See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272620593

A Proposal for An Interactive Architectural Design Approach Inspired by

Industrial Design (DCC)

Article  in  Journal of Science and Technology · August 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 5,851

2 authors:

Mahshid Barani Maziar Asefi

Shiraz University of Art Tabriz Islamic Art University
16 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Study and Design of Shiraz Tourism Brand (1st Phase) View project

Environmental sustainability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahshid Barani on 11 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

A PROPOSAL FOR AN INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURAL

DESIGN APPROACH INSPIRED BY INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
(DCC)

Maziar Asefi 12, Mahshid Barani 3

1
PhD, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University,
Tabriz, Iran
[email protected]
2
Visiting Professor, Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
[email protected]
3
University Lecturer, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran, Lecturer

ABSTRACT
Architectural design process is usually run based on a detailed plan reflecting human needs in both
functional and aesthetic context. However, due to the necessity of comprehensive attention to
various design aspects including social, economic, technological and structural and etc. detailed
design and the interaction among the constituting elements of the space and production method,
are usually less considered during the design process while it is considered as one of the main
elements of industrial design methods. Therefore, in order to achieve a more complete and
productive response to human needs and architectural and manufacturing requirements, it is
necessary to develop a strategy toward a detailed and comprehensive consideration on the design
of physical and non-physical architectural elements and their interaction. This paper with regard to
the similarities and differences between the two fields of architecture and industrial design will
analyze the common trend in architecture and industrial design procedures and evaluate the
possibilities of their interaction toward the development of a comprehensive design approach in
architecture. Moreover, the main proposals and built architectural examples designed from a
notion that see architecture and all its constituting elements including furniture and structure as a
single entity are investigated. Finally this paper by evaluating the systematic design approach of
industrial design in the careful consideration to design details, ergonomics and the functionality of
the product, a new comprehensive architectural design method called “decomposition, consistency
and composition”(DCC) is proposed.

Keywords – Design Consistency, Architectural Design, Industrial Design, Design

approach, Interactive Design, Composition and Decomposition.

72
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

INTRODUCTION

To create a work of architecture there are some linked and inseparable steps
necessary, which keep all parts together and in connection with each other.
Architectural design process is carried out with regard to the number and
dimensions of the spaces in various types, qualities and quantities, and the
structural and technical design issues are to be lying in a desired connection
between these spaces. These connections may be particular to people’s transport,
distributing service spaces, or be in relation with the audio and visual linking and
division that are necessary for different personal and public performances.
However, in this process there is less emphasis on the ergonomics and
anthropometric issues and detail design, which are of main concern in industrial
design profession and play a significant role in the complementary processes of
architectural spaces. According to Sottsass, a successful Italian designer and
architect and one of the founders of Memphis school, industrial design is “Micro
Architecture”. Similar to an industrial designer who designs a product, a system or
special services with certain plan and objectives to answer certain needs, an
architect always designs with certain objectives and a well-organized plan to meet
human needs. A general understanding of the nature of architecture and industrial
design also suggests that architects mostly work in the large-scale while industrial
designers work in the small-scale. Therefore, due to this difference and a number
of similarities between these two disciplines in terms of the consideration of the
human needs, appropriate performance, beauty, stability and desired solidity, it is
argued that the incorporation of industrial design thinking may help architects in
better understanding of design requirements and connection among different
design components during different design stages while considering the
architecture as a whole entity.

In this study, by evaluating the current architectural design processes, the ways of
creating an architectural space by the employment of industrial design aspects is
discussed and the following hypotheses are evaluated and a new design
methodology is proposed.
• Implementation of industrial design approaches with more stress on details
leads to the maximum interaction in the architectural design process.

73
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

• The existence of a more practical aspect of the industrial design during the
architecture process helps improving the quality of architectural space.
There have been many studies dealing with the relationship between industrial
design and architecture, while a few of them speaks about the interaction between
the two disciplines in favor of improving an architectural design process. In the
current study, a new architectural design process will be developed by qualitative
analysis of the successful architectural and industrial design examples and the
analysis of main methods commonly used for building and product design.

Industrial Design Knowledge as a Complement to the Architectural Design

Process
During history, architecture has been influenced by many disciplines especially
arts and sciences. For example, in fine arts especially painting the “De Style”
movement and the pictures of Mondrian in the early 20th century opened a new
horizon on space expression and consequently influenced architects and designers.
The efforts of Gerrit Rietveld, the Dutch architect, in three-dimensional
imagination of these combinations in the form of furniture, especially chairs,
shifted the stream of thought and architectural creation from the emphasis on
apparent spaces and historic findings to the mind and inside of architects
(Khiabanian, 2010). Architecture and music also have many things in common
where the underlying concepts including repetition, stress, rhythm, balance,
symmetry, hierarchy have been used in both of them in order to respond to
different requirements and ambitions in different period of time. The need for
aesthetics in design on one hand and the necessity to be practical and executable
on the other are inseparable principles of industrial design that is similar to what is
expected in architecture (Hodjat, 2008). Analyses show that architecture students
assess several experiential qualities differently by touch than by vision. Vision
dominates the overall assessment, yet does not always anticipate touch correctly.
Moreover architecture students seem to be unaware of how common building
materials feel, and are unable to identify them by touch only. This identifies the
need for a more elaborate consideration of non-visual aspects during design in
general and design education in particular (Wastiels et al., 2013). Furthermore, in
both architecture and industrial design, space and products are design according to
pre-defined specification and user requirement and therefore the art of architects

74
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

and designers is to functionally and aesthetically respond to their needs. In the

building design field, the existence of spatial qualities suitable for the kind of
building program is expected, just as the prime importance of the performance
beside the other values in the design of a product. Another similar factor in
architecture and industrial design is environmental consideration and the
compatibility of a building or a product with its environment. A summary of the
main features of architecture and industrial design is concluded in Table 1. The
contemplation of the table and the review of the common features of architecture
and industrial design profession (explained earlier) suggest that the consideration
of industrial design principles especially those features that emphasize more on
detailing and user’s interactions could have a positive influence on the design of
architecture.

Table 1. The main features of architecture and industrial design

1.
ANALYSIS OF THE CONVENTIONAL METHODS OF
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Design process is like a chain of activities that needs a program to let the designer
study, identify needs, find solutions, evaluate them by a set of definite criteria and
present a final design to make all work. In other words, a design is a process in
which problems and solutions are developed alongside and in interaction with
each other. This definition represents a type of systematic process in which
synchronous and interactive activities take place to achieve predefined objectives.

The common design methods used by architects are “top-down”, “bottom-up” and
mixed or interactive methods (Fay, 1999). In top-down method, a building is
considered as a combination of smaller parts, rather than seeing it as a whole. In
this method, the very first steps involve organization and placement of spaces and

75
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

the next steps involve choosing the building material and connection details and
finally forming the whole building volume; while in bottom-up approach, the
building volume and the main design components are among the first things being
thought of and the plan composition, circulation, materials, details are among
those that are devised in the second place. In these two methods a hierarchical
process is used either from top to bottom or bottom to top and it usually does not
provide the possibility to comprehensively consider all architectural details,
structure, furniture and materials alongside the creation of architectural spaces and
volumes. In other words, in neither of these methods, space and details are
processed and devised in an interactive or mixed manner. However in the third
common approach called mixed or interactive method, the movement from top to
bottom and bottom to top is interchangeable, so that one cannot be called a
preceding step. In this method, different design steps and procedures are
conducted usually without pre-defined order or hierarchy. Therefore, a designer
defines the process and sticks with the necessary parts according to his/her
discretion. Moreover, in this method, in the interaction between the solution and
the problem there is no starting or ending points or any directions from one
activity to another. This method usually is regarded as one of the most effective
design solutions and flexibility and adaptability is considered as its main
advantages in the creation of architectural space.

Although the effectiveness of any of these methods cannot be solely evaluated and
it depends on the design requirements and designer’ taste and expectation, there is
a lack of a systematic approach in all of them that restrict a comprehensive and
interactive consideration of all design opportunities and restriction and design
components during various stages of the design process.

PRINCIPLES AND BASICS OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

Industrial designers seeks the creation of new products or modification and
revitalization of existing products; to reach this aim various methods are used, but
all methods fit in one main framework and in relationship with three main factors
including human, environment and product. As seen in Figure 1, there is no
beginning and no end point to this process and industrial designers consider these
factors as they interactively go from problems to solutions by means of analysis,
evaluation and composition.

76
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

Fig.1. A general trend in industrial design process an interaction between

problem and solution

In a common industrial design approach, beside the attention to the beauty and
ease of use of a product, important factors including ergonomics, productivity,
material, assembly, solidity, maintenance, economy, marketing, organizational
identity, value added, recycling and environment receive required attention as
design proceeds. As presented in Figure 2, an industrial designer employs a
systematic process, so that besides having different steps and definite order, a
lawful and meaningful connection exists between the steps.

Figure 2. General approach used in industrial design (Maver, 1970)

77
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

As illustrated in Figure 2, the design procedure starts with an initial research

resulted in a checklist of requirements and general ideas. The best ideas are
chosen in the next step and the design is escalated into a new phase involving in
analysis and evaluation of requirements and solutions. In all these steps, a
multidimensional interaction among human, environment and product are
systematically discussed and evaluated until the final product is created. However,
in common architectural design procedures this interactive process is usually
considered as a lost cycle, especially when it comes to issues including connection
details, construction and maintenance issues and specific space requirements such
as the consistency among texture, color, structure and furniture.

EVALUATION OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE

AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

In order to see how an interaction between architecture and industrial design may
influence building design and to shape an initial framework for our proposed
architectural design method, in this part main built examples designed by
renowned designers who have knowledge from both disciplines are evaluated. An
example of these buildings is realized in the renaissance period in the work
Leonardo Da Vinci and in the modern period in the work of architects such as
Luis Sullivan and his follower Frank Lloyd Wright. They sought for a consistency
concept in architecture in which performance, structure and decoration are
combined to present an artistic yet functional look appropriate for the modern
time. In Robie House, Wright designed furniture and revealed the real nature and
beauty of materials and colors in detail through gathering and assembling of some
simple design components. It is up to the designer to account for these different
interactions by considering different touch related aspects in the design—like
spatial configurations and material parameters such as roughness, warmth, or
weight (Herssens & Heylighen, 2011). The contemplation of these works shows
that the analysis and design of space components and their connection with the
architectural form, structure and material, etc. has been taken place
simultaneously and in parallel during the design procedure. In other words, the
accurate design of particular elements and details is regarded as a phase of
architecture and is usually presented by sketches and simple plans and diagrams
during the design procedure. This approach is clearly obvious in the works of
Alvar Aalto (Lahati, 2009). Similar to Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, Aalto

78
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

makes a harmony and balance between the exterior and the interior (Giedion,
1967). He also emphasized that statues and furniture are parts of his architecture;
“My furniture is seldom, if ever, the result of a professional design work. Almost
without exception, I have done them as a part of an architectural wholeness... as
an accompaniment to architecture “ (Weston, 1997) Other designers such as Zaha
Hadid and Karim Rashid, are not only involved in building design, but also in the
design of objects and elements required in their architecture (Maver, 1970). In
their work, the harmony and consistency among architectural space, constituting
elements and detailing is seen through movement, empty spaces and horizontal
lengthy forms. In the work of Karim Rashid, an industrial designer active in
architecture, the creation of integrated and smooth spaces is observed. He uses
vivid lines and colors while designing objects to suggest the sense of movement
and dynamism in the spaces. The contemplation of these works highlights the
importance of interactive attention to ergonomics, materials, detail, texture and
color etc. in the establishment of harmony and consistency among architectural
spaces and all other constituents of a building including structure, furniture and
services. The traits of these artists may be different when it comes to design; yet
ultimately, their final output has a specific alphabet and language. Achieving such
an alphabet requires a comprehensive knowledge and ability in the identification
and engagement of issues such as basics of visual arts, manufacturing, material
science, engineering and ergonomics during the architectural design process.

Table 2 indicates that in the work of mentioned designers, the whole concepts and
the specific parts, interior and exterior spaces, structural and non-structural
elements are blended and purposefully designed in order to form a desired space.
This table also encompasses a comparison of the techniques used these designers
with respect to their design procedures (as mentioned earlier). This must be also
added that we cannot absolutely associate each designer’s approach with a certain
design technique simply because architects are supposed to examine different
methods and techniques to address the requirements of each specific design.
These designers have constantly kept an eye on general and specific facts about
the space and have tried to improve space qualities by developing specific details
for each space. The success of their work supports the second hypothesis of this
study that the connection among a practical, inductive and interactive view in
architectural design may lead to the improvement of the quality of the

79
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

architectural space and add to the beauty and functional efficiency of buildings.

Table 2. A summary of important design characteristics in the design of mail

architects-industrial designers

DISCUSSION
Making a meaningful connection between interior and exterior spaces, defining
spaces and also achieving desired spatial connections and circulation are of great
importance in architectural design and are among those factors that receive the
most attention. However, the organization and decoration of interior spaces, the
design of building envelope, finishing works, detail design and material selection
are among the issues which are mostly challenged and are usually left behind until
the very last minutes and normally enjoy a poor interaction with the initial steps
and the general theme of the design. As explained earlier in reviewing the works
of the designers, the employment of the systematic approach of industrial design
profession can ease architectural challenges and consequently lead to an accurate

80
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

fulfillment of the space specifications and interactive solutions in design,

manufacturing and construction.

As explained earlier in Figure 1, the interactive attention to human, environment

and product considered as a focal trend in the industrial design process and can be
used as a driving factor in building design. According to the result of this study,
paying a careful attention to these three principles and their relation during
different design stages including analysis, evaluation and composition may result
in desirable architecture that responds to functional, aesthetic requirements and at
the same time ease and improve the process of manufacturing and construction. It
should be noted that in order to achieve a desired design, an interactive process
should be followed among these stages by understanding and considering the
creative problem-solving solution of industrial design. The use of this interactive
process during the evaluation of the proposed design alternatives can lead to the
best possible solution (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Analysis of the formation of the elements in the design cycle of

interactive architecture based on the principles of industrial design

In order to make the useful principles of the industrial design readily available for
architects during the design process, it is required to investigate the existing
solutions and evaluate what makes full-scale thinking possible for architects.
Bryan Lawson, a design theoretician, in his book “Design in Mind” has
interviewed ten renowned architects and has investigated the techniques each of

81
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

them uses in their designs (Lawson, 1994). He concluded that drawings play a
major role in the design process. It also confirms the results obtained from the
reviewing of the works of the architects explained earlier in this paper in that
preliminary drawings and sketches were always employed by them from the start
of their projects and resulted in the consolidation of the designers’ mind and their
dominance over different aspects of the projects (Lawson, 2000). In addition,
architects—like other designers—use a number of visual representation
techniques (such as sketches, diagrams, concept drawings) to not only
communicate their ideas to others, but also as analytical tools to organize their
thinking(Cross, 1982; Lawson, 2000; Schön, 1983). The combination of the
systematic design thinking by use of brainstorming diagrams (fishbone, tree,
mind-map, etc.) and use of simple drawings and sketches makes the main
framework of our proposed design method explained in the following part.

PROPOSED DESIGN METHOD

In the proposed method the design process is divided in three major stages of
decomposition, consistency and composition (DCC). In the decomposition stage,
several fish-bone diagrams are drawn for each specific building program. In each
diagram, all factors such as ergonomics, material, aesthetics, etc. that may
influence the design are shown in the main branches of the fish-bone diagrams
and all associating sub-factors are also identified and projected in the diagram (as
illustrated in figure 4). In this stage, the designer is supposed to draw some quick
sketches illustrating his/her initial concept and expressing general design
requirements. Theses sketches are referred to in the following stage and whenever
required during the design process and especially when the construction drawings
are being prepared.

82
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

Figure 4. An Example of fish-bone diagrams used for decomposition stage of

DCC method (two different spaces of an exhibition center is shown)

In the consistency stage, all spaces of the building are categorized in different
groups according to their functions. In other words, the main features of different
building spaces in each category gained from the previous stage (decomposition)
are brought together and their common characteristics and requirements are
analyzed and evaluated by considering the consistency of all building components
as a whole. The results of this stage are illustrated in a few Venn Diagrams that
guide the designer in choosing the best alternative for the design components. For
example, these diagrams can help the designer in selecting the best possible color
tonality compatible with the whole building and other categories in the final stage
(composition). Figure 5 shows the Venn Diagrams for two different spaces of the
same category of an exhibition building. As realized in these two stages, the
systematic thinking and careful attention to details often used in the design of
industrial products can also be employed into architecture and allow the designer
to consider all requirements and see them in conjunction with the whole
building’s components as the design proceeds.

83
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

Figure 5. Consistency diagram for a group of showing spaces in an example of

exhibition center

In the final stage called the composition stage, the designer will summarize the
results obtained from the previous stages and develops diagrams showing the
main accepted features of each category of spaces (Figure 6). This stage follows
several alternatives for the whole building by considering the common
characteristics of the space categories. It should be noted that the design is not
finalized in this stage and it only sets the ground for the interactive process among
the three stages and formulate the design criteria. Moreover, it gives an initial yet
consistent picture of the expected design and directs the designer to fulfill the
building’s details by consulting interactively among all three stages.

Figure 6. A composition diagram used for an exhibition center

84
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

It is believed that the proposed method (DCC) is a comprehensive approach

toward the design of buildings by the integration of art, architecture, technology
and engineering. It guides designers through a systematic approach during
different design stages ranging from concept development to construction. It also
exposes designers to a wide range of available and expected alternatives to
various building’s components and allow them to select the best possible
solutions.

CONCLUSION
The complex nature of architectural design profession dealing with many issues
ranging from functional, engineering and aesthetics to social and economical
makes it necessary to communicate with other disciplines especially those with
the most common features. Industrial design field is one of the closest professions
to architecture as in both disciplines the interaction among human, product and
environment is highly desired. Such an interaction between architecture and
industrial design discipline can be released in the work of modern architects such
as Walter Gropius and Alvar Aalto. The evaluation of the works of renowned
architects shows that, an interactive and synthetic design approach can lead to a
comprehensive, flexible design. However, it has not been formulated and
presented as a new architectural design approach and is now barely followed by
architects. This paper presented how the employment of industrial design thinking
may allow a comprehensive interaction among functional, aesthetics and technical
aspects during all stages of architectural design process.

The proposed method called “Decomposition, Consistency and Composition”

(DCC) responds to one of the major necessities of today’s architecture in making
a close relationship between space and its constituting and inclusive elements in
response to users’ general and specific requirements. It suggests a comprehensive
architectural design method through a systematic approach in which architecture,
art, engineering and technology are considered simultaneously in the design of
buildings. Although in the common architectural design methods, designers
usually consider the design issues in an interactive manner until the final
alternative is developed, in this method, the employment of the systematic
approach of industrial design allows more attention to design technical issues and
consistency among design components and their adaptability with design

85
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

requirements and expectations throughout the whole design process and even
during very initial design stages. The use of the fish-bone and venn diagrams
along with the visualization of building requirements in quick sketches, makes the
systematic analysis of design details and expectations possible and makes an
intellectual interaction among human, product and environment. For example, in
the design of an exhibition building, after preparing the building program, each
program is evaluated and analyzed from various aspects, including material,
ergonomics, furniture, structure, etc. separately and the results of the evaluation is
illustrated in a fish-bone diagram and various alternatives are sketched by the
designer accordingly. The proposed alternatives will then be analyzed and
grouped in the consistency stage and the main expected features of each category
is extracted and is used as core points in the development of the composition stage
where several alternatives for the whole building is developed.

REFERENCES

Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.

Fay S. (1999). Meta Design: Design from the Word Up. New York:
Watson-Guptill Publications.  
Giedion, S. (1967). Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of New Tradition.
New York: Harvard University Press.
Herssens, J., & Heylighen, A. (2011). Haptic design research: A blind sense of
place. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Architectural
Research. Washington, DC: Architectural Research Centers Consortium.
Hodjat, E. (2008). Restrictions on industrial design and architectural education in
Iran. Tehran : Art university of Tehran.
Khiabanian, A. (2010). Innovation in Architectural Design Process. Tabriz
:Mehr-e-Iman.
Lahati, L. (2009). Alvar Aalto. TASCHEN America Llc.
Lawson, B. (2000). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.).
Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. R. (1994). Design in Mind. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture
Maver, T. W. (1970). Appraisal in the building design process. Emerging Method.
Oxford, Pergamon.

86
ISSN:0254-0223 Vol. 29 (n. 9, 2014)

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.

New York, NY: Basic Books.
Wastiels, L., Schifferstein, H., Wouters, I. & Heylighen, A. (2013). Touching
Materials Visually: About the Dominance of Vision in Building Material
Assessment. International Journal of Design. Vol. 7(2).
Weston, R. (1997) Alvar Alto. London: Phaidon Press.

87

View publication stats