Advertisement

Designers pp 113-123 | Cite as

Storytelling and Metaphor in the Engineering Design Process

  • Peter Lloyd
Conference paper

Abstract

‘There seem to be two ways of understanding things; either by way of a metaphor or by way of a story… either [a person] can call on a model - a metaphor - of rationality… or [they] can tell a story’ [1]. The two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, but the distinction seems sound. I argue that, although the popular way of representing and understanding the engineering design process is through metaphor – ‘models of rationality’, there is also another way in which designers understand designing, and that is in terms of ‘storytelling’.

I draw on empirical data from a two week study in a small engineering design company to show: how metaphors relate to designing behaviour, how social experience is encapsulated in stories, and how stories from different organisational departments lead to different understandings of common objects - product specifications for example. I conclude that storytelling is the key mechanism by which a well defined ‘common language’ evolves, and thus a highly economical way of interacting.

Keywords

Design Process Engineering Design Design Project Design Organisation Organisational Department 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McClosky D.N. 1990: Storytelling in Economics. In: C. Nash (ed.) Narrative in Culture: The Use of Storytelling in the Sciences, Philosophy, and Literature. Routledge, London, pp. 5–22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    2..Lloyd P.A., Scott P.J. 1994: Difference in Similarity: Interpreting the Architectural Design Process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22, 383–106.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lloyd P.A. 1994: Psychological Investigations of the Conceptual Design Process, PhD Thesis, Sheffield University, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lloyd P.A. 1994: Is There a Case for Generic Design? Languages of Design 2, 243–262.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lloyd P.A., Scott P.J. 1994: Discovering the Design Problem. Design Studies 15, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holt J.E. 1997: The Designer’s Judgement. Design Studies 18, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawson B. 1994: Design in Mind. Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawson B. 1990: How Designers Think Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    British Standards Institution 1987: BS5750. London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pähl G., Beitz W. 1984: Engineering Design. The Design Council, London.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Channel 4 1994: Designing Dream Machines. Channel 4 Television, http://www.cityscape.co.uk/channel4/big_bytes/equinox95/.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd P., Deasley P. in press: Ethnographic Description of Design Networks. Journal of Automation in Construction.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lloyd P., Deasley P. 1997: What’s the Story? Text Based Analysis of Engineering Design. In: A. Riitahuhta (ed.) International Conference of Engineering Design (ICED). University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland, pp. 371–376.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yourdon E. 1988: Managing the System Life Cycle: A Software Development Methodology Overview, 2nd edn. Yourdan Press, Prentice Hall, NJ.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schön D.A. 1988: Designing: Rules, Types and Worlds. Design Studies 9, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roozenburg N.F.M., Doorst C.H. 1998: This volume, pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bucciarelli, L.L. 1994: Designing Engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dörner D. 1998: This volume, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lawson B. and Loke S.M. 1997: Computers, Words and Pictures. Design Studies 18, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leifer L., Mabogunje A.A. 1998: This volume, pp.124–136.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frankenberger E. and Badke-Schaub P. 1998: This volume, pp. 149–164.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vygotsky L.S. 1962: Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Lloyd

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations