technology of these activities is treated in the disciplines of documentation (e.g. library studies). Especially the operations of recording (cataloging), organizing and retrieving of documents and providing them to interested people are explored. Because this area deals also with operations which are at times executed by designers, this knowledge should not be foreign to them. This is especially true because they must maintain contacts with libraries, for which information and documentation presents a fundamental discipline. The questions about information sources and evaluation are answered in these areas, and further important information like cataloging (ordering) systems, data banks and data carriers (media) are delivered (i.e. in answer to questions 4 and 5).
All rationally working designers must unavoidably find out that they must set up their own information system. Whether they use computers, files, or other working means is not significant. They should, however, get instructions from Design Science about how such a data base can be set up, because the cataloging (ordering) system should be harmonized with the knowledge from Design Science.
Questions:
The leadership and management systems and techniques are organized very differently, according to kind of the design process (see figure 7--16) and the state of the individual elements of the design system (figure 7--10). It is especially difficult to lead and to organize the individual persons.
Design work is surely a particular kind of human activity, which can also be described with attributes such as creative, artistic, etc. (compare Chapter 1). The leadership strategy in the design process must consequently be different from that for other person systems and will hardly be found in a manual for management. Leading designers up to the supreme position must always be branch experts, who understand the work and are ready to take part in discussion "at the drawing board" itself, for otherwise they can hardly find the necessary recognition from their staff members.
All activities of the design leaders, such as determining tasks and assignments, planning, giving orders, determining working methods, demanding effective and complete documentation (e.g. of decisions), work coordinating, organizing and others, must be conducted and influenced by conscious leadership tactics. Continuing education of the staff members should not be forgotten, in branch (object) knowledge, in design process knowledge and in personality development.
It is a further task of Design Science to support the design manager with corresponding knowledge and to make available for design processes the particular theories of specialization, organization and planning. The following often opposing characteristic feature of the design process must be considered:
Question:
The design process proceeds in a material and social environment. The influences which these exercise on the design process, especially on the person, are included in terms such as working conditions, working milieu or working climate, and are generally explored in work science. Included in this field are psychology, physiology, technology of work, as well as work medicine and study of culture -- this implies also the breadth of this range of problems. This range of problems, which is coupled to the job, must be recognized consciously as a micro-situation within the broad framework of the macro-situation (i.e. the company and general society). The influence of the macro-situation on the design process can gain great importance in certain phases (e.g., war, economic crisis). Our investigations will be limited to the micro-situation. Three main cases can be distinguished, which create completely different boundary condition:
The currently important situation is the one of computer application. In a few TS-families (e.g., VLSI -- very-large-scale-integration of computer chips) this is already close to full automation of some parts of the design process. This stage includes the physical and organizational working conditions (position, size, equipment and arrangement, lighting, climatic conditions, noise in the design office) and the psychological working conditions, but also the range of problems of work with the computer (relationship human-computer, interfacing).
The importance of the discussed working conditions is larger than one could suppose. This is proved by questioning designers, who often rate these elements relatively very highly. The influences of the active environment appear also indirectly, working conditions have important relationships to other elements (e.g. to leadership, to working means, to information), whose influences they either strengthen or weaken (brake).
Design Science should put at the disposal of the design process the appropriate results of work science and special research, and emphasize their coupled interactions.
The treatment of the design system, with the design process at its center (figure 7--10) shows the range of problems in breadth, with all their elements and relationships. An orientation is offered by the matrix which presents the relationships between the goals and features of the design process and its influential factors. In figure 7--18, these relationships are rated on a four-point scale (decisive, medium, small, or no influence). From this matrix we can see that they determine more or less the place values of individual factors for the chosen characteristics.