Perspectives on Design Models and Theories and Development of an Extended-Integrated Model of Designing

  • B. S. C. Ranjan
  • V. Srinivasan
  • A. Chakrabarti


In this chapter, we present our perspectives on general characteristics, purposes and validation criteria for theories and models of designing. A theory or model of designing should consist of constructs and their definitions and, a set of propositions, expressed as descriptive relationships between constructs, with which one can describe or explain various characteristics of the facets of designing, relationships among the facets, or relationships among these and various characteristics of design success. The propositions should be testable or verifiable to be validated as a theory or model of designing. In the next part of the paper, we explain the development and validation of Extended—Integrated Model of Designing (E-IMoD). E-IMoD is developed by combining the views of system-environment and information, with the views of activity, outcome and requirement-solution of Integrated Model of Designing (IMoD). E-IMoD is validated by checking if all the constructs of this model can be used to describe or explain all instances in a set of existing protocol studies of designing from earlier research that was undertaken before the model is developed. Results show that E-IMoD, through its views of activity, outcome, requirement-solution-information and system-environment, is able to describe or explain the proceedings in these existing design sessions.


Design Model Life Cycle Stage Level Solution Individual View Main Proposition 
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.


  1. 1.
    Anderson (1964) The discovery of the electron: the development of the atomic concept of electricity. Commission on College Physics, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NewJersey Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASME (1986) Goals and priorities for research in engineering design. ASME, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blessing L, Chakrabarti A (2009) DRM a design research methodology. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chakrabarti A (1994) Requirements identification: a central issue in design research. In: Proceedings of the international east–west conference on IT in design, Russia, pp 108–117Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakrabarti A (2003) Towards a measure for assessing creative influences of a creativity technique. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design ICED03, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B, Nataraju BS (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AI EDAM 19(2):113–132Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper R (1991) New products: what distinguishes the winners? Res Technol Manag 33(6):27–31Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng YM, Tor SB, Britton GA (2000) Abstracting and exploring functional design information for conceptual mechanical product design. In: Engineering with computers, vol 16. Springer, London, p 36–52Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dictionary of Ideas (1994) Brockhampton Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evbuomwan NFO, Sivaloganathan S, Jebb A (1996) A survey of design philosophies, models, methods and systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B: J Eng Manuf 210(4):301–320Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eckersley M (1988) The form of design processes: a protocol analysis study. Des Stud 9(2):88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman K (2003) Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Des Stud 24:507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall AD (1962) A methodology for systems engineering, 6th edn. Van Nostrand, Princeton Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hubka V, Eder WE (1988) Theory of technical systems: a total concept theory for engineering design. Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    INCOSE (2004) Systems engineering handbook—a “What To” guide for all systems engineering practitioners. INCOSE-TP-2003-016-02 Version 2a. Released by Technical Board, International Council on Systems EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kota S, Chakrabarti A (2009) Understanding the needs of designers for developing environmentally friendly products. In: Chakrabarti A (ed) Research into design—supporting multiple facets of product development, p 128-135Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lakatos I (1976) Proofs and refutations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-29038-4 & 978-0-521-29038-8CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mautner T (1996) A dictionary of philosophy. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1990) 9th edn. Merriam-Webster Inc, Springfield, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nidamarthi S, Chakrabarti A, Bligh T (1997) The significance of co-evolving requirements and solutions in the design process In: Proceedings of the international confer-ence in engineering design (ICED97), Tampere, pp 227–230Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popper KR (1968) Conjectures and refutations. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabins M, Ardayfio D, Fenves S, Seireg A, Nadler G, Richardson H, Clark H (1986) Design theory and methodology—a new discipline. Mech Eng 108(8):23–27Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ranjan BSC (2012) An extended integrated model of designing. M.Sc. Engineering thesis, Indian Institute of Science, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ranjan BSC, Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2012) An extended, integrated model of designing. In: Horváth I, Albers A, Behrendt M, Rusák Z (eds) Proceedings of TMCE, Karlsruhe, 7–11 May 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010) An integrated model of designing. In: Goel AK, de Silva Garza AG (eds) Special issue on knowledge based design. ASME J Inf Sci Eng (JCISE). doi:  10.1115/1.3467011
  27. 27.
    Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010) Investigating novelty–outcome relationships in engineering design. In: Maher ML, Bonnardel N, Kim YS Special issue on creativity: simulation, stimulation, and studies. AI EDAM 24(2):161–178Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutherland JW (1975) Systems: analysis, administration and architecture. Van Nostrand, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ullman DG (1991) The status of design theory research in the United States. Des Stud 12(4):204-208. ISSN 0142-694X, doi:  10.1016/0142-694X(91)90032-R
  30. 30.
    Zavbi R, Duhovnik J (2001) Analysis of conceptual design chains for the unknown input/known output pattern. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design ICED01, UK Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. S. C. Ranjan
    • 1
  • V. Srinivasan
    • 1
  • A. Chakrabarti
    • 1
  1. 1.IDeaS Lab, Centre for Product Design and ManufacturingIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations