4.4 Design processesOne of the best

4.4 Design processes
One of the best-known design methodologies from the early period is that of J.C. Jones. In 1963 he published the article A method of systematic design. He was also the author of a manual on design methods (1970), frequently reprinted (Jones, 1982). According to Jones, the design process starts with divergence (the production of a programme of requirements), moves on to transformation (structuring the problem, conceiving partial solutions, transformation) and then to convergence (combination of partial solutions, evaluation of different designs). Jones recognised the three main phases in this process:
& Analysis: describing the problem in its entirety and breaking it down into individual components, identifying each requirement the design has to satisfy and arranging the results to form a consistent set of performance requirements. & Synthesis: developing solutions for parts of the problem and ways of satisfying special performance requirements and achieving the best possible integration of partial solutions into a complete design. & Evaluation: determining the extent to which total or partial solutions satisfy the requirements set in advance.
This three-stage process, analysis–synthesis–evaluation, is frequently encountered in works in the Anglo-Saxon tradition (e.g. Archer, 1965; Luckman, 1967; Broadbent and Ward, 1969; Cross, 1984; Lawson, 1997) and in works by Dutch authors (e.g. Boekholt, 1984, 1987; Roozenburg and Eekels, 1991; De Ridder, 1998), although often in a slightly amended form. Roozenburg and Eekels (1991), for example, add two more steps: ‘simulation’, as an extra step between synthesis and evaluation, and ‘decision’ following evaluation. By ‘simulation’ they mean applying reasoning or tests on models to reach a judgement about the behaviour and properties of the product under design before actual production commences.
Designing as a cyclic iterative process
According to Archer (1965) the division into the phases analysis, synthesis and evaluation not only applies to the design process as a whole but also can serve as a model for each phase of the process. After subjecting the design process to detailed analysis, Archer distinguished no less than 229 different activities, which he classified into the analytical phase (data collection, programme of requirements), the creative phase (analysis, synthesis, development of solutions) and the execution phase, with much communication and feedback. Hamel (1990) also stated that analysis, synthesis and evaluation take place not so much sequentially as rather in parallel, interactively. The central questions raised in his PhD thesis on how designers think were what components make up architectonic design and how these components are organised in the design process. He constructed a descriptive model based on a study of the literature and then tested it by asking 15 experienced architects to think aloud during the process of designing a youth club. His research led him to conclude that the design process often involves going through a cycle consisting of the following main steps:
& Analysis: analysing the task, collecting additional information and splitting the task into sub-problems (decomposition) on the basis of various dimensions such as user function, aesthetics, construction and urban design. & Synthesis: solving sub-problems and then solving the total design problem by synthesising the solutions to the sub-problems. The aim of the synthesis is to integrate the solutions to the sub-problems for each dimension individually and then to integrate these solutions to provide a single overall solution. & Design: giving shape to the solution so that the design is ‘architecture’, i.e. aesthetically justified, exciting and elegant (while remaining economical with resources).
Each of these steps involves three stages, orientation, execution and evaluation. The results of each step are evaluated on the basis of criteria specific to the task. The task of the designer consists to a large extent of transforming (from text to drawings, from activities to floor space requirements), switching (from draft to detail and back, from one sub-problem or dimension to other sub-problems or dimensions) and providing feedback (from solutions to aims).
Analogy with problem-solving
Roozenburg and Eekels (1991) pointed out that the basic design cycle has a good deal in common with the accepted problem-solving cycle used for dealing with complex problems of technical and socio-economic development. Following Hall (1968), they distinguished five phases: (1) defining the problem; (2) formulating goals; (3) devising solutions; (4) selecting the best solution; and (5) executing the plans. Boekholt (1987) used a similar division, but limited himself to four phases which merge gradually into one another (Figures 4.3 and 4.4):
1. Developing a statement of problem and goals.
2. Formulating basic physical and spatial principles
3. Generating significantly different and original variants.
4. Assessing and selecting variants with the help of explicitly formulated criteria.
Steps 3 and 4 bear some relationship to the well-known TOTE model (Test– Operate–Test–Exit) used in systems analysis. Information obtained by the senses is examined for congruence between the existing situation and the desired situation, using predetermined criteria (Test). If there is any lack of congruence, an attempt is made to use physical or psychological methods to restore it (Operate). In principle this attempt continues until congruence is achieved, at which point design is stopped. According to Boekholt, the sequence is not fixed. The process may often run from the formulation of goals to the generation and evaluation of solutions, sometimes prematurely. But it can equally well happen that a solution generates new goals, or that an evaluation prompts fresh analysis before devising new solutions, total or partial.
Design conjectures and primary generators
In spite of the similarities between the basic design cycle and the widely used problem-solving cycle, there are dissimilarities, too. In the early 1970s, Bryan Lawson examined the problem-solving process in two different groups: students of architecture and students of science (Lawson, 1980, cited in Downing, 1994). An experimental design-like problem was used to test whether differences existed. The problem-solving process that worked for students in science was found to be ineffective for design students. The results indicated that the science students used a problem-focused process while design students favoured a solution-focused process. Problem-focusing was time-consuming in that it involved learning as much as possible about the structure of the problem before attempting a solution. Solution-focusing involved the immediate identification of a solution based upon some match made in the designer’s mind between the problem statement and an exemplar stored in his or her own experience. Evaluation of the solution was accomplished by the examination of the exemplar against the background of programmatic criteria and other forces that had an impact on the design problem. In this context, Hillier et al. (1972) developed a conjecture–analysis model that accounts for a designer’s tendency to use subjective knowledge, with a more objective accountability for behaviour research, programme information and evaluation. In this model ‘conjecture’ is an ‘if’ statement that is based on knowledge of problem/solution relationships. Analysis is the ‘then’ response, referring to the manipulation and adjustment of principles found in the conjectured solution to test for fit to the design problem. In the conjecture–analysis model, design becomes a series of if–then speculations (Scho ¨n, 1983). Conjectures are a form of stating hypotheses with a more tentative and action-oriented nature than most scientific hypotheses. Memory of prototypes and precedents can be very useful in this process (Downing, 1994). According to Jane Darke (1978), architects’ value systems play an important role in initial design decisions. In her research concerning public housing designs, she noticed that architects had not only used conjectures of a solution-oriented nature in formulating their responses to design projects but also that they relied on a hidden agenda she called the primary generator. This is a set of values held by the designer or client that generates the initial conjectures concerning what a future place might be like. In Darke’s research, the generator was the high value placed on the site. In addition to her research outcomes, Darke adapted the conjecture–analysis model into a generator–conjecture– analysis model.
Foque ´’s three stages
Another interesting way of dividing the process into different elements was proposed by Foque ´ (1975). He distinguished a structuring stage, a creative stage and an informational stage. The structuring stage is the preparatory phase of problem analysis, using both descriptive and prescriptive models. The thought process here mainly involves reconciling objectively observed facts with subjective value judgements. The stage also involves synthesis, in which the designer acts on the structure as analysed by replacing or regrouping individual elements, so radically changing the way they cohere. The creative stage is the stage in which people come up with new ideas that can potentially lead to new solutions. Research into creative processes shows that these processes involve interplay between subconscious intuition and rational, conscious thought and action. The informational stage is the phase in which abstract knowledge, not yet materialised, is coded and converted into messages and signals. Information from the real world is transformed into a mental model that is then converted into a formal model. Three questions are important to this processing of information:
& Syntax: how accurately can the si

Результаты (русский) 1:

4.4 дизайн процессовОдин из известных дизайн методологий раннего периода является то, что J.C. Джонс. В 1963 году он опубликовал статью метод систематической дизайна. Он был также автором руководства по методам проектирования (1970), часто перепечатаны (Джонс, 1982). По словам Джонса процесс проектирования начинается с дивергенция (производство программы требований), движется к трансформации (структурирование проблемы, Задумывая частичные решения, преобразования), а затем к конвергенции (сочетание частичных решений, оценки различных конструкций). Джонс признала три основных этапа в рамках этого процесса:& Анализ: описанием проблемы во всей ее полноте и разбить его на отдельные компоненты, определения каждого требования, имеет дизайн для удовлетворения и упорядочения результатов сформировать согласованный набор требований к производительности. & Синтез: Разработка решений для частей проблемы и способы удовлетворения специальных требований и достижение оптимальной интеграции частичных решений в полный дизайн. И оценка: определение степени, в которой полного или частичного решения удовлетворяют требованиям набора заранее.Этот трехэтапный процесс, анализ синтез – оценки, часто встречается в работах в англосаксонской традиции (например Арчер, 1965; Luckman, 1967; Бродбент и Уорд, 1969; Крест, 1984; Лоусон, 1997 год) и в трудах голландских авторов (например Boekholt, 1984, 1987; Roozenburg и Eekels, 1991; Де Риддер, 1998), хотя часто в слегка измененном виде. Roozenburg и Eekels (1991), например, добавить еще два шага: «моделирование», как дополнительный шаг между обобщения и оценки и «решение» после оценки. По «моделирование» они означают, применяя рассуждений или тесты на модели для достижения решения о поведении и свойства продукта под дизайн до начала фактической добычи.Проектирование как циклический итеративный процессAccording to Archer (1965) the division into the phases analysis, synthesis and evaluation not only applies to the design process as a whole but also can serve as a model for each phase of the process. After subjecting the design process to detailed analysis, Archer distinguished no less than 229 different activities, which he classified into the analytical phase (data collection, programme of requirements), the creative phase (analysis, synthesis, development of solutions) and the execution phase, with much communication and feedback. Hamel (1990) also stated that analysis, synthesis and evaluation take place not so much sequentially as rather in parallel, interactively. The central questions raised in his PhD thesis on how designers think were what components make up architectonic design and how these components are organised in the design process. He constructed a descriptive model based on a study of the literature and then tested it by asking 15 experienced architects to think aloud during the process of designing a youth club. His research led him to conclude that the design process often involves going through a cycle consisting of the following main steps:& Analysis: analysing the task, collecting additional information and splitting the task into sub-problems (decomposition) on the basis of various dimensions such as user function, aesthetics, construction and urban design. & Synthesis: solving sub-problems and then solving the total design problem by synthesising the solutions to the sub-problems. The aim of the synthesis is to integrate the solutions to the sub-problems for each dimension individually and then to integrate these solutions to provide a single overall solution. & Design: giving shape to the solution so that the design is ‘architecture’, i.e. aesthetically justified, exciting and elegant (while remaining economical with resources).Each of these steps involves three stages, orientation, execution and evaluation. The results of each step are evaluated on the basis of criteria specific to the task. The task of the designer consists to a large extent of transforming (from text to drawings, from activities to floor space requirements), switching (from draft to detail and back, from one sub-problem or dimension to other sub-problems or dimensions) and providing feedback (from solutions to aims).
Analogy with problem-solving
Roozenburg and Eekels (1991) pointed out that the basic design cycle has a good deal in common with the accepted problem-solving cycle used for dealing with complex problems of technical and socio-economic development. Following Hall (1968), they distinguished five phases: (1) defining the problem; (2) formulating goals; (3) devising solutions; (4) selecting the best solution; and (5) executing the plans. Boekholt (1987) used a similar division, but limited himself to four phases which merge gradually into one another (Figures 4.3 and 4.4):
1. Developing a statement of problem and goals.
2. Formulating basic physical and spatial principles
3. Generating significantly different and original variants.
4. Assessing and selecting variants with the help of explicitly formulated criteria.
Steps 3 and 4 bear some relationship to the well-known TOTE model (Test– Operate–Test–Exit) used in systems analysis. Information obtained by the senses is examined for congruence between the existing situation and the desired situation, using predetermined criteria (Test). If there is any lack of congruence, an attempt is made to use physical or psychological methods to restore it (Operate). In principle this attempt continues until congruence is achieved, at which point design is stopped. According to Boekholt, the sequence is not fixed. The process may often run from the formulation of goals to the generation and evaluation of solutions, sometimes prematurely. But it can equally well happen that a solution generates new goals, or that an evaluation prompts fresh analysis before devising new solutions, total or partial.
Design conjectures and primary generators
In spite of the similarities between the basic design cycle and the widely used problem-solving cycle, there are dissimilarities, too. In the early 1970s, Bryan Lawson examined the problem-solving process in two different groups: students of architecture and students of science (Lawson, 1980, cited in Downing, 1994). An experimental design-like problem was used to test whether differences existed. The problem-solving process that worked for students in science was found to be ineffective for design students. The results indicated that the science students used a problem-focused process while design students favoured a solution-focused process. Problem-focusing was time-consuming in that it involved learning as much as possible about the structure of the problem before attempting a solution. Solution-focusing involved the immediate identification of a solution based upon some match made in the designer’s mind between the problem statement and an exemplar stored in his or her own experience. Evaluation of the solution was accomplished by the examination of the exemplar against the background of programmatic criteria and other forces that had an impact on the design problem. In this context, Hillier et al. (1972) developed a conjecture–analysis model that accounts for a designer’s tendency to use subjective knowledge, with a more objective accountability for behaviour research, programme information and evaluation. In this model ‘conjecture’ is an ‘if’ statement that is based on knowledge of problem/solution relationships. Analysis is the ‘then’ response, referring to the manipulation and adjustment of principles found in the conjectured solution to test for fit to the design problem. In the conjecture–analysis model, design becomes a series of if–then speculations (Scho ¨n, 1983). Conjectures are a form of stating hypotheses with a more tentative and action-oriented nature than most scientific hypotheses. Memory of prototypes and precedents can be very useful in this process (Downing, 1994). According to Jane Darke (1978), architects’ value systems play an important role in initial design decisions. In her research concerning public housing designs, she noticed that architects had not only used conjectures of a solution-oriented nature in formulating their responses to design projects but also that they relied on a hidden agenda she called the primary generator. This is a set of values held by the designer or client that generates the initial conjectures concerning what a future place might be like. In Darke’s research, the generator was the high value placed on the site. In addition to her research outcomes, Darke adapted the conjecture–analysis model into a generator–conjecture– analysis model.
Foque ´’s three stages
Another interesting way of dividing the process into different elements was proposed by Foque ´ (1975). He distinguished a structuring stage, a creative stage and an informational stage. The structuring stage is the preparatory phase of problem analysis, using both descriptive and prescriptive models. The thought process here mainly involves reconciling objectively observed facts with subjective value judgements. The stage also involves synthesis, in which the designer acts on the structure as analysed by replacing or regrouping individual elements, so radically changing the way they cohere. The creative stage is the stage in which people come up with new ideas that can potentially lead to new solutions. Research into creative processes shows that these processes involve interplay between subconscious intuition and rational, conscious thought and action. The informational stage is the phase in which abstract knowledge, not yet materialised, is coded and converted into messages and signals. Information from the real world is transformed into a mental model that is then converted into a formal model. Three questions are important to this processing of information:
& Syntax: how accurately can the si

Результаты (русский) 3:

4.4 процессов ", одной из самых известных разработки методологий, из раннего периода заключается в том, что христос джонс.в 1963 году он опубликовал статьи метод систематического дизайна.он также является автором пособия по методам разработки (1970), нередко воспроизводится (джонс, 1982).по данным Jones, процесс разработки начинается с расхождения (производство программы требований),приближается к трансформации (структура проблемы, зачатие частичные решения, преобразование), а затем конвергенции (сочетание частичные решения, оценки различных конструкций).джонс признал трех основных этапов этого процесса:
& анализ: с описанием проблемы в целом и расскажу в отдельных компонентов,выявление потребностей дизайн должен удовлетворять и организацию результаты сформировать согласованный набор требований.& обобщение: разработка решений для части проблемы и пути удовлетворения особых требований к эффективности и достижения максимальной интеграции частичные решения в полный дизайн.& оценки:определение степени, в которой полное или частичное решение удовлетворить требования, установленные заранее.
этот трехэтапный процесс, анализ, обобщение и оценка, часто имеет место в работает в англо - саксонской традиции (например, арчер, 1965; лакмена 1967 года; бродбент и уорд, 1969 года; крест, 1984, лоусон, 1997) и в работах голландских авторов (например boekholt, 1984, 1987; розенбург и eekels, 1991 год;де риддер, 1998), хотя зачастую в несколько измененном виде.розенбург и eekels (1991), например, добавить еще два шага: "моделирование", как дополнительный шаг между обобщения и оценки, и "решение" после оценки."имитация", они имеют в виду применения или испытания модели аргументы для достижения решения относительно поведения и свойств продукта по структуре до реального производства начинается.
разработки как циклические итеративного процесса
согласно арчер (1965) разделение на этапах анализа,обобщение и оценка распространяется не только на разработку процесса в целом, но и может служить моделью для каждого этапа процесса.после того, как в отношении проектирования для подробного анализа, арчер отличать не меньше, чем 229 различные виды деятельности, в которых он подразделяются на аналитического этапа (сбор данных, программы требований), творческий этап (анализ, синтезразработка решений) и выполнения работ, с большим и обратную связь.хамель (1990), также заявил, что анализ, обобщение и оценка проводятся не так последовательно, как, а параллельно, в интерактивном режиме.