Complexity models in design

2005

Designing is a heterogeneous, fuzzily defined, floating field of various activities and chunks of ideas and knowledge. Available theories about the foundations of designing as presented in "the basic PARADOX" (Jonas and Meyer-Veden 2004) have evoked the impression of Babylonian confusion. We located the reasons for this "mess" in the "non-fit", which is the problematic relation of theories and subject field. There seems to be a comparable interface problem in theory-building as in designing itself. "Complexity" sounds promising, but turns out to be a problematic and not really helpful concept. I will argue for a more precise application of systemic and evolutionary concepts instead, which-in my view-are able to model the underlying generative structures and processes that produce the visible phenomenon of complexity. It does not make sense to introduce a new fashionable meta-concept and to hope for a panacea before having clarified the more basic and still equally problematic older meta-concepts. This paper will take one step away from "theories of what" towards practice and doing and try to have a closer look at existing process models or "theories of how" to design instead. Doing this from a systemic perspective leads to an evolutionary view of the process, which finally allows to specify more clearly the "knowledge gaps" inherent in the design process. This aspect has to be taken into account as constitutive of any attempt at theory-building in design, which can be characterized as a "practice of not-knowing". I conclude, that comprehensive "unified" theories, or methods, or process models run aground on the identified knowledge gaps, which allow neither reliable models of the present, nor reliable projections into the future. Consolation may be found in performing a shift from the effort of adaptation towards strategies of exaptation, which means the development of stocks of alternatives for coping with unpredictable situations in the future.

Springer eBooks, 2005

Most companies struggle with the efficiency of their processes. One contributory factor is the lack of efficient process planning. This paper describes current planning practise in industry, which uses a multitude of different plans in parallel. The units of planning and their resulting plans roughly fall into product plans considering cost, bill of material and procurement considerations; process plans including different milestone, task and activity plans and quality plans. This paper maps out the ownership of these plans, and establishes that organisations work because individuals use more then one plan and have a tacit understanding of the relationships between these plans. The lack of effective plans affects the company through a lack of understanding of process connectivity and in consequence bad communication.

2001

Connectivities between processes in product developments indicate both conflicts of resources and potential synergies. These represent constraints and potential opportunities in planning design Each product development comprises a network of processes. Similarity between processes is analysed by a layered classification ranging from common components to shared design knowledge. The connectivities between products arising from similarities among products are represented by a multidimensional network. Design planning is described by flows or 'traffic' on this network which represents a structural model of complexity. Comparison is made with information based measures of the complexity of designs and processes.

International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 2018

Can a design process be complex system? Can it fulfill various criteria related to complexity, while its goals are, usually, temporarily defined and the process itself is expected to provide particular solutions transferable into physical volumes and solid environmental components? It is apparent that the majority design cases do not follow traits and requirements of complexity, but this limitation seems to be related to natural tendency of simplification within architectural routines. Particularly public works, significant for the community, require the approach broadening the scope of understanding of spatial phenomenon, its role and its composition as a result of various programmatic, ideological, formal, and engineering aspects, embedded in complexity theoretical background. Seven principal components of complexity, given by Rzevski and Skobelev, are more or less explicitly or implicitly present in design practice, and in particular, in design process: connectivity, autonomy, emergence, non-equilibrium, nonlinearity and self-organization. The aspect of evolution is the least apparent and there are significant limitations to what can be achieved there, mostly the process can evolve, while designed substance rarely can follow in the same flexible manner. In the paper I will argue that approach related to complexity is the general mode of architectural design, simplified in many cases due to human inclination to reduce the number of simultaneously processed problems and usually resulting in some design flaws or failures. This complex structure of design process, exemplified in the paper as a particular research case – the process for local cultural center – is the basis, which can be furthermore simplified, contrary to the idea that it is more sophisticated, non-standard approach. Working not only with the client, but with various types of users is a typical architectural condition, implementing significant constraints and at the same time forcing multiple organization arrangements within the process. The case will provide the platform to discuss broader idea of design as complex environment for the architect.

Form Akademisk - forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk

Today, most challenges designers face are complex. One way industrial design engineers have learned to deal with this complexity is to simplify the problem early on—for example, by focusing on one particular context, e.g. user group. Variations are typically addressed, but preferably inside the simplified design task or even after initial success has been achieved and a path has been set out. A range of authors have suggested ways to address variations during the design process. This paper contributes to exploring this notion of variation by presenting an approach that emphasises contextual variation early on, clarifying the design task before the design process, in a narrow sense, begins. This enables designers to seize opportunities that reveal themselves before a final path is set. Based on real-life cases and discussion of existing literature, the value of this approach for an industrial designer’s arsenal is explored and guidance for next steps is offered. Keywords: context v...

Journal of Mechanical Design, 2012

2023

Design has traditionally been the process of transforming a problem statement, or need, into a solution. Design was originally the domain of the master craftsman, or architect, who translated the client's needs into an exquisite artifact. Design thinking is a recent attempt to make the design process more accessible to a wider audience, to solve a wider range of problems, in every discipline. Much of traditional engineering education is the development and teaching of solutions to standard problems-design and build an electrical circuit, write a piece of software, analyze a beam. These might be components of larger systems, e.g., a mobile phone or a bridge. We can break down complicated engineering artifacts into major components and those components into smaller components until the whole artifact has been designed and brought together as a working system. This divide-and-conquer strategy has placed men on the moon and spacecraft beyond the solar system, which are remarkable achievements. Systems engineering describes the systematic design process that has delivered these remarkable outcomes. As complexity increases, design must be seen, particularly at the conceptual design stage, as a collaborative process of engagement between the client, the designer, and a wide range of stakeholders to develop effective solutions for complex problems. No one of these individuals has all the perspectives required to develop appropriate solutions. Rather, the collective wisdom must be pooled to shape the final solution. This is, of necessity, a collaborative process where the engineer must play the role of making appropriate technology available to the co-designers, demystifying what is possible. At a later stage, they can burrow down into the detailed design of the technology component of the solution. However, if the social dimension does not work, the technology will be of little assistance. The Apple iPod is a wonderful example of technological success, solving the human need (play music anywhere, anytime), with a beautifully designed piece of hardware. Its success comes from a different systems view, which included, not just the person listening to their music, but also the music companies, and their contracted

International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 2016

Product complexity is driven by the interdependence of product functions, which in turn determines the interdependence of design tasks, and this is reflected in the complexity of the design process. Ever increasing product complexity has become an obstacle to effective product design. This paper introduces an agent-based model that was used to study the impact and mitigation of product complexity, where complexity was characterised by metrics defined from a knowledge perspective. In the model, a product was represented as a set of functions that required designer knowledge, component design and component integration. Designers were modelled as agents who learned knowledge through consultation and who applied knowledge to function design tasks. Variables that characterised different coordination mechanisms influenced the efficiency and quality of communication between designers and impacted the global behaviour of product design. The results from simulation experiments suggested that a growth in complexity increased effort and span time exponentially and that coordination mechanisms which quickly increased designer learning or which improved collaboration reduced overall effort. The implication for managers is that, for the design of complex products, attention should be paid to the effectiveness of coordination mechanisms, and how they reduce the time for designer learning. The implications with regard to complexity during product design can be applied to other activities where learning is a key performance factor.

Design Philosophy Papers, 2014

In this article, I outline a shift in certain design disciplines away from their particular historical identities to one of borrowing from and validating new design practices from research-based disciplines. While this move to "look outward" and engage with social contexts and disciplines is important, design practice and education often ignores the ongoing critiques of knowledge production that ultimately trace back to social "contexts" within and outside of the borrowed disciplines. Choosing a methodology based on its apparent efficacy without engaging a critical framework can easily exacerbate a "micro-physics of control" (Foucault), which is further extended through the design of large technical and economic branding and information systems that many designers are increasingly involved in. The article concludes with an expansion and suggested application of a critical framing

Futures, 2008

This paper is an attempt to discuss the concepts of complexity and complex social system and their relation with the concepts of design and design activity. It is argued that a design cannot appear as an emergent property out of such systems, since it presupposes intentionality. However, to a certain extent, complex (social) systems need to be governed by means of design. Even if design requires prediction, which in our opinion is impossible in strict sense in case of social systems, there are two important conditions for a “good design”, namely, to look at the past, and to look at the future. After this general discussion, the paper provides a few suggestions on how to do the former without prejudices, and presents an effective technique for doing the latter without illusions.

Designing is a heterogeneous, fuzzily defined, floating field of various activities and chunks of ideas and knowledge. Available theories about the foundations of designing as presented in "the basic PARADOX" (Jonas and Meyer-Veden 2004) have evoked the impression of Babylonian confusion. We located the reasons for this "mess" in the "non-fit", which is the problematic relation of theories and subject field. There seems to be a comparable interface problem in theory-building as in designing itself. "Complexity" sounds promising, but turns out to be a problematic and not really helpful concept. I will argue for a more precise application of systemic and evolutionary concepts instead, which-in my view-are able to model the underlying generative structures and processes that produce the visible phenomenon of complexity. It does not make sense to introduce a new fashionable meta-concept and to hope for a panacea before having clarified the more basic and still equally problematic older meta-concepts. This paper will take one step away from "theories of what" towards practice and doing and try to have a closer look at existing process models or "theories of how" to design instead. Doing this from a systemic perspective leads to an evolutionary view of the process, which finally allows to specify more clearly the "knowledge gaps" inherent in the design process. This aspect has to be taken into account as constitutive of any attempt at theory-building in design, which can be characterized as a "practice of not-knowing". I conclude, that comprehensive "unified" theories, or methods, or process models run aground on the identified knowledge gaps, which allow neither reliable models of the present, nor reliable projections into the future. Consolation may be found in performing a shift from the effort of adaptation towards strategies of exaptation, which means the development of stocks of alternatives for coping with unpredictable situations in the future.

2006

This paper tries to establish a scientific understanding of complexity of multidisciplinary product development from the viewpoint of knowledge structure. It first discusses why such multi-disciplinary product development is complex and why complex problems are difficult to solve. It then analyzes the source of complexity from the viewpoint of knowledge structure and identifies "complexity by design" and "intrinsic complexity of multi-disciplinarity" when multiple theories are involved during design. Examples illustrate how the idea of knowledge structure based complexity can explain why multi-disciplinary design problems often turn out to be illstructured.

Studio briefs, influenced by an expansive view of architectural practice are increasingly foregrounding the architectural problem as inter-related, dynamic, and complex. Such a position is often focused on exposing patterns and processes as key drivers in a project. Sometimes this affects design projects in directly formal ways, and other times, these forces manifest in operational strategies. The discourse and studio projects surrounding Landscape Urbanism, which advocates a design practice wherein the project is seen to both affect and be affected by an inclusive set of environmental, social and economic factors, is an example of this. Through the lens of such a systems-based approach, the site is foregrounded as being dynamic, interconnected, resilient and indeterminate, and strategies for design within this flux are sought out. How can we directly confront some of these qualities around complexity in early design? How can we foster the development of new methodologies and introduce new tools to beginning designers to incrementally build the capacity to confront complexity in design projects? One approach, discussed here, involves coupling the learning around the systems-based design approach suggested above with another highly in-demand curricular component – that of design computation. Like its parent discipline of computation and other trans-disciplinary appropriations (such as computational ecology, computational economics etc.), design computation inherently presents strategies for managing complexity. However, within the academy, design computation is often presented, by way of workshops or elective courses, as a platform-specific skill highlighting the use of a computational tool (such as Grasshopper) to solve a suite of predetermined exercises. Recognizing that the field of design computation is changing and new applications for it are constantly emerging, it is opportune to explore ways to foreground the teaching of design computation not only as a specific tool or platform but as a methodology by which to approach design problem complexity in general. System Stalker Lab, a third year undergraduate studio, introduces students to issues of complexity by way of an exploration of design computation. The studio incorporates key concepts from the discipline of Computer Science and draw parallels between it and design practice by unpacking cross-disciplinary notions of algorithmic thinking, representation, programming, and design. The studio sees the students engage with computation, enabling them to develop project-specific tools to structure their work as a dynamic system, and then explore the space of that system and develop it in an iterative manner to arrive at the final proposition. The studio exercises described here are designed to deliver the technical skills-based instruction required of design computation while, simultaneously, developing the students’ ability to confront, manage and respond to the complexity within a design problem.

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings

I am currently an "Academic Development Lecturer" in the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Cape Town. The position involves curriculum development aimed at improving student performance and experience in engineering. This has directed my interest in graduate preparedness and led me to focus on design both at first and final year, and also how reasoning between the concrete and abstract can be implemented in disciplinary subjects.