Embracing Complexity in Design

Journal of Mechanical Design, 2012

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.

While designers willingly embrace the science of complex systems, most scientists rarely give design a second thought and thereby miss one of the most revolutionary aspects of the new science: design, in the context of policy, is an essential part of the experimental method of the new science of complex systems. Currently few scientists today know anything about design as a process for understanding, creating and managing complex systems; but by the end of this century, if not by the end of this decade, design will be required study for complex systems science, alongside mathematics, statistics, computation and other core topics. Many of the systems that we find hard to understand are socio-technical-systems systems of systems-with tightly coupled physical and social subsystems. Most of these systems are artificial, meaning that they are in part or whole man-made-they are designed (Simon 1969).

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.

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.

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 mor...

CoDesign, 2005

Bringing designers together as successful design teams is investigated in the context of the science of complex systems. The relational structure inherent in design defines multilevel multidimensional networks, which can represent part-whole hierarchies in design. Design is presented as an iterative top-down and bottom-up process that induces the emergence of desirable properties. This involves the construction and instantiation of multilevel representations. The implications of this are discussed for computer supported collaborative design, and how interaction structures can be designed to support design collaboration. The paper is aimed at a general reader and is self-contained.

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

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

2015

From the ubiquitous hand-sketch to high fidelity prototypes, designers employ design representation as a means to externalise, reflect upon, communicate and develop design intentions. As a result of their importance, efforts have been made to identify and classify the different attributes of various representations used during design practice. An existing quantitative approach to the identification and classification of complexity within design representation is used as a coding frame in a content analysis of design representations identified within 50 design case-studies. Results indicate the complexity scale’s limitations as a means of analysis due to the subjectivity and interpretation required in its application. Conceptual and developmental design representation was particularly resistant to the objective measurement of complexity, indicating the role subjectivity and interpretation play in design representation, particularly during conceptual design. Results provide further evidence to suggest the limitations of research methods based upon the paradigm of design as a rational problem solving process, with its emphasis on objective observation. Instead we provide evidence to support a constructed account of design practice as a reflective conversation with the situation, influenced by and dependent upon representation, subjective judgment and interpretation.