Design as Scientific Problem-Solving

  • Dan Braha
  • Oded Maimon
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 17)


Following Proclus’ aphorism that “it is necessary to know beforehand what is sought,” a ground rule of intellectual endeavor seems to be that any new field of study, to be recognized properly, must first scrutinize its bounds and objectives: where it stands in the universe and how it proposes to relate to the established disciplines. Such clarification is the object of this chapter.


Design Process Design Problem Problem Solver Quality Function Deployment Design Paradigm 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agassi, J., Technology: Philosophical and Social Aspects. Tel-Aviv: Open University,1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akin, O., “An Exploration of the Design Process,” Design Methods and Theory Vol. 13 (34), pp. 115–119, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alagic, S. and Arbib, M.A, The Design of Well-Structured and Correct Programs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1978.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander, C., Notes on the Synthesis of the Form. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altshuller, G.S., Creativity as an Exact Science. New York: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antonsson, E.K., “Development and Testing of Hypotheses in Engineering Design Research,” Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 109, pp. 153–154, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asimow, W., In Emerging Methods in Environment Design and Planning (ed. Moore G.T.). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press, pp. 285–307, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell, C.G. and Newell, A., Computer Structures: Reading and Examples. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bezier, P.E., “CAD/CAM: Past, Requirements, Trends,” In Proc. CAD, Brighton, pp. 1–11, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Billington, D.P., Robert Maillart’s Bridges: The Art of Engineering. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bobrow, D.G., Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems: An Introduction.“ Cambridge. MA. MIT Press, pp. 1–5, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boothroyd G. and Dewhurst P., Product Design for Assembly. Wakefield, RI: Boothroyd and Dewhurst Inc, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braha, D. and Maimon, O., “A Mathematical Theory of Design: Modeling the Design Process (Part H),” International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 25 (3), 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown, D.C. and Chandrasekaran, B., “Expert Systems for a Class of Mechanical Design Activity.” In [33], pp. 259–282, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown, D.C. and Chandrasekaran, B., “Knowledge and Control for a Mechanical Design Expert System,” Computer, Vol. 19 (7), pp. 92–100, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell, D.T., “Evolutionary Epistemology.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, P. Schlipp (ed.), LaSalle. IL: Open Court, 1974.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chandrasekaran, B., “Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis,” Al Magazine, Winter, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chamiak, E. and McDermott, D., Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Churchman, C. W., “The Philosophy of Design,” ICPDT, Boston, Mass, August., pp. 17–20, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coyne, R.D., Rosenman, M.A., Radford, A.D., Balachandran, M. and Gero, J.S., Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cross, N. (ed.)., Development in Design Methodology. New York: John Wiley, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dasgupta, S., “The Structure of Design Processes,” In Advances in Computers, Vol. 28, M.C. Yovits (ed.). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–67, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Diaz, A. R., “A Strategy for Optimal Design of Hierarchical System Using Fuzzy Sets,” In NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, University of MASS., Amherst June, pp. 11–14, 1989.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dieter, G.E., Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dixon, J.R., AI EDAM, Vol. 1 (3), pp. 145–157, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dong, Z., “Evaluating Design Alternatives and Fuzzy Operations,” International Conference on Engineering Design, Boston, MASS, August, pp. 17–20, pp. 322–329, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fenves, S.J., Flemming, U., Hendrickson, C., Mehar, M.L. and Schmitt, G., “Integrated Software Environment for Building Design and Construction,” Computer Aided Design, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 2735, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fetzer, J.H., “Program Verification: The Very Idea,” Comm. ACM, Vol. 31 (9), September, pp. 1048–1063, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    FMS Handbook, CSDL-R-1599 U.S Army Tank Automotive Command under contract No. DAAE07–82-C-4040, 1983.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Freeman, P. and Newell, A., “A Model for Functional Reasoning in Design,” In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 621–633. 1971.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garey, M.R. and Johnson, D.S., Computers and Intractability: A guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1979.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gero, J.S., “Prototypes: A New Schema for Knowledge Based Design,” Technical Report, Architectural Computing Unit, Department of Architectural Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gero, J.S. (ed.), Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gero, J.S. and Coyne, R.D., “Knowledge-Based Planning as a Design Paradigm,” In Design Theory for CAD, H. Yoshikawa and E.A.Warman (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giloi, W.K. and Shriver, B.D. (eds.), Methodologies for Computer Systems Design.“ Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Glegg, G.L., The Science of Design. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goel, V. and Pirolli, P., “Motivating the Notion of Generic Design with Information-Processing Theory: The Design Problem Space,” AI Magazine, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 18–38, 1989.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gould, S. J., Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge. MASS: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gregory, S.A., “The boundaries and Internals of Expert Systems in Engineering Design,” Proceeding of the Second IFIP Workshop on Intelligent CAD, pp. 7–9, 1988.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hanson, N.R., “An Anatomy of Discovery,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 64, pp. 321–352, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hanson, N.R., Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Harrisberger, L., Engineersmanship. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1966.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Henderson, P., Functional Programming: Application and Implementation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International, 1980.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Holton, G., Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley, 1952.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hubka, V., Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E., Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory For Engineering Design. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huhns, M. H. and Acosta, R. D., “Argo: An Analogical Reasoning System for Solving Design Problems,” Technical Report AI/CAD-092–87, Microelectronic and Computer Technology Corporation, March, 1987.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ishida, T., Minowa, H. and Nakajima, N., “Detection of Unanticipated Functions of Machines,” In Proc. of the Int. Symp. of Design and Synthesis, Tokyo, pp. 21–26. 1987.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jaques, R. and Powell, J.A. (eds.), Design: Science: Method. Guildford, England: Westbury House, 1980.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., The Computer and the Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jones, J.C. 1963, “A Method of Systematic Design,” In Conference on Design Methods (J.C. Jones and D. Thomley, eds.), pp. 10–31, Pergamon, Oxford. Reprinted in [21].Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jones, J.C., Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures ( 2nd Edition ). New York: John Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kant, E. and Newell, A., “Problem Solving Techniques for the Design of Algorithms,” Information Processing and Management, Vol. 20 (1–2), pp. 97–118, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kolodner, J. L., Simpson, R. L. and Sycara, K., “A Process Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving,” Proceedings of IJCAI-85, Los Angeles, pp. 284–290, 1985.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kornfeld, A.W. and Hewitt, E.C., “The Scientific Community Metaphor,” IEEE Transactions on Systems. Man and Cybernetics, 11, 1, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Krishnamoorthy, C.S., Shivakumar, H., Rajeev S. and Suresh, S., “A Knowledge-Based Systems with Generic Tools for Structural Engineering,” Structural Engineering Review. Vol. 5 (1), 1993.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kuhn, T.S., Postscript–1969. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Enlarged 2nd Edition, pp. 174–210, 1970.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kuhn, T.S., “Reflections on My Critics.” In [63], pp. 231–278, 1970.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kuhn, T.S., “Second Thoughts on Paradigms,” Reprinted in T.S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lakatos, I., “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” In [63], pp. 91–196, 1970.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lakatos, I., Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw, G.L. and Zytkow, J.M., Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lansdown, J., Design Studies, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 76–81, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Laudan, L., Progress and Its Problems. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lawson, B., How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., and Sears, P.S., “Levels of Aspiration.” In Personality and the Behavior Disorder, Hunt J.M. (ed.). New York: The Ronald Press, 1944.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lindblom, C.E., “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 9, pp. 79–88, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lockman, J., Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 18 (4), pp. 345–358, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Maher, M.L., “A Knowledge-Based Approach to Preliminary Design Synthesis,” Report EDRC-1214–87, Carnegie Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center, 1987.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Maimon, O. and Braha, D., “A Mathematical Theory of Design: Representation of Design Knowledge (Part 1),” International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 25 (3), 1997.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Maimon O. and D. Braha, “On the Complexity of the Design Synthesis Problem,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 26 (1), 1996.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Manton, S.M., “Engineering for Quality,” In Taguchi Methods, Bendel!, Disney and Pridmore (eds. ), IFS publications, 1989.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Masterman, M., “The Nature of a Paradigm,” In [63], pp. 59–90, 1970.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mostow, J., “Toward Better Models of the Design Process,” The AI Magazine, Spring, pp. 44–57, 1985.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mueller, R.A. and Varghese, J., “Knowledge-Based Code Selection in Retargetable Microcode Synthesis,” IEEE Design and Test, Vol. 2 (3), pp. 44–55, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Murthy, S.S. and Addanki, A. 1987, “PROMPT: An Innovative Design Tool,” In Proc. of the 6th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Newell, A. and Simon, H. A., Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Newell, A. and Simon, H. A., “Computer Science as Empirical Enquiry: Symbols and Search,” (ACM Turing Award Lecture), Comm. A.M, Vol. 19 (3), March, pp. 113–126, 1976.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nilsson, J.N., “Logic and Artificial Intelligence,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 47, pp. 31–56, 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Osbom, A.F., Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. 1963.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Paynter, H.M., Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Penberthy, J.S., Incremental Analysis and the Graph of Models: A First Step Towards Analysis in the Plumber’s World, S.M. Thesis, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., Engineering Design. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Popper, K.R., The Logic of Discovery. London: Hutchinson (originally published, 1935 ), 1959.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pugh, S., Total Design. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Pugh, S. and Smith, D.G., “CAD in the Context of Engineering Design: The Designers Viewpoint,” In Proceedings CAD, London, pp. 193–198, 1976.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pugh, S. and Morley, I.E., Toward a Theory of Total Design, University of Strathclyde, Design Division, 1988.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Rehg, J., Elfes, S., Talukdar, S., Woodbury, R., Eisenberger, M. and Edahl, R., “CASE: Computer-Aided Simultaneous Engineering,” AI in Engineering Design, Gero, J.S. (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 339–360, 1990.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ressler, A.L., “A Circuit Grammar for Operational Amplifier Design,” Technical Report 807M1T, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1984.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rieger, C. and Grinberg, M., “The Declarative Representation and Procedural Simulation of Causality in Physical Mechanisms,” In Proc. of the 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 250, 1977.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Rinderle, J.R., Measures of Functional Coupling in Design, PhD dissertation, MIT, 1982.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Rinderle, J.R., “Function and Form Relationships: A basis for Preliminary Design,” Report EDRC24–05–87, Carnegie Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center, Pittsburgh. PA, 1987.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M.M., “Planning Problems are Wicked Problems,” Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 155–169, Reprinted in [21], pp. 135–144, 1973.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Roylance, G., “A simple Model of Circuit Design,” Technical Report 703, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1983.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rychener, M. (ed.), Expert Systems for engineering design. New York: Academic Press, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Schön, D.A., The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Serbanati, L.D., IEEE 9th International Conference of Software Engineering, pp. 190–197, 1987.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shina G.S., Concurrent Engineering and Design for Manufacture of Electronics Products. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Siddall, J.N., Optimal Engineering Design: Principles and Applications. New York: Dekker, M., 1982.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Simon, H.A., “The Structure of Ill Structured Problems,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 4, pp. 181–200, Reprinted in [21], pp. 145–165, 1973.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Simon, H.A., “Style in Design,” In Spatial Synthesis in Computer Aided Building Design. Eastman, C.M. (ed.), John Wiley Sons, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Simon, H.A., Administrative Behavior, 3rd Edition. New York: The Free Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Simon, H.A., The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Simon, H.A., Models of Bounded Rationality, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Simoudis, E. and Miller, J.S., “The Application of CBR to Help Desk Applications,” Proceeding of the 1991 Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Washington, DARPA, 1991.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Spillers, W.R. (ed.)., Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Sriram, D. and Cheong, K., “Engineering Design Cycle: A Case Study and Implications for CAE,” In Knowledge Aided Design, Academic Press, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Sriram, S., Stephanopouls, G., Logcher, R. et al., “Knowledge-Based System Applications in Engineering Design: Research at MIT,” Al Magazine, Vol. 10 (3), pp. 79–96, 1989.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Steinberg, L.I., “Design as Refinement Plus Constraint Propagation: The VEXED Experience,” Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 830–835, 1987.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Suh, N.P., The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Suh, N.P., Bell, A.C. and Gossard, D.C., “On an Axiomatic Approach to Manufacturing and Manufacturing Systems,” Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 100 (5), pp. 127–130, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Swartout, W. and Balzer, R., “On the Inevitable Intertwining of Specification and Implementation,” COMM. ACM, Vol. 25 (7), July, pp. 438–440, 1982.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Sycara, K. and Navinchandra, D., “Integrating Case-Based Reasoning and Qualitative Reasoning in Design,” In Gero, J. (ed.). Ashurst, Computational Mechanics Publishing, 1989.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Tong, C., Knowledge-Based Circuit Design, PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 1986.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Tong, C. and Sriram, D. (eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design. Boston, Mass: Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Toulmin, S., Human Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ullman, D., Stauffer, L. and Dietterich, T., “Preliminary Results of Experimental Study of the Mechanical Design Process,” Technical Report 86–30–9, Oregon State University, C.S. Dept., 1986.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ulrich, K.T., “Computation and Pre-Parametric Design,” Technical Report 1043, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1988.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Vollbracht, G. T., “The Time for CAEDM is Now,” Computer-Aided Engineering, CAD/CAM section, Vol. 7 (Oct.), pp. 28, 1988.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Winston, P.H., et. al., “Learning Physical Descriptions From Functional Definitions, Examples and Precedents,” Memo 679, MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1983.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Wood, K.L. and Antonsson, E.K., “Engineering Design-Computational Tools in the SYNTHESIS Domain,” The Study of the Design Process, A Workshop, Ohio State University, February, pp. 8–10, 1987.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Yoshikawa, H., “General Design Theory and a CAD system,” Man-Machine Communications in CAD/CAM, Proceedings, IFIP W.G 5.2, Tokyo, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 35–38, 1982.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Konda, S., Monarch, I., Sargent, P., and Subrahmanian, E., “Shared Memory in Design: A Unifying Theme for Research and Practice,” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 4 (1), pp. 23–42, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Subrahmanian, E., Konda, S., Levy, S., Reich, Y., Westerberg, A., and Monarch, I., “Equations Aren’t Enough: Informal Modeling in Design,” AI EDAM, Vol. 7 (4), pp. 257–274, 1993.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Pinch, T. K., and Bijker, W. E., “Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts,” In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. W., Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1989.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Sriram, D., Wong, A., and Logcher, R., “Shared Workspaces in Computer Aided Collaborative Product Development,” Technical report, Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory, 1991.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Sargent, P. M., Subrahmanian, E., Downs, M., Greene, R., and Rishel, D., “Materials’ Information and Conceptual Data Modeling,” Computerization and Networking of Materials Databases: Third Volume, ASTM STP 1140, Thomas I. Barry and Keith W. Reynard, editors, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Danko, G. and Printz, F., “A Historical Analysis of the Traditional Product Development Process as a Basis for an Alternative Process Model,” EDRC report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Clark, K., and Fujimoto, T., Product Development Performance, Harvard Business Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Woodforde, J., The Story of the Bicycle, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1970.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Westerberg, A., “Distributed and Collaborative Computer-Aided Environments in Process Engineering Design,” EDRC report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Bjork, B. C., “Basic Structure of a Proposed Building Product Model,” Computer Aided Design, Vol. 12 (2), 1988.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Eastman, C., Bond, A., and Chase, S., “A Formal Approach for Product Model Information,” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 2, pp. 65–80, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Zamanian, K., Fenves, S. J., and Gursoz, E., “Representing Spatial Abstractions of Constructed Facilities, EDRC report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Hauser, J. H., and Clausing, D., “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 63–73, May-June 1988.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Bloor, D., “Wittgenstein and Manheim on the Sociology of Mathematics,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, pp. 173–191.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Mulkay, M. J., “Knowledge and Utility: Implications for the Sociology of Knowledge,” Social Studies of Science, Vol. 9, pp. 63–80, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Collins, H. M., “An Empirical Relativist Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” in Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. J. Mulkay, eds., Sage, Beverly-Hills, pp. 85–113, 1983.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Collins, H. M., “The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics,” Sociology, Vol. 9, pp. 205–224, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Collins, H. M., and Pinch, T. J., Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    DeMillo, R. A., Upton, R. J., and Perlis, A. J., “Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 22, pp. 271–280, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Nam P. Suh, “Design and Operation of Large Systems”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14, no. 3, pp 203–213, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Ertas, A. and Jones, J. C., The Engineering Design Process, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Dasgupta, S., Design Theory and Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Ferguson, E. S., Engineering and the Mind’s Eye, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Sipper, M. et. al., “A Phylogenetic, Ontogenetic, and Epigenetic View of Bio-Inspired Hardware Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Programming, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83–97, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Ramsay, A., Formal Methods in Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Maimon, O. and Horowitz, R., “Creative Design Methodology and the SIT Method,” Proceedings of DETCC97/DTM-3865, 9th International ASME Design Engineering Theory and Methodology Conference, 1997. Awarded Best Conference Paper.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Maimon, O. and Horowitz, R., “Sufficient Conditions for Design Inventions”, to appear in IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Braha
    • 1
  • Oded Maimon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations