Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice

Scaled experiments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a forerunner paper (Spitas, C., 2010, Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice: A survey. Journal of Engineering Design), it was shown that engineering design, as applied in industrial practice, can be characterised in terms of three different paradigms including the abstraction-todetail paradigm mostly associated with systematic design. Further insights into the usage of each paradigm were obtained by means of a survey. However, further study is needed to penetrate into the reasons that make each paradigm unique, and thus uniquely advantageous in different contexts. To this end, the human intellectual process behind systematic design is studied and reduced to four different activities, namely analysis, heuresis, evaluation, and choice. An understanding of these activities helps to explain the properties associated with the different design paradigms and their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis is supported by a set of scaled experiments conducted with volunteers to quantify critical pertinent aspects of the intellectual process. The insight gained by these results, also in consideration of the previous survey results, allows a plausible explanation of the observed discrepancy between the formal systematic design theory and many current design practices in the industry.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)447-465
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Engineering Design
Volume22
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Experiments
Industry

Keywords

  • Design paradigms
  • Engineering design
  • Industrial practice
  • Intellectual process
  • Systematic design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice : Scaled experiments. / Spitas, Christos.

In: Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 22, No. 7, 07.2011, p. 447-465.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dfb01bfcd2c646dd8ba77e9a0b256fb8,
title = "Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice: Scaled experiments",
abstract = "In a forerunner paper (Spitas, C., 2010, Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice: A survey. Journal of Engineering Design), it was shown that engineering design, as applied in industrial practice, can be characterised in terms of three different paradigms including the abstraction-todetail paradigm mostly associated with systematic design. Further insights into the usage of each paradigm were obtained by means of a survey. However, further study is needed to penetrate into the reasons that make each paradigm unique, and thus uniquely advantageous in different contexts. To this end, the human intellectual process behind systematic design is studied and reduced to four different activities, namely analysis, heuresis, evaluation, and choice. An understanding of these activities helps to explain the properties associated with the different design paradigms and their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis is supported by a set of scaled experiments conducted with volunteers to quantify critical pertinent aspects of the intellectual process. The insight gained by these results, also in consideration of the previous survey results, allows a plausible explanation of the observed discrepancy between the formal systematic design theory and many current design practices in the industry.",
keywords = "Design paradigms, Engineering design, Industrial practice, Intellectual process, Systematic design",
author = "Christos Spitas",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1080/09544820903437742",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "447--465",
journal = "Journal of Engineering Design",
issn = "0954-4828",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice

T2 - Scaled experiments

AU - Spitas, Christos

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - In a forerunner paper (Spitas, C., 2010, Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice: A survey. Journal of Engineering Design), it was shown that engineering design, as applied in industrial practice, can be characterised in terms of three different paradigms including the abstraction-todetail paradigm mostly associated with systematic design. Further insights into the usage of each paradigm were obtained by means of a survey. However, further study is needed to penetrate into the reasons that make each paradigm unique, and thus uniquely advantageous in different contexts. To this end, the human intellectual process behind systematic design is studied and reduced to four different activities, namely analysis, heuresis, evaluation, and choice. An understanding of these activities helps to explain the properties associated with the different design paradigms and their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis is supported by a set of scaled experiments conducted with volunteers to quantify critical pertinent aspects of the intellectual process. The insight gained by these results, also in consideration of the previous survey results, allows a plausible explanation of the observed discrepancy between the formal systematic design theory and many current design practices in the industry.

AB - In a forerunner paper (Spitas, C., 2010, Analysis of systematic engineering design paradigms in industrial practice: A survey. Journal of Engineering Design), it was shown that engineering design, as applied in industrial practice, can be characterised in terms of three different paradigms including the abstraction-todetail paradigm mostly associated with systematic design. Further insights into the usage of each paradigm were obtained by means of a survey. However, further study is needed to penetrate into the reasons that make each paradigm unique, and thus uniquely advantageous in different contexts. To this end, the human intellectual process behind systematic design is studied and reduced to four different activities, namely analysis, heuresis, evaluation, and choice. An understanding of these activities helps to explain the properties associated with the different design paradigms and their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis is supported by a set of scaled experiments conducted with volunteers to quantify critical pertinent aspects of the intellectual process. The insight gained by these results, also in consideration of the previous survey results, allows a plausible explanation of the observed discrepancy between the formal systematic design theory and many current design practices in the industry.

KW - Design paradigms

KW - Engineering design

KW - Industrial practice

KW - Intellectual process

KW - Systematic design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958849263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958849263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09544820903437742

DO - 10.1080/09544820903437742

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 447

EP - 465

JO - Journal of Engineering Design

JF - Journal of Engineering Design

SN - 0954-4828

IS - 7

ER -