decision making in the conceptual phase of design processes

DECISION MAKING IN THE CONCEPTUAL 

PHASE OF DESIGN PROCESSES: 

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY CONTRIBUTING FOR THE STRATEGIC 

ADEQUACY AND OVERALL QUALITY OF DESIGN OUTCOMES 

PHD THESIS | VOLUME I AND VOLUME II 

Candidate Rita Assoreira Almendra 

Supervisor Prof. Doutor Fernando Moreira da Silva 

Co-Supervisors Prof. Doutor Henri Christiaans 

Prof. Doutor José Pinto Duarte 

President 

Jury 

Reitor da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, 

Professor Catedrático, Doutor Fernando Ramôa Ribeiro 

Doutor Henri Christiaans, 

Professor Associado da Technical University of Delft 

Doutor Vasco Afonso da Silva Branco, 

Professor Associado da Universidade de Aveiro 

Doutor Eduardo Alberto Vieira de Meireles Corte-Real, 

Professor Associado da Escola Superior de Design do 

Instituto de Artes Visuais, Design e Marketing - IADE, 

na qualidade de especialista 

Doutor Fernando Moreira da Silva, Professor Associado da 

Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa 

Doutor José Manuel Pinto Duarte, Professor Associado da 


Doutor Pedro Manuel da Silva Picaluga Nevado, Professor 

Auxiliar do Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão da 

Universidade Técnica de Lisboa 

Doutor João Paulo do Rosário Martins, Professor Auxiliar da 


Lisbon, 2010

PhD Thesis| Rita Almendra 

ii 

Author of the cover Image 

Sofia Juliana Freitas 

Author of the image animation 

Mónica Loureiro 

Editorial Design 

Sandra Belela Lopes

PhD Thesis | 

Decision Making in the Conceptual Phase of Design 

Processes: 

a descriptive study contributing for the strategic adequacy 

and overall quality of design outcomes 

Candidate | Rita Assoreira Almendra 

Supervisor | Prof. Doutor Fernando Moreira da Silva 

Co-Supervisors | Prof. Doutor Henri Christiaans 

Prof. Doutor José Pinto Duarte 

President | Reitor da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, 

Professor Catedrático, Doutor Fernando Ramôa Ribeiro 

Jury | Doutor Henri Christiaans, 

Professor Associado da Technical University of Delft 

Doutor Vasco Afonso da Silva Branco, 

Professor Associado da Universidade de Aveiro 

Doutor Eduardo Alberto Vieira de Meireles Corte-Real, 

Professor Associado da Escola Superior de Design do 

Instituto de Artes Visuais, Design e Marketing - IADE, 

na qualidade de especialista 

Doutor Fernando Moreira da Silva, Professor Associado 

da Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica 

de Lisboa 

Doutor José Manuel Pinto Duarte, Professor Associado 

da Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica 

de Lisboa 

Doutor Pedro Manuel da Silva Picaluga Nevado, 

Professor Auxiliar do Instituto Superior de Economia e 

Gestão da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa 

Doutor João Paulo do Rosário Martins, Professor 

Auxiliar da Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade 

Técnica de Lisboa

(Dedication) 

Dedicatória(s) 

I dedicate this work to Eduardo Martinez Afonso Dias, 

a designer of reference, a natural born teacher and 

most important a human being of excellence. With him 

I learned to improve my human and professional skills 

and it is truly a privilege to have him as a friend. 

Also dedicate it to my students, the ones I had, I have 

and the ones yet to come for they are the reason of this 

research. 

iii 

Dedication

Acknowledgments 

To the Faculty of Architecture of the Technical University 

of Lisbon that has created the PhD Program in Design and 

hosted my PhD process; 

To all the members of the Jury that honour me with their 

appraisal of my research work; 

To FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) that has 

granted me a scholarship during the last three years to help 

me accomplish my research works; 

To my supervisors, Professor Fernando Moreira da Silva, and 

Professor José Pinto Duarte that have guided me along this 

challenging knowledge process; their diverse approaches 

have enriched my work in a relevant way; A special thanks 

to Professor Henri Christiaans that due to his expertise had 

a more keen contact with my work. His orientation was 

unique in nature, commitment and demand. Due to him I 

had the chance to enlarge my knowledge in this field and to 

learn immensely about design and design research. 

v 

To all the researchers of De.:SID research project, my dear 

colleagues, that have made possible to build up knowledge 

essential to this study; 

To Professor Luís António dos Santos Romão, coordinator 

of De.:SID and a dear friend that along these four years, 

generously offered me his time and knowledge allowing me 

to share my doubts and to discuss key issues of my work; 

To all my students in general that give me the chance each 

day to learn and to feel highly motivated to embrace the 

cause of design and design education; 

Acknowledgments


To the Portuguese students that graciously accepted to 

participate in the experiments of this research. They are: 

Alexandre Neves, Ana Costa Gomes, Ana Raquel Rodrigues, 

Ana Rita Henriques, Ana Serrazina, Ana Sousa, Andreia 

Patrício, Catarina Ferreira, Cátia Silva, Daniel Pera, David 

Francisco, Federica Colombo, Fernando Alhinho, Filipe 

Cabaças, Filipe Costa, Filipe Martins, Guilherme Amaral, 

Inês Camilo, Iva Machado, Joana Dias, Joana Higino, João 

Fagulha, Joaquim Gonçalves, Liliana Teixeira, Luisa Leitão, 

Manuel Damião Ferreira, Maria Gutierrez, Maria Rosário 

Jané, Mariana Branco, Mariana Campos, Mariana Coutinho, 

Marianne Caupers, Milene Gonçalves, Natália Rocha, Nuno 

Pires da Silva, Patrícia Couto, Patrícia Ferreira, Patrícia Pereira, 

Paulo Gonçalves, Pedro Gomes, Raquel Coelho, Rita Costa, 

Rita Rodriguez, Rita Seabra de Sousa, Samuel Bjork Fanhais, 

Sara Faneco, Sara Fontana, Sara Garcia, Sofia Floriano, Sofia 

Freitas, Teresa Mira. 

vi 

To the Dutch students that enthusiastically agreed to 

participate in one of the experiments of this study. They are: 

François Boaziz; Pieter van Dijk, Thatcher Peskens, Marjolein 

van Houten, Leonard Schurg, Annette Voesenek, Arno Pont 

and Kika Lamers. 

To Ana Laura Santos that helped me with the dutch 

participants. 

To Nuno Aboim, master students from Instituto Superior 

Técnico (IST) that assisted me during the experiments; 

To Milene Gonçalves, my dear student since her first year in 

the Faculty, now also a PhD researcher and a good friend, 

for monitoring the group experiments and coding the verbal 

protocols. Her dedication and commitment to the work 

made all the difference. 

To the members of the jury of Verbal protocol experiment 

done namely: Eduardo Corte Real (IADE) , Lia Santos (ESBAL), 

José Alves Pereira (FA), José Rui Marcelino (FA); Catarina 

Cardoso(CP) João Rocha (UE) Luís Romão (FA) 

To the company Climar, Sistemas de Iluminação SA, its CEO 

Engº José Sucena and other administrators as well as the

staff members that made possible to create an experiment 

linking industry to education that contributed meaningfully 

to this study. 

To the company CIMP, its CEO Drª Renata Camargo and 

its staff that had made possible the creation of a week 

experiment developed inside the company that allowed us 

to study design processes in a professional context; 

To Sandra Belela, a dear student and a friend, for the graphic 

design work she has done in this thesis; 

To Mónica Loureiro, another special student and friend, for 

the animation she did for graphic design of this document. 

To João Ferreira, an eternal friend that helped me with the 

presentation. 

To all my friends especially those that encouraged me in 

respect to this work such as Rui Marcelino, Inês Simões, 

Eduarda Abbondanza, Vitor Correia, Vítor Santos e Lúcia 

Carmona. 

To Professora Maria João Durão for her affective and empathic 

support; 

vii 

To Professora Maria Calado for her care and concern with me 

and my work and for her continuous encouragement; 

To Paulo who has helped me along this journey with 

generosity and understanding; 

And finally, to my family, 

To my mother, always there to support me in my hectic daily 

life, 

To my brother António, a super uncle and a special friend. 

To Inês, David and Vicente for the moments I deprived them 

from my presence and for the amazing strength they gave 

me through their affection and unconditional love in this 

intense period of work. 

And to *.*.*.*.* my life, my rock, my eternal love 

Acknowledgments

Epigraph 

“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” 

Lewis Carrol 

“It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.” 

Lewis Carrol 

ix 

“Alles van waarde is weerloos” 

Translaction: “All of value is defenseless” 

Lucebert, in De zeer oude zingt”, 1974. 

Epigraph


x 

Abstract 

This research focuses on the design process and more 

specifically on the way decision making can influence 

the design process’ outcomes in its strategic adequacy 

and overall quality. 

The study is centred on the conceptual phase of 

the design process and, in general, aims to describe 

the behaviour along the process of design students 

and professional Portuguese designers both at the 

educational and business level. It should result in a 

descriptive model to support the understanding of 

design process management in terms of its critical 

variables. 

This descriptive model is based on the identification of 

the key parameters of design processes concerning its 

strategic adequacy and overall quality. 

In methodological terms it is a mixed methods research 

with a clear dominance of qualitative methods 

integrating an active research where experiments either 

in simulated situations or in real context play a key role. 

Quantitative methods were also used and they served 

the purpose of triangulating data in order to have a 

more consistent and rigorous description of the design 

process and its main structural elements. 

Data gathering occurred in the education and 

business areas, partly separately and partly combined. 

Furthermore, in the field of education a comparison 

of the performance of both Portuguese and Dutch 

university students was made. That helped to validate 

some findings of previous studies but also to understand 

the role different Design curricula can have in the 

performance of students. 

The main conclusion of the study is that decision making 

togehter with information and knowledge management, 

and idea generation are the fundamental aspects to 

be addressed in design processes when both strategic 

adequacy and good quality of the design outcomes are 

pursued. 

Another important finding is that decision making is 

better understood through the use of a few central 

parameters. These parameters were used in the creation 

of a descriptive decision making model that equates

decision making at three different levels that are highly 

dependent on information/knowledge management 

and Idea generation. 

At a macro level, which regards the mindset of the 

designer, we make a distinction into two elements: a) 

the design strategy with its three types – problem driven, 

solution driven and integration driven; and b) the creative 

cognitive processes that present two modes of action: the 

exploratory one that has to do with operations such as 

contextual shifting, functional inference and hypothesis 

testing; and the generative one that is related with 

analogical transfer, association, retrieval and synthesis. 

At an intermediate level we have decisions that can have 

a Framing, Key or Enabler nature. And finally, we have 

the micro level of the model, the operationalization 

of the mindset, where the decision strategy and the 

decision mode are chosen. The decision strategy presents 

three types of behavior: the compensatory rule based; 

the non compensatory rule based and the negotiated 

compensatory /non compensatory one and it is clearly 

linked with the way decisions are taken in processing 

information. The mode of decision is linked with group 

dynamics and focuses on the way teams organize 

themselves while working and deciding. 

xi 

Keywords 

Design process, 

Design experiments, 

Decision-making in Design, 

Design conceptual phase; 

Mixed methods research 

Abstract


Resumo 

Este é um trabalho de investigação sobre processos de 

projecto e mais especificamente sobre a forma como a 

tomada de decisão pode influenciar os resultados destes 

em termos da sua adequação estratégica e qualidade 

global. O estudo incide sobre a fase conceptual 

dos processos de projecto e procura descrever o 

comportamento dos projectistas tanto ao nível do Ensino 

(estudantes finalistas) como ao nível das empresas. 

Um dos resultados previstos era a criação de um modelo 

descritivo que suportasse a compreensão da gestão de 

processos de projecto nas suas variáveis mais críticas. 

Este modelo descritivo deveria basear-se na identificação 

de parâmetros chave dos processos de design no que 

concerne a sua adequação estratégica e qualidade 

global. 

xii 

Em termos metodológicos trata-se de uma investigação 

mista com claro domínio de métodos qualitativos 

de investigação activa como são as experiências 

videogravadas de processos de projecto, tanto em 

situação de simulação como em situação de contexto 

real. 

Os métodos quantitativos foram também utlizados e 

serviram o propósito da triangulação metodológica 

de dados por forma a obter-se uma descrição o mais 

rigorosa e consistente possível dos processos de 

projecto e seus elementos estruturantes. A recolha de 

dados deu-se tanto no contexto de ensino como no 

contexto empresarial portugueses tendo-se efectuado 

experiências em que estas duas áreas de intervenção 

interagiram. 

Ademais foi feita uma comparação do desempenho de 

estudantes universitários Portugueses e Holandeses 

do Curso de Design. Esta análise almejava confirmar 

informação obtida em estudos anteriores e assim 

validar o presente estudo e também visava perceber o 

papel que diferentes currículos de ensino podem ter na 

performance dos alunos finalistas. 

A conclusão fundamental deste estudo é a de que a 

tomada de decisão a par com a gestão de informação 

e conhecimento e a geração de ideias são aspectos 

fundamentais a serem acedidos nos processos de projecto

quando se persegue a sua adequação estratégica e uma 

boa qualidade global destes. 

Um segundo contributo deste trabalho é a descriminação 

de um conjunto de parâmetros que servem a melhor 

compreensão dos processos de tomada de decisão no 

projecto. 

Estes parâmetros integram um modelo descritivo de 

tomada de decisão criado e que equaciona a tomada de 

decisão em três níveis distintos que são interdependentes 

da gestão de informação e conhecimento e da geração 

de ideias. 

O modelo criado apresenta num nível macro, 

respeitante à ‘mindset’ do projectista e que tem dois 

elementos a considerar: a) a estratégia de projecto que 

pode ser de três tipos: guiada pelo problema; guiada 

pela solução; guiada pela integração; e b) os processos 

cognitivos criativos que assumem dois modos de acção: 

o exploratório, que tem a ver com operações tais como 

a alteração contextual, a inferência funcional, o teste 

de hipóteses e, o generativo, que se relaciona com a 

transferência analógica, a associação, a recuperação de 

elementos/informação e a síntese. 

Num nível intermédio as decisões podem ser de três 

distintas naturezas: de Enquadramento (Framing), Chave 

(Key) e Facilitadoras (Enabler). 

Por fim temos o nível micro do modelo, que corresponde 

à operacionalização da ‘mindset’ e que compreende a 

estratégia da decisão e o modo de decisão. 

Quanto à estratégia de decisão esta pode ser: a) baseada 

em regras de compensação, b) baseada em regras de 

não compensação ou c) mista numa negociação das 

duas primeiras. O modo de decisão está intimamente 

ligado às dinâmicas de grupo e foca-se na forma como 

os grupos organizam o projecto e decidem. 

xiii 

Palavras Chave 

Processo de Projecto, 

Experiências de Projecto, 

Tomada de Decisão em Projecto, 

Fase Conceptual de Projecto; 

Investigação Mista 

Resumo


xiv

General Index 

Chapter I - Introduction................................................................................................................1 

1. RESEARCH AND PROBLEM CONTEXTUALIZATION.......................................................................1 

1.1 The Research Contextualization....................................................................................................1 

1.2. The Problem Contextualization.....................................................................................................1 

1.2.1 Portuguese context of product design industry and its environment........................3 

1.2.2. Focusing on the conceptual phase of Design processes..............................................6 

2. RESEARCH AIMS.......................................................................................................................................8 

3. THE RESEARCH QUESTION....................................................................................................................9 

4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS..................................................................................................................9 

Chapter II – Theorethical framework...................................................................................12 

1. DESIGN PROCESSES...............................................................................................................................12 

1.1. Supporting Theoretical Approach............................................................................................12 

1.1.1 The rational Solving Problem paradigm...............................................................................15 

1.1.2 – The “Reflection-in-Action” paradigm................................................................................18 

1.1.3 – Conciliating the two paradigms.......................................................................................20 

1.2 Accessing Design Processes...........................................................................................................24 

1.2.1 – A proposed design process model - a cognitive approach.......................................33 

SUMMARY OF DESIGN PROCESSES........................................................................................................35 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES................................................................................................................36 

xv 

2. DESIGN PROCESSES AS DECISION MAKING PROCESSES.........................................................39 

2.1 Factors Influencing the Decision Process...................................................................................48 

2.1.1 Knowledge management – information access and use..................................................49 

2.1.2 Idea Generation and Creativity...............................................................................................55 

2.1. 3 Sketching..........................................................................................................................................60 

2.1. 4 Expertise.............................................................................................................................................61 

2.1.5 Individual versus Group Dynamics..........................................................................................62 

SUMMARY OF DESIGN PROCESSES AS A DECISION MAKING PROCESSES........................65 


3. DESIGN AS A STRATEGIC RESOURCE – THE STRATEGIC ADEQUACY OF DESIGN 

PROCESSES...............................................................................................................................................70 

3.1 Firm’s Strategic options Towards Design...................................................................................72 

3.2 Design Processes inside the Firms..........................................................................................78 

3.3 Strategic adequacy and decision making................................................................................81 

SUMMARY OF THR STRATEGIC ADEQUACY OF DESIGN PROCESSES....................................86 


General Index


4. QUALITY AND DESIGN PROCESSES............................................................................................89 

4.1 From Total Product Quality to Product Designed Quality................................................90 

4.1.1. Total Product Quality...................................................................................................................90 

4.1.2 The Design outcome as an end product.................................................................................95 

4.1.3 The Process as a component of Total Design Quality........................................................97 

SUMMARY OF QUALITY IN DESIGN PROCESSES...........................................................................99 

5. HYPOTHESES OF THE RESEARCH....................................................................................................100 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES..............................................................................................................102 

Chapter III – Methodology and Methods...............................................................................104 

1. METHODOLOGIES FOR DESIGN RESEARCH..............................................................................104 

2. THE METHODOLOGY FOR THIS RESEARCH...............................................................................112 

xvi 

3. APPLIED METHODS.............................................................................................................................116 

3.1 Surveys.................................................................................................................................................116 

3.2 Semi structured – Interviews.......................................................................................................117 

3.3 Individual Exercise analysis........................................................................................................118 

3.4 Experiments.......................................................................................................................................118 

3.4.1 Verbal Protocol Analysis – Individual Exercise..............................................................119 

3.4.2 Experiments – Verbal Protocol Analysis – Group Exercise............................................120 

SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................121 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES............................................................................................................122 

Chapter IV - Accessing/Experimenting/describing decision making in design 

Processes.............................................................................................................................................123 

1. AN INNER ASSESSMENT – DESIGN STUDENTS AND COMPANY VIEWS OF DESIGN 

PROCESSES...........................................................................................................................................123 

1.1. How design students see their own processes...............................................................123 

1.1.1 Surveys undertaken in 2007 (24) and 2009 (21) – students from the 5th grade..........124 

SUMMARY OF SURVEYS........................................................................................................................163 

1.1.2 Reflection on each one’s own Design Process................................................................164 

SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCESS EXERCISE...........................................................................180 

1.2. How industry sees design processes and the quality of the outcomes - based upon 

the survey made to Portuguese manufacturing industry........................................................181 

SUMMARY OF DE.:SID SURVEY...........................................................................................................204

2. AN OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT – THE RESEARCHER OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS OF BOTH 

STUDENTS AND COMPANY DESIGN PROCESSES........................................................................205 

2.1 An experiment with design Students - Lisbon/Delft Verbal Protocol Analysis – 

Individual Exercise..................................................................................................................................206 

2.1.1 The experiment with Portuguese design students (Protocol L)..................................208 

2.1.1.1 First Analysis of the Portuguese protocols.......................................................................216 

2.1.1.2 Second Analysis of the Portuguese Protocols..........................................................220 

2.2 Comparing Portuguese (L) with Dutch (D) Protocols.........................................................223 

2.2.1 A short overview of Design Education at FA.UTL and FIDE.TUD........................223 

2.2.2 Comparing the two protocols focusing on problem structuring and 

information access in the design process............................................................................229 

Information Access and Use in Protocols L and D...............................................................229 

Information seeking, selection and focus.....................................................................................230 

Information demanded and used to structure the problem..............................................234 

Information asked for and used to solve the problem.........................................................235 

The solution – a new piece of information / the transformed information...........................236 

2.2.3 Comparing the two protocols focusing on Decision Making.................................239 

2.2.3.1 Analysis of both Portuguese and Dutch Poor, Best and one Median Protocols......242 

2.2.3.2 How is the process of decision-making related to the generation of ideas and 

the quality of the final result?.............................................................................................................251 

SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENT WITH DESIGN STUDENTS – INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE...........252 

2.3 - The CLIMAR Experiment - a Group Design Process linking Design Education with 

Business............................................................................................................................................255 

2.3.1 The Decision Making Descriptive Model...........................................................................256 

2.3.2 The DMTool....................................................................................................................................258 

2.3.3 The Experiment............................................................................................................................260 

2.3.3.1 Method.........................................................................................................................................260 

2.3.3.2 Procedure....................................................................................................................................262 

2.3.4 Experiment analysis and findings....................................................................................263 

2.3.4.1 In terms of the DMTool use...............................................................................................263 

2.3.4.2 In terms of Decision Making Descriptive Model analysis....................................264 

SUMMARY OF THE CLIMAR EXPERIMENT - DESIGN STUDENTS GROUP EXERCISE...........275 

2.4 An experiment with Portuguese and Dutch Design students inside a company 

(CIMP)...................................................................................................................................277 

2.4.1 The Method....................................................................................................................................278 

2.4.2 The Experiment............................................................................................................................279 

2.4.2.1 The Company - CIMP..............................................................................................................280 

2.4.2.2 The Brief.......................................................................................................................................280 

2.4.2.3 The jury Evaluation..................................................................................................................281 

2.4.2.4 Experiment Data Treatment and Analysis...................................................................283 

2.4.2.5 Results..........................................................................................................................................298 

xvii 

General Index


SUMMARY OF THE CIMP EXPERIMENT - DESIGN STUDENTS GROUP EXERCISE INSIDE A 

COMPANY..............................................................................................................................................305 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES OF CHAPTER IV..............................................................................307 

Chapter V - Discussion – findings and proposals of how to improve decision 

making in design processes..........................................................................................................309 

1. About the Inner Assessment - the perception of both students and companies about 

their own design processes...............................................................................................................309 

2. About the Outside Assessment - the observation of Design Processes...........................311 

2.1 Knowlegde Management and Decision Making in individual and Team actions........311 

2.2 Knowledge Management and Decision Making for Portuguese and Dutch Design 

Students......................................................................................................................................312 

Chapter VI – Conclusions.................................................................................................................316 

Gap between the Inner and the Outside Assessment........................................................318 

Education and Industry.........................................................................................................................319 

Strategic Adequacy.................................................................................................................................320 

Quality.........................................................................................................................................................321 

xviii 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES........................................................................................................329 

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................341 

APPENDIX A .........................................................................................................................................365 

Glossary..........................................................................................................................365 

(Note: the other Appendix integrate the DVD placed in the back cover of this document) 

APPENDIX LIST 

APPENDIX AA; APPENDIX AB; APPENDIX AC; APPENDIX AD; APPENDIX AE; APPENDIX AF; 

APPENDIX AG; APPENDIX AH; APPENDIX AI; APPENDIX AJ; APPENDIX AK; APPENDIX AL; 

APPENDIX AM; APPENDIX AN; APPENDIX AO; APPENDIX AP; APPENDIX AQ; APPENDIX AR; 

APPENDIX AS; APPENDIX AT; APPENDIX AU; APPENDIX AV; APPENDIX AW; APPENDIX AX; 

APPENDIX AY; APPENDIX AZ; APPENDIX B; APPENDIX C; APPENDIX D; APPENDIX E; APPENDIX 

F; APPENDIX G; APPENDIX H; APPENDIX I; APPENDIX J; APPENDIX K; APPENDIX L; APPENDIX 

M; APPENDIX N; APPENDIX O; APPENDIX P; APPENDIX Q; APPENDIX R; APPENDIX S; APPENDIX 

T; APPENDIX U; APPENDIX V; APPENDIX W; APPENDIX X; APPENDIX Y; APPENDIX Z;

Index of Figures 

Figure 1 

Diagram of the relationship between industry, design education, designers and 

consumers, Almendra, 2007...............................................................................................................Pg.4 

Figure 2 

Cost impact of decisions over the product life cycle (Stoll, 1999, p.39)..............................Pg.7 

Figure 3 

Schematic diagram of a system for ill structured problems, Simon, 1973......................Pg.18 

Figure 4 

Four stage design process, Nigel Cross, 2000 .........................................................................Pg.25 

Figure 5 

Dynamics of divergence and convergence in design process, Nigel Cross, 2000......Pg.26 

Figure 6 

Design process, Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz ,1984......................................................Pg.27 

Figure 7 

Spiral model of the Design process, Barry Boehm, 1986. .....................................................Pg.28 

Figure 8 

Creative vs Design process, Lawson,1980..................................................................................Pg.30 

Figure 9 

A model of design process (Darke’s model interpreted by Solovyova)............................Pg.31 

Figure 10 

Innovation planning (process), Vijay Kumar, 2003..................................................................Pg.32 

Figure 11 

Design Process model I [action related],Almendra, 2007......................................................Pg.34 

Figure 12 

Value Analysis/Design Process, John Chris Jones, 1970....................................................Pg.43 

Figure 13 

Design Process – relationship among UCD, IPD and Business Management, Vredenburg, 

2003.................................................................................................................................................Pg.44 

Figure 14 

Contingent Variables Influencing the Decision Process in Selecting “Closing-down” 

Techniques, Rickards, 1986...............................................................................................................Pg.46 

Figure 15 

Design Knowledge ,Zhang, 1998...................................................................................................Pg.50 

Figure 16 

Design Knowledge and Organization knowledge integration – a space for new business 

opportunities, Teixeira, 2007..........................................................................................................Pg.52 

Figure 17 

Utilising knowledge to support decision making for solving problem, Haque et al ,2000... 

....................................................................................................................................................................Pg.53 

Figure 18 

Model of Creativity , Amabile, 1983.............................................................................................Pg.57 

xix 

Index of Figures


xx 

Figure 19 

Four leadership process-related aspects identified as key in design championing, 

Jevnaker, 2000......................................................................................................................................Pg.77 

Figure 20 

Enablers in the Evaluation Model for Strategic Impacts of Design, Nieminen et al, 2005....... 

....................................................................................................................................................................Pg.79 

Figure 21 

Designers’ possibilities to influence strategy development, Nieminen et al, 2005........Pg.81 

Figure 22 

Designer’s influence in strategy development in the case companies. Source: Nieminen 

2005.........................................................................................................................................p.83 

Figure 23 

Decision making Balance Scorecard, Michel, 2007.................................................................Pg.84 

Figure 24 

Decision making Balance Scorecard nine principles (Michel, 2007, p.40)..........................Pg.84 

Figure 25 

From Total Product Quality to Total Project Quality, Almendra, 2008.............................Pg.92 

Figure 26 

Monomethod and mixed-model designs. (Source: Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, 

p.21)........................................................................................................................................................Pg.109 

Figure 27 

Mixed-method design matrix with mixed-method research designs shown in the four 

cells............................................................................................................................................Pg.109 

Figure 28 

Mixed research process model..................................................................................................Pg.111 

Figure 29 

Synthesis of the Initial Research Framework.......................................................................Pg.112 

Figure 30 

Synthesis of the Final Research Framework..........................................................................Pg.113 

Figure 31 

Diagram of the activities/ methods undertaken...................................................................Pg.114 

Figure 32 

Monomethod and mixed-model designs used in this research...................................Pg.115 

Figure 33 

Mixed-method design matrix with mixed-method research design used in this 

investigation........................................................................................................................................Pg.115 

Figure 34 

Age of the subjects (Students questionnaire).........................................................................Pg.128 

Figure 35 

Gender Frequency of the subjects (questionnaire).............................................................Pg.129 

Figure 36 

Subjects’ area of Residence (questionnaire)..........................................................................Pg.129

Figure 37 

Design Course as the first choice (questionnaire)...............................................................Pg.130 

Figure 38 

Subjects order of Design’s Program choice (questionnaire)..........................................Pg.130 

Figure 39 

Subjects evaluation of the Design course (questionnaire)............................................Pg.130 

Figure 40 

Reasons for managing badly time (questionnaire).............................................................Pg.136 

Figure 41 

Reasons for spending more time in conceptual phase (questionnaire).......................Pg.137 

Figure 42 

Reasons for spending more time in technical development phase (questionnaire)....Pg.138 

Figure 43 

Reasons for spending more time in detailing phase (questionnaire)...........................Pg.138 

Figure 44 

Frequency of Iteration in Design Process................................................................................Pg.156 

Figure 45 

Valuation of the time available for the design process....................................................Pg.157 

Figure 46 

Creation of a Library of contents................................................................................................Pg.158 

Figure 47 

Revisiting Previous Designs.........................................................................................................Pg.159 

Figure 48 

Reasons to Revisit Previous Designs.........................................................................................Pg.159 

Figure 49 

Posterior use of gathered information....................................................................................Pg.160 

Figure 50 

Gathered information storage....................................................................................................Pg.160 

Figure 51 

Evaluation of statements about design processes...........................................................Pg.161 

Figure 52 

Brief of Design Process’s Exercise............................................................................................Pg.165 

Figure 53 

Design Process of student Ana Serrazina...........................................................................Pg.173 

Figure 54 

Design Process of student Patrícia Couto........................................................................Pg.175 

Figure 55 

General Design Process model of student Mariana Coutinho............................................Pg.177 

Figure 56 

Detailed description of the process Mariana Coutinho..............................................Pg.178 

Figure 57 

Analysis of the process in terms of social interaction Mariana Coutinho....................Pg.179 

Index of Figures 

xxi


xxii 

Figure 58 

Process analysis in terms of time spent Mariana Coutinho.........................................Pg.179 

Figure 59 

Process Analysis and its Improvement - student David Francisco................................Pg.180 

Figure 60 

The Design Ladder (DCC,2003)..................................................................................................Pg.189 

Figure 61 

Characterization of design Activity (2005-2007).............................................................Pg.190 

Figure 62 

Characterization of design Activity (predicted 2008-2010)...........................................Pg.190 

Figure 63 

Assignment sheet (transcribed).................................................................................................Pg.207 

Figure 64 

Images of the Experiment (Protocol L)..................................................................................Pg.208 

Figure 65 

Excerpt of a translated, transcribed and coded protocol..................................................Pg.210 

Figure 66 

Excerpt of a protocol – double coding.......................................................................................Pg.211 

Figure 67 

Excerpt of the evaluation of the protocol..............................................................................Pg.212 

Figure 68 

Decision nature categories (Almendra, 2007).......................................................................Pg.214 

Figure 69 

Protocols L2, L9 and L1 – Activities and decision making general analysis.......................Pg.220 

Figure 70 

Protocol L2 – Activities and decision making detailed analysis....................................Pg.221 

Figure 71 

Protocol L 9– Activities and decision making detailed analysis....................................Pg.222 

Figure 72 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Exploring possible locations for the bin....................Pg.235 

Figure 73 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Understanding the Space / Environment / 

Context.................................................................................................................................................Pg.236 

Figure 74 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Operating the solution – passenger and cleaning 

employee...............................................................................................................................Pg.236 

Figure 75 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Exploring possible opening systems for the bin.......Pg.237 

Figure 76 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Constructive and functional approach......................Pg.237 

Figure 77 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Searching the form...........................................................Pg.237

Figure 78 

Comparing Protocols L and D – Presenting the concept – creation of new 

information.........................................................................................................................Pg.238 

Figure 79 

Protocol D1 – first 60 minutes.....................................................................................................Pg.243 

Figure 80 

Protocol L1 – first 60 minutes....................................................................................................Pg.244 

Figure 81 

Protocol D6 – first 60 minutes...................................................................................................Pg.246 

Figure 82 

Protocol L2 – first 60 minutes...................................................................................................Pg.247 

Figure 83 

Protocol D9 – first 60 minutes...................................................................................................Pg.249 

Figure 84 

Protocol L9 – first 60 minutes.....................................................................................................Pg.250 

Figure 85 

Decision Making Descriptive Model II – from Mindset to Solutions, Almendra, 

2009....................................................................................................................................Pg.258 

Figure 86 

The DMTool layout – four areas: information, idea generation, process, 

evaluation........................................................................................................................................Pg.259 

Figure 87 

a) Image of E2 design development in computer; b) Sketch made by E3 group; c) 

Sketch made by E2 group. (source of the images: author)...............................Pg.264 

Figure 88 

Using the DMTool (source: author).............................................................................................Pg.267 

Figure 89 

The six Designs resultant from the CLIMAR Experiment.................................................Pg.268 

Figure 90 

E3 group Decision Making Model analysis..........................................................................Pg.269 

Figure 91 

C1 group Decision Making Model analysis...........................................................................Pg.269 

Figure 92 

E2 group Decision Making Model analysis.......................................................................Pg.270 

Figure 93 

E1 group Decision Making Model analysis.........................................................................Pg.270 

Figure 94 

C2 group Decision Making Model analysis......................................................................Pg.271 

Figure 95 

C3 group Decision Making Model analysis......................................................................Pg.272 

Figure 96 

Analysis of the overall behaviour of the design teams in terms of Creativity, knowledge 

management and Decision Making......................................................................................Pg.273 

xxiii 

Index of Figures


xxiv 

Figure 97 

Climar Experiment - Images of the sessions (source: the author)..................................Pg.274 

Figure 98 

Climar Experiment - Images of the sessions (source: the author)...................................Pg.274 

Figure 99 

Images of the CLIMAR Prize ceremony (source: CLIMAR).............................................Pg.277 

Figure 100 

Excerpt of the analysis of Group 3 (Dutch) Design Process................................................Pg.284 

Figure 101 

Analysis of the Design Process of Groups 3 and 4 (5days) .............................................Pg.285 

Figure 102 

Analysis of the Design Process of Groups 3 and 4 (1st day).............................................Pg.288 

Figure 103 

Analysis of the Design Process of Groups 3 and 4 (2nd day).............................................Pg.290 

Figure 104 

Analysis of the Design Process of Groups 3 and 4 (3rd day).............................................Pg.293 

Figure 105 

Analysis of the Design Process of Groups 3 and 4 (4th day).............................................Pg.294 

Figure 106 

Analysis of the Design Process of Groups 3 and 4 (5th day)..............................Pg.296 / 297 

Figure 107 

Analysis of the overall behaviour of the design teams in terms of Creativity, knowledge 

management and Decision Making........................................................................................Pg.298 

Figure 108 

Synthesis of Groups performance in CIMP Experiment....................................................Pg.299 

Figure 109 

Images of the Proposal of Dutch Group 1 - CIMP Experiment ............................................Pg.302 

Figure 110 

Images of the Proposal of Dutch Group 3 - CIMP Experiment ............................................Pg.293 

Figure 111 

Images of the Proposal of Portuguese Group 2 - CIMP Experiment .........................Pg.303 

Figure 112 

Images of the Proposal of Portuguese Group 2 - CIMP Experiment .............................Pg.303 

Figure 113 

Images of the Public Presentation and Prize Ceremony (Source: Researcher).........Pg.304

Index of tables 

Table 1 

Classes of Knowledge and Information (Ahmed, 2005)..........................................................Pg.51 

Table 2 

Comparing creative design processes (Howard et al, 2008)............................................Pg.56 

Table 3 

Relationship between Design Capacities and Leadership Activities (Jevnaker, 2000)..Pg.75 

Table 4 

Operational,Tactic and Strategic Levels of Design...................................................................Pg.78 

Table 5 

Using the Scorecard to adress control levers (Michel, 2007, p.40)...................................Pg.85 

Table 6 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Research.....................................................Pg.106 

Table 7 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Research..........................................................Pg.107 

Table 8 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Mixed Research.....................................................................Pg.108 

Table 9 

Subjects perception of the Design course (questionnaire)...........................................Pg.131 

Table 10 

Subjects perception of the Design course/ Design Program (questionnaire)...Pg.131 

Table 11 

Factors affecting negatively design studio’s performance (questionnaire)...Pg.132 

Table 12 

Immediate Concerns facing ‘Brief’ (questionnaire)...........................................................Pg.132 

Table 13 

Problem/ solution/co-evolution driven approach.................................................................Pg.133 

Table 14 

Phases of Design process (questionnaire)........................................................................Pg.134 

Table 15 

Chronogram Use (questionnaire)...........................................................................................Pg.135 

Table 16 

Existence of difficulties managing time along the process (questionnaire)................Pg.135 

Table 17 

Phase of the process that takes more time.........................................................................Pg.137 

Table 18 

Critical elements along design process....................................................................................Pg.139 

Table 19 

‘Design with quality’ definition..................................................................................................Pg.140 

Table 20 

Use of facilitator schemes along design process...............................................................Pg.140 

Index of Tables 

xxv


xxvi 

Table 21 

Schemes use/Phases of Design Process...............................................................................Pg.141 

Table 22 

Establishment of a Chronogram of tasks................................................................................Pg142 

Table 23 

Reasons to make a plan of the tasks....................................................................................Pg.143 

Table 24 

Frequency of Blockage moments along Design process............................................Pg.143 

Table 25 

Frequency of Blockage moments in terms of process phases...................................Pg.144 

Table 26 

Frequency of Blockage type incidence................................................................................Pg.144 

Table 27 

Actions undertaken to overcome blockage in design process..............................Pg.145 /146 

Table 28 

Use of a Diary......................................................................................................................................Pg.147 

Table 29 

Usefulness of a Diary vs Design Strategy – descriptive statistics (tested by Kruskal Wallis) 

.............................................................................................................................................................Pg.148 

Table 30 

Frequency of modelling along design process....................................................................Pg.149 

Table 31 

Descriptive statistics – Reasons to Model 3D along design process vs Design strategy of 

the Subjects statistics (tested by Kruskal Wallis ).....................................................................Pg.150 

Table 32 

Descriptive statistics – Use of Design softwares and others along design process........Pg.151 

Table 33 

Descriptive statistics – Use of Design softwares and others vs design process 

phases................................................................................................................................Pg.151/152/153 

Table 34 

Descriptive statistics – Evaluation of positive statements about the use of softwares 

(tested by Kruskal Wallis ).......................................................................................................Pg.154/155 

Table 35 

Descriptive statistics – Evaluation of negative statements about the use of 

softwares....................................................................................................................................Pg.155 

Table 36 

Chi Square test - relationship between the use of 3D modelling and the evaluation of 

time available for design process.................................................................................................Pg.157 

Table 37 

P32 * P40 Crosstabulation.............................................................................................................Pg.157 

Table 38 

Mann-Whitney Test – relationship between available time evaluation and the use of a 

Diary.................................................................................................................................................................Pg.158 

Table 39 

Chi-Square Test – evaluation of statements regarding design process...................Pg.162

Table 40 

Tukey’s Test – evaluation of statements regarding design process vs subject’s design 

strategy.........................................................................................................................................Pg.162 

Table 41 

Descriptive Statistics – evaluation of statements about the written parts..........Pg.163 

Table 42 

Synthesis of the analysis of the design process’s exercise................................................Pg.169 

Table 43 

Main characteristics of the three types of outcomes......................................................Pg.171 

Table 44 

Main Success Critical Factors of the Business are of Companies.................................Pg.183 

Table 45 

Main Core Competences of the Firms.......................................................................................Pg.184 

Table 46 

Main Associations done with the Design Concept...........................................................Pg.185 

Table 47 

Main Drivers of Design inside Companies.................................................................Pg.187/188 

Table 48 

Number of Years firms use Design.........................................................................................Pg.188 

Table 49 

Involvement of Administration/Management with Design Activity.............................Pg.191 

Table 50 

Predicted evolution of the Investment in Design (2008-2010).................................Pg.192 

Table 51 

Investments in Design made during 2005-2007..............................................................Pg.192 

Table 52 

Leadership of New Projects of R&D, Innovation and Design......................................Pg.193 

Table 53 

External Entities involved with Design Processes..............................................................Pg.193 

Table 54 

Factors that contribute most to value Product.................................................................Pg.194 

Table 55 

Innovation Rate – new and improve products and processes.........................................Pg.195 

Table 56 

Evaluation of some aspects of Design Quality......................................................................Pg.196 

Table 57 

Who has the responsibility of having ‘New Ideas’..................................................................Pg.197 

Table 58 

Source of Design Activity.............................................................................................................Pg.197 

Table 59 

Association of Design activity with a specific department.............................................Pg.198 

Table 60 

Number and Education level of persons developingDesign inside Firms.........................Pg.198 

xxvii 

Index of Tables


xxviii 

Table 61 

Design process phase where Design starts to be used...................................................Pg.199 

Table 62 

Nature of the Contribution of Design to Firm’s Differentiation..............................Pg.200 

Table 63 

Possible Indicators to measure Design Quality.....................................................................Pg.201 

Table 64 

Evaluation of the Impact of Design Use (2005-2007)..............................................Pg.201/202 

Table 65 

Global Analysis of the Barriers to the Use of Design...............................................Pg.202/203 

Table 66 

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (average measures)...................................................Pg.213 

Table 67 

Analysis of Protocol L (Information; Type of Drawing; Time to Sketch; First Key 

decision; Type of Solution)..........................................................................................................Pg.217 

Table 68 

Bachelors, Masters and PhD at the two faculties..............................................................Pg.225 

Table 69 

Master Dissertations and PhD Theses at both Institutions..........................................Pg.226 

Table 70 

Comparison of the two Education systems and context.................................................Pg.229 

Table 71 

Information available on demand in both Protocols (L and D)........Pg.231/232/233/234 

Table 72 

CLIMAR experiment – Synthesis of Jury Evaluation.....................................................Pg.263 

Table 73 

CLIMAR Experiment – Excerpt of Verbal Protocol Analysis of Group C2....................Pg.265 

Table 74 

CLIMAR Experiment - Synthesis of the group’s work based upon ‘critical incident 

analysis’.............................................................................................................................................Pg.279 

Table 75 

Synthesis of the Evaluation of CIMP Jury members..........................................................Pg.282 

Table 76 

Experiments - Design Processes with individual and teams of students ....................Pg.311

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

CEO | 

Chief Executive Officer. The executive who 

is responsible for a company’s operations, 

usually the President or the Chairman of 

the Board. 

CIA | 

Critical Incident Analysis 

CIMP | 

De.:SID | 

FCT | 

Centro Internacional de Merchandising e 

Promoções 

Design as a company’s strategic resource: 

Study of the impacts of Design 

Foundation for the Science and the 

Technology 

NDM | 

Naturalistic Decision Making 

SPSS | Statistical Package for Social Sciences 

VPA | Verbal Protocol Analysis 

xxix 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

PhD Thesis| Rita Almendra

Part one: Presentation of research 

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 

1. RESEARCH AND PROBLEM CONTEXTUALIZATION 

1.1 The Research Contextualization 

The research developed in the context of the present 

thesis is related with two of the categories Nigel Cross 

(2006, p101) defined in its taxonomy of the field of 

design research: the design epistemology, meaning the 

study of “designerly ways of knowing” 1 and the design 

praxiology that is to say the study of the practices and 

processes of design. 

According to Cross (2006, p.101) the first category is 

related with the ability of people to design and includes 

“empirical studies of design behaviour but it also includes 

theoretical deliberation and reflection on the nature of design 

ability. It also relates strongly to considerations of how people 

learn to design, to studies of the development of design 

ability in individuals and how that development might best 

be nurtured in design education”. 

1 

The second category has to do with tactics and strategies 

of designing and has as it “major area of design research 

the methodology: the study of the processes of design, and 

the development and application of techniques which aid the 

designer.” (2006, p101) 

1.2. The Problem Contextualization 

The present study is then focused on the design process 

and the way designers behave and act along it. 

This thesis is concerned with the study of the design 

process in two different contexts: in an educational 

setting and in a professional setting. The reason to 

consider these two contexts was that preliminary studies 

(EC, 2004, pp 19-20; EC 2006; FA Internal Report 2005) 

revealed a gap between design education and industry. 

In fact, that relationship showed either reduced or 

irregular knowledge flows between them in what 

1. See glossary – Appendix A 

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION | 1. RESEARCH AND PROBLEM CONTEXTUALIZATION


concerns the understanding of the discipline itself, its 

use and role; and, in terms of the design practices, the 

gap between education’s priorities and industrial ones 

was also evident. 

This was confirmed by the university’s internal evaluation 

and probation reports where that gap was clearly 

recognized. 

2 

2. Bologna process (or Bologna 

accords) purpose is to create 

the European higher education 

area by making academic degree 

standards and quality assurance 

standards more comparable and 

compatible throughout Europe. 

The Bologna process was a major 

reform created with the claimed 

goal of providing responses 

to issues such as the public 

responsibility for higher education 

and research, higher education 

governance, the social dimension 

of higher education and research, 

and the values and roles of higher 

education and research in modern, 

globalized, and increasingly 

complex societies with the 

most demanding qualification 

needs. With the Bologna process 

implementation, higher education 

systems in European countries are 

to be organized in such a way 

that: a) it is easy to move from 

one country to the other (within 

the European Higher Education 

Area) – for the purpose of further 

study or employment; b) the 

attractiveness of European higher 

education has increased, so that 

many people from non-European 

countries also come to study and/ 

or work in Europe; c) the European 

Higher Education Area provides 

Europe with a broad, high-quality 

advanced knowledge base, and 

ensures the further development 

of Europe as a stable, peaceful and 

tolerant community benefiting 

from a cutting-edge European 

Research Area; d) there will 

also be a greater convergence 

between the U.S. and Europe 

as European higher education 

adopts aspects of the American 

system. (Wikipedia) 

Also the 2004 report published by EC regarding the 

future of the European manufactures stated that: 

“(…) Development of educational curricula has not kept 

pace with either the growing complexity of industry or the 

economy, and even less with the rapid development of new 

technologies. Studies are often too lengthy and too general. 

Furthermore, it can be argued that manufacturing is a subject 

that cannot be handled efficiently inside a university classroom 

alone. (…)” 

Furthermore the European Community (2006) analysis 

of “Why European higher education systems must be 

modernised?” presents a vision of the European higher 

education in general that identifies that same gap: 

“The performance of developed economies is closely related 

to their ability to create, disseminate and apply knowledge. 

These three poles - education, research, innovation - are 

known as the ‘knowledge triangle’. Unfortunately, Europe 

has fallen behind in all three parts of the knowledge triangle, 

and needs to improve its performance in each of them. The 

problems with Europe’s universities centre on the following: 

European higher education is fragmented into (what are often) 

small national systems and sub-systems, without effective 

links and bridges between them; 

National regulations are too often over-detailed, and this 

diminishes universities’ responsiveness to changing learning 

and research needs emerging from markets and society; 

Universities under-use the knowledge they produce because 

they and business still inhabit largely separate worlds; (…)” 

Meanwhile, the Design program at the Faculty of 

Architecture (starting from 1992) have changed its 

curricula (starting in 2006 and finishing in 2009) and 

adapted its structure according to Bologna Process 2 

having used that adjustment moment to amend the

‘state of the art’. In general terms it was observable a 

clear problem in the practice of designing where in most 

cases a methodological approach to design problems 

was not formalized and hardly internalized. That resulted 

in irregular final solutions in terms of overall quality, 

productivity, as well as strategic adequacy to markets 

and firm’s aims 3 . 

In general terms, a deficiency of coherence and 

consistency in final products could be observed. In our 

opinion, that deficiency was, initially, partly attributable 

to the lack of methods that could structure thought, 

stimulate reflection and lead to the systematization of 

information and the creation of balanced concepts. If 

design methods had been applied in the proper way 

an adequate conceptual, functional and productive 

frame would have been consolidated saving time and 

cognitive resources to develop the necessary creativity 

and other competences in order to generate best 

informed solutions. 

For that reason, it became urgent to understand design 

processes and actions and so we focused upon issues 

like how knowledge management was performed and 

how decisions were made along the design process. 

1.2.1 Portuguese context of product design 

industry and its environment 

It is important to make clear that the choice of the 

theme is intimately linked with my personal experience 

and knowledge as a designer and as a teacher, in the 

Portuguese context of product design industry and 

university education. My interest was reinforced with 

my participation in and contribution to the Evaluation 

Report of the Product Design Program at our University 

in 2005 

Furthermore, the reading of the Portuguese Design 

Centre (CPD) analysis (2003, p.46-50) made it possible for 

me to understand and summarize the present situation 

of product design industry, as diagrammed in Figure 

1. The figure presents the main stakeholders involved, 

their relations and existing frailties. Paths numbered 

3. See Glossary 

3 



4 

Fig.1 | Diagram of the relationship 

between industry, design education, 

designers and consumers; Almendra 

2007 

with 1 and 2 characterize the relationship between 

Industry/Education and Education/Consumers that 

are not optimized since we observed that, on one side, 

there was a reduced interaction between them and, 

on the other side, the knowledge flows between parts 

derived not from direct and real-time observation but 

rather were the result of indirect readings or supported 

by indirect information sources. 

The use of lines with different shades – light grey, medium 

grey and black – serves the purpose of identifying 

knowledge that is directly acquired from the “real 

world” (light grey) and knowledge that results from the 

education learning as a reflection of an interpretation of 

that “real world”( medium grey). The gradation of grey to 

black identifies a type of knowledge that is the synthesis 

of the two types of knowledge just mentioned and which 

characterizes the actions undertaken by designers. 

Path 3 indicates the relationship between Industry and 

Markets, which varies among different sectors. There are 

sectors that have solid relationships with markets. That 

is due to permanent follow-up actions and an undying 

attempt of anticipation actions undertaken by the 

industry that faces consumer’s needs and desires (it is

the case of the energy sector); there is also sector with 

fragile relationship with markets and those are mostly 

the ones integrating manufacturing industries. 

Path 4 identifies the relationship between Education 

and Designers which occurs in two distinct moments: 

a) the moment of designer’s educational formation, 

which is built upon explicit knowledge and which 

lacks an updated perspective of the practice of the 

“labour world,” as well as displays a clear distant look of 

the market and the users; b) the moment professional 

designers go “back to school”, a return related not only 

with the fact that most of the teachers are recruited in 

the labour-market but also because in several occasions 

professional designers are invited to participate in 

pedagogical activities promoted by the education 

institutions. 

Finally, we have path 5, which is the fundamental axis 

that structures products existence and that is fostered 

by Industry perceiving designers as artefact creators and 

cultural intermediaries, for materialization of consumer’s 

needs and desires. Here I choose to interpret the 

designer’s role as taking place in between the industryconsumers 

relationship, given its role of mediation and 

intermediation in the process. This intermediary role 

conveys responsibilities and high capabilities because 

it is imperative to match interests of various natures 

in harmonious ways. It is supposed that a real value 

creation will occur to both interlocutors – industry and 

consumers – and it will be a designer’s job, as an expert, 

to make it possible. The fact that there are two moments 

in this relationship (5.1 and 5.2) is to some extent justified 

because I believe that through design intervention a 

firm’s output presents effective value-added products 

to final consumers. 

Regarding the relationship between Designers and 

Industry, the assumption of Design as ‘a company’s 

strategic resource’ is a reality according to the last 15 

years of design management literature (see Design 

Management Institute articles of this period). However, 

as William Faust (2000, p.34) pointed out: 

“Design is in the middle, between companies and customers. 

As it should be (…) the only people who value design at this 

5 



level are the designers. While design has gained some respect 

over the last decade with mainstream business leaders, it is 

still the most undervalued and most misunderstood discipline 

in corporate business. (…) So how to explain this sorry state? 

(…) designers don’t speak the language of business …” 

In fact, there are clear problems with a correct integration 

of the activity and its professionals inside Portuguese 

companies and part of these difficulties are due to 

educational inefficiencies on the behalf of designers. 

The Portuguese design practice has been studied for 

the past 15 years by CPD 4 that regularly publishes their 

results under the name “The Design Observatory”. The 

last national survey among designers and industrial 

companies, launched in 2002 (CPD, 2003, pp. 30-31) 

revealed among other things that: 

> Even though having a background education in 

product/industrial design, 40% of the designer’s 

representative sample develops graphic design. 

6 

> The labour opportunities depend more on market 

request rather than on education background. 

The fact that product/industrial designer’s labour market 

is less dynamic is related with endogenous and structural 

characteristics of Portuguese Industries. 

The deficit of knowledge in Portuguese society in 

general about what design is, the deficient regulation 

of the activity and the absence in the industrial world of 

knowledge of how to integrate design in production and 

communication strategies of the company are aforesaid 

as the most important problems that affect design 

development. 

1.2.2 Focusing on the conceptual phase of 

Design processes 

In this study we decided to restrict the investigation 

to the conceptual phase of Design processes. This 

restriction had to do with constraints related to the time 

and resources available to produce this work. 

4. CPD – Centro Português de 

Design 

The choice of this particular moment of the design 

process was not without purpose, but it has been

supported by the evidence of several author’s studies 

(Restrepo, Goldsmith; Christiaans; Cross; Dorst; Lawson) 

such as Rehman and Yan ((2007, p.170) that define it 

as being a phase in which information processing and 

decision-making is very intensive as a consequence of 

the generation and evaluation of alternative ideas. It 

is also pointed out by the authors that “the importance 

of conceptual design to the overall success of the product 

is crucial as once a final concept is chosen, the majority of 

the design decisions relating to the product behaviour, cost 

and quality has been fixed as the subsequent product lifecycle 

activities (manufacturing, assembly, use and recycle/ 

dispose) are implicitly determined by the concept. Moreover, 

detail design and manufacture cannot make up for a poor or 

inadequate conceptual design.” 

It is also a phase where according to Stoll (1999, p.38) 

decisions have a critical importance since they have a 

tremendous impact on the total cost of the product. 

That is particular visible in Figure 2. 

Also Nicholls (1990, pp.5-15) has shown that up to 85% 

of the life-cycle costs of a product can be committed 

at the end of the conceptual design phase, when only 

about 5% of the actual life-cycle costs have been spent. 

7 

Fig.2 | Cost impact of decisions over the 

product life cycle (Stoll, 1999, p. 39) 



Normally, a concept at this stage is evaluated and selected 

on the basis of the desired functional requirements 

only, neglecting the impact of concept selection on 

subsequent life-cycle phases like manufacturing, 

use, maintenance, and disposal, as well as on the user 

satisfaction of the product. 

Also important to the adoption of this stage as a central 

one was the fact that it is the phase that is most studied, 

under different perspectives and about several issues 

and that provided us with richness of information that 

was important to the development of this approach. 

In this way, it is possible to compare results and also 

contribute for a better knowledge of this complex and 

very dynamic stage of Design processes. 

2. RESEARCH AIMS 

The main goals of the current research are: 

8 

> The achievement of a description of design processes 

among design students and professional designers 

in order to build up a “common language” regarding 

strategic adequacy and overall quality 

> The development of descriptive models and tools 

that can support the understanding of design process 

management in terms of its critical variables. 

> The suggestion of new tools and teaching methods 

that will better serve companies’ expectations about 

design’s profession and practice. 

> The promotion of a more effective interaction between 

design education and industrial Portuguese companies. 

In terms of specific goals, the aspirations are: 

> Characterize in a rigorous way the conceptual phase of 

design processes in order to identify possible strategies 

to improve its quality of results 

> Identify the key parameters of design processes 

concerning its strategic adequacy and overall quality; 

> Describe the role some determinants of design 

processes have in its outcomes.

3. THE RESEARCH QUESTION 

This is an exploratory study that tries to accurately 

describe and critically analyse the design process during 

the conceptual phase. The research problem regards 

the common lack of efficiency and effectiveness of the 

product design process. This might often result in badly 

designed final products. One of the initial statements 

presented in the doctoral proposal suggested that the 

reduced efficiency was mainly due to a bad management 

of the creative process, especially with respect to 

time management, its total quality management, and 

strategic adequacy. With the development of the study 

it was possible to refine both the research question and 

the hypotheses and to come up with the one presented 

below. 

“Is it possible to describe design processes in such a way 

that we can understand what variables play a key role in its 

strategic adequacy and overall quality? “ 

This research question gave origin to the development 

of subsequent questions such as the ones listed 

underneath. 

9 

> What are the determinant variables in the conceptual 

phase of the design process in terms of strategic 

adequacy and overall quality? 

> Will the construction of a descriptive model (with 

determinants) of the design process contribute to the 

deeper understanding of it? And if so, will it serve as an 

adequate pedagogical tool to improve Design Processes, 

for both professional designers and design students? 

> Which variables in a Design Process can better be 

controlled in pedagogical terms? 

4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 

This thesis is structured in four Parts that account for 

seven Chapters. 

There are some pre–text elements that precede the 

general development of the study. It is the case of the 

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION | 3. THE RESEARCH QUESTION


Dedication (pag. iii), the Acknowledgements, (pgs. 

v-vii) the Epigraph (pg. ix), the Abstract (pgs. x-xi), the 

Indexes (pgs. xv-xxviii) and the List of Acronyms and 

Abbreviations (xxix). 

Part one initiates the thesis text. It is named Presentation 

of Research and includes Chapter I named Introduction. 

This Chapter designs the “big picture” of the research 

defining its limits, its drivers and aims and its structure. 

Chapter one (from page 1 to page 11) informs the reader 

about the research and problem conceptualization, the 

research aims, the research question and sub questions. 

10 

Part two, called Research Supporting Theory and Methods, 

includes Chapters II and III that are respectively called 

Theoretical Framework and Methodology and Methods. 

Chapter II (from page 12 to page 103) addresses the 

paradigms that support the research consolidating the 

concepts addressed in the research question. It includes 

therefore a critical approach to design processes and to 

the central concepts of strategic adequacy and quality. 

At the end of the chapter and resulting from the literature 

critics the research hypothesis are formulated. Chapter 

III (from page 104 to page 122) offers a comprehensive 

description and analysis of the methodology and 

methods used in this study. 

Part three, entitled Exploring Design Processes comprises 

Chapter IV and Chapter V that are respectively termed 

Accessing/Experimenting/Describing Design Processes 

and Discussion. Chapter IV (from page 123 to page 308) 

is a keen description of all the actions undertaken in 

order to describe design processes according to the 

defined research question and hypotheses. It includes 

the depiction of all the work done throughout the 

seven interventions that include surveys, exercises and 

experiments. Chapter V (from page 309 to page 315) 

presents the discussion of the findings and tries to 

critically interpret it. 

Part four, labelled Conclusions and Recommendations 

incorporates Chapter VI and VII each of one accounting 

for one of the two issues announced in this Part. Chapter 

VI (from page 316 to page 322) reports to the conclusions 

taken at the end of the study and Chapter VII (page 323

to page 327) displays a number of recommendations 

raised up along the research and that emerge as natural 

consequences of the previously presented conclusions. 

Finally there are presented the Post-Text elements such 

as Bibliographic References (from page 329 to page 339); 

Bibliography (from page 341 to page 363); Appendix A 

(from page 365 to page 368); other Appendix (DVD). 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 

CROSS, N. 2006. Designerly ways of knowing, London, Springer. 

CE 2004. Manufuture: a Vision for 2020. Assuring the future 

of manufacturing in Europe. Report of the High Level Group. 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European 

Communities. 

11 

European Community. 2006. MEMO/06/190. http://europa.eu/rapid/ 

pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/190&format=HTML& 

aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr (Accessed in May 2007). 

Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. 

Relatório de Avaliação Interna. 2005. 

FAUST, W. 2000. Building and fostering long-term client relationships. 

Design Management Review, 11(2), 33-42. 

Centro Português de Design. 2003. Cadernos de Design. Anuário. 

Ano Seis, 17/18. 

REHMAN, F., YAN, X. 2007. Supporting early design decision-making 

using design context knowledge. Journal of Design Research, 6(1-2), 

169-189. 

STOLL, H. 1999. Product Design Methods and Practices, New York, 

Marcel Dekker, Inc. 

NICHOLLS, K. 1990. Engineering changes under control. Journal of 

Engineering Design, 1(1), 5-15. 

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION | 4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS


Part two: research supporting theory and methodology 

and methods 

CHAPTER II – THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK 

In this chapter, the fundamental analysis of the literature 

related with the operational concepts integrating the 

research question will be presented. It is important then 

to characterize: (1) the Design process with a special focus 

on design as a decision making process (2) and also the 

concepts of (3) strategic adequacy and (4) overall quality 

of the outcomes of design processes. 

1. DESIGN PROCESSES 

1.1. Supporting Theoretical Approach 

12 

As supporting theoretical paradigms approached in 

this research there are those of Donald Schön – The 

Reflection in Action Theory and of Herbert Simon – the 

Rational Problem Solving one. The first one is based 

on a constructionist 5 

view of human perception and 

thought processes and is supported by tacit knowledge 6 , 

a concept of Michael Polanyi (1966, p.4) that defended 

“we know more than we can tell”. The second one has 

its roots in the positivistic epistemology 7 

that claims 

being objective knowledge of reality the only possible 

source of knowledge. Both paradigms contributed to 

the understanding of Design processes, its nature and 

structure. 

Also Terence Love (2005) came within reach of this dual 

possibility of looking at design especially in what concerns 

design research. In his view there are two opposing 

perspectives that create a fundamental epistemological 

problem in design research. The perspectives are in his 

words (2005; p. 1): “a) Belief that design research will lead to 

the activity of design being completely understood; b) Belief 

that research into design will ultimately be limited because 

design activity is dependent on human creativity and human 

creativity cannot be deterministically modelled in the manner 

of simple physical research.” 




According to Love (2005, p. 2) “(…) empiricism and 

interpretivistic exploration regard each other’s central 

assumptions as invalid. Empirical scientific research specifically 

excludes subjective reporting as reliable evidence. Interpretive 

approaches deny that the scientific empirical approach

addresses the central target of design research – the human 

internal creative design activities.” 

Furthermore, Love (2005, p. 5) proposes that the 

resolution between the two positions requires a 

meta-perspective that focuses on the human aspects 

of design, because together these provide the only 

necessary and sufficient condition. That hypothesis was 

tackled by him and also Coyne and Snodgrass (1991) 

through a constructivist 8 

approach - that basically 

proposes that individuals construct their knowledge on 

the base of their experiences, their memories and prior 

conceptualizations as well as their social interactions. 

This kind of approach allowed them to enter an 

interpretative exploration of the way individuals 

constructed their knowledge of past and future designs. 

However, this attempt made also evident that it had a 

reduced usefulness since it was impossible to fix, as Love 

(2005, p. 5) recognized later, a “(…) clear picture of the 

relationship between ‘knowledge’, ‘knowledge construction’ 

and ‘the activity of designing’.” All these concepts are 

indeed ill-defined until now. 

Under these circumstances, Love re-centred his research 

in understanding why the internal processes such as 

cognition, emotion creativity and intuition are in place 

in humans. His vision is that only with an ethological 9 

meta-perspective it is possible to identify “many of the 

core aspects of design ability that are grounded in these 

animal aspects of human functioning” (2005, p. 6). 

This perspective supposes an evolutionary vision of the 

human development and according to the author the 

main reason to take this viewpoint is that the majority 

of human activities are outside the conscious control. 

Having that knowledge to view humans as animals 

can bring new insights to design knowledge being 

that dependant of studies emerging from the area of 

cognitive neuroscience. In fact the role of neuroscience 

is underlined by Love (2005, p. 7) since: 

“(…) it addresses the causal physiological processes that 

explain how and why humans construct knowledge, and make 

emotion and value laden judgements. It thus provides the 

conceptual bridge between previous constructivist integrating 


9. “Ethology is the study of animal 

behaviour, and applying an 

ethological perspective requires 

that humans are studied as animals 

rather than from a biased humancentric 

perspective. Applying 

the perspectives of ethology 

to humans offers the basis for 

gaining insights that researchers 

are otherwise blinded by the wall 

of human-centric literature “(Love, 

2005, p. 5) 

13 

CHAPTER II - THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK | 1. DESIGN PROCESSES


approaches and the application of ethological approaches to 

humans. In addition, it provides a bridge linking ethology with 

anthropology and ethnography: important design research 

perspectives. For ethology, cognitive neuro-science provides 

an understanding of why and how the physiological substrates 

needed by design, creative activity and other associated 

activities are actualized. It also provides an understanding of 

on one hand, the physiological foundations on which human 

culture is developed, and, on the other, understanding of how 

culturally-related behaviours shape humans’ physiologically 

defined envelope of action possibilities.” 

14 

Besides the ethological approach, Love (2005; p.7-8) 

proposes systems approaches to deal in a structured 

way with the complexity of Design. His defense 

of systems approaches is related mainly with the 

possibilities it offers concerning: a) the fact that they are 

“well suited to representing understandings from ethological 

and evolutionary perspectives. The combination of ethology, 

evolutionary analysis and systems perspectives provides a 

means of modelling and representing human collaboration 

and cooperation processes in the arena of organisational 

behaviours associated with design.”; b) the alignment they 

have with findings from cognitive neuroscience that 

have shown that “physiology systems always contain and 

depend on elements of prior systems – a sort of recursive 

physiology of systems for which complex systems analysis 

offers a particularly appropriate way of simultaneously 

representing what is, and enabling modelling such that 

emergent properties are revealed.” 

Although Love’s perspective is fascinating we could 

not find basis to put forward a research based upon his 

approach. Therefore, in this study of design processes 

we rely mostly upon the work of Dorst (1997, pp.168- 

169) who has demonstrated that “both paradigms (the 

rational solving problem and the reflexive practice one) 

deliver relevant descriptions of design-as-experienced (…)” 

and that “the properties and limitations of each of the two 

paradigms are such that they could be used in combination 

(…)” (p.168). 

So, we find it relevant to shortly present the two 

paradigms in its fundamental characteristics and 

differences.

1.1.1 The rational Solving Problem paradigm 

Herbert Simon 10 (1996 3rd edition; first edition 1969) 

proposed at the beginning of the seventies a theory 

known as the “Rational Problem Solving” that was and 

still is central to the design methodology field. In his 

vision Design was seen as a rational solving problem 

process that should be address, as proposed by Newell 

and Simon (1972) and synthesized by Dorst (2004, 

p. 3), taking into account the following four central 

propositions: 

> Fewer are the general characteristics of the Human 

Information Processing system that are invariant over 

task and the problem solver; 

> These characteristics are sufficient to determine the 

task environment as a problem space, occurring problem 

solving in that space; 

> The structure of task environment determines the 

possible structures of the problem space; 

> The structure of problem space determines the possible 

programs that might be used in problem solving; 

To validate the vision Simon has about design is to 

accept that the solution of the design problem takes 

place inside the problem space that is structured by the 

task environment structure that itself determines the 

programs or strategies that can be used in designing. 

The problem space is a person’s internal (mental) 

representation of a problem, and the place where 

problem-solving activity takes place. The problem 

space is seen as consisting of knowledge states, and 

problem solving proceeds by a selective search within 

the problem space using rules of thumb (heuristics) to 

guide the search. 

The task environment is the physical and social 

environment in which problem solving takes place. The 

reason for this distinction is that individual behaviour 

influences problem solving; this influence is greater the 

less structured the task is. 

According to Simon’s thought experts, both human 

and mechanical, do much of their problem solving not 

by searching selectively, but instead by recognizing 

10. Herbert Simon, winner of the 

1978 Nobel Prize in Economics, 

the A.M. Turing Award and 

the National Medal of Science 

and many other awards for his 

work in cognitive psychology 

and computer science, died on 

February 9, 2001, at the age of 

84. His research ranged from 

computer science to psychology, 

administration and economics. 

The thread of continuity through 

all of his work was his interest 

in human decision-making and 

problem-solving processes and 

the implications of these processes 

for social institutions. He made 

extensive use of the computer as 

tool for both simulating human 

thinking and augmenting it with 

artificial intelligence. Dr. Simon 

was widely considered to be a 

founder of the field of artificial 

intelligence. (Biography; Carnegie 

Mellon University) 

15 



the significant cues in situations analogous to those 

experienced before. It is their assets of experience that 

makes them ‘experts’. Simon also proposed three types 

of problem-solving methods and among them the 

heuristics that is a central concept to our study. 

Simon (1996) stated that heuristics 11 

exploits the 

information in the task environment as that task 

environment is represented internally in the processor 

by the problem space. 

In the heuristic search there is a dependence of the search 

process upon the nature of the object being sought in 

the problem space and the progress being made toward 

it. This dependence functions as a feedback that guides 

the search process with controlling information acquired 

in the process of the search itself, as the search explores 

the internalized task environment. This method explains 

how complex problems are solved with both human 

and mechanical bounded rationality. 

16 

However, Herbert Simon himself recognized later (1973, 

pp.181-201) that his theory is hardly applicable to design 

problems since these problems are almost always illstructured 

12 ones. An ill-structured problem (sometimes 

also called ill-defined) is what Rittell and Webber (1973, 

pp. 155-169) named, in the context of problems of 

social policy, wicked problem. In their concept framing 

they define this type of problems as the ones that lack 

a clear problem definition and can occur in any domain 

involving stakeholders with differing perspectives. 



Ritchey (2007, pp. 2-3) established ten defining 

characteristics of this type of problems: 

> There is no definitive formulation of a wicked 

problem. 

> Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 

> Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but 

better or worse. 

> There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution 

to a wicked problem. 

> Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot 

operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by 

trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.

Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an 

exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor 

is there a well-described set of permissible operations 

that may be incorporated into the plan. 

> Every wicked problem is essentially unique. 

> Every wicked problem can be considered to be a 

symptom of another problem. 

> The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked 

problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice 

of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s 

resolution. 

> The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable 

for the consequences of the actions they generate). 

So, in general terms, wicked problems or ill-defined or 

ill-structured ones are problems: a) where the solution 

depends on how the problem is framed and vice-versa, 

that is to say that the problem definition depends on the 

solution); b) where stakeholders have different views of 

the problem and different frames to understand it; c) 

where the constraints of the problem and the resources 

to solve it change over time. 

17 

This way, an ill-defined problem can be assumed as a 

problem that is never solved in a definitive way. 

In face of the fact that his theory fitted mainly the wellstructured 

problems Simon (1973; pp. 181-204) proposed 

then that ill-structured problems should be framed by 

what he defined as an immediate problem space (see 

Figure 3) that could be accessed through a noticing 

and evoking mechanism. The general idea was that illstructured 

problems, if decomposed in sub-problems, 

could be accessed as well-structured problems, and being 

so his theory was again applicable. 

Though, unfortunately he did not explain how this 

mechanism would work and how someone could access 

and control it. 



Fig.3 | Schematic diagram of a system 

for ill structured problems. It shows the 

alternation between a problem solver 

working on a well structured problem, and 

a recognition system continually modifying 

the problem space. 

(Source: Simon, 1973, p. 192) 

18 

13. Donald Alan Schön (1930- 

1997) trained as a philosopher, 

but it was his concern with the 

development of reflective practice 

and learning systems within 

organizations and communities 

for which he is remembered. His 

most important achievements 

and focus were on three areas: 

learning systems (and learning 

societies and institutions); doubleloop 

and organizational learning 

(arising out of his collaboration 

with Chris Argyris); and the 

relationship of reflection-in-action 

to professional activity. 


1.1.2 – The “Reflection-in-Action” paradigm 

Donald Schön, 13 

who had an educational background 

in Philosophy, fifteen years after Simon’s proposal has 

come up with the formulation of a new paradigm that 

described Design as an activity that is structured upon a 

reflexive practice. His theory was a clear reaction to the 

Rational Problem Solving paradigm and it finds its roots 

in Schön’s conviction that Simon’s theory supported 

a deficient and equivocal Design education. Schön 

defended that in the professions where it existed design 

activity this one was underestimated and its nature was 

misunderstood. In his work (1983; 1987) he demonstrated 

that in professional school’s curricula, which had design 

as a core activity, the design knowledge was defined in 

terms of design processes in generic terms and making 

a dominant use of declarative knowledge. 14 

In direct confrontation with Simon’s proposal Schön 

(1983, pp. 39-40) argues: 

“From the perspective of Technical Rationality, professional 

practice is a process of problem solving. Problems of choice 

or decision are solved through the selection, from available 

means, of the one best suited to established ends. But with 

this emphasis on problem solving, we ignore problem setting, 

the process by which we define the decision to be made, the 

ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen. In

eal-world practice, problems do not present themselves to 

the practitioner as givens. They must be constructed from 

the materials of problematic situations which are puzzling, 

troubling, and uncertain. In order to convert a problematic 

situation to a problem, a practitioner must do a certain kind 

of work. He must make sense of an uncertain situation that 

initially makes no sense.” 

Schön pursues his reasoning saying that “Technical 

Rationality depends on agreement about ends. When ends 

are fixed and clear, then the decision to act can present itself 

as an instrumental problem.”(1983, p. 41) 

Knowledge acquisition is a key issue in Schön’s theory. 

In Schön’s (1973, p. 49) words “Knowing is ordinarily tacit, 

implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff 

with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our 

knowing is in our action. Similarly, the workaday life of the 

professional depends on tacit knowing-in-action.“ 

Knowing-in-action is for Schön (1973, p. 54) the 

characteristic mode of ordinary practical knowledge 

that leads to the concept of reflection-in-action. 

Reflection-in-action is the reflection that occurs while the 

action is being developed. Schön (1973, p.56) defends 

that this type of reflection “(…) hinges on the experience 

of surprise. When intuitive, spontaneous performance yields 

nothing more than the results expected for it, then we tend 

not to think about it. But when intuitive performance leads to 

surprises (…) we may respond by reflecting-in-action. (…) in 

such processes reflection tends to focus interactively on the 

outcomes of action, the action itself and the intuitive knowing 

implicit in the action.” 

Schön’s understanding of Design processes is best 

summarized in his own words: 

“A Designer makes things. Sometimes he makes product; 

more often, he makes a representation - a plan, program, or 

image of an artefact to be constructed by others. He works 

in particular situations, uses particular materials, and employs 

a distinctive medium and language. Typically, his making 

process is complex. There are more variables - kinds of 

possible moves, norms, and interrelationships of these - than 

can be presented in a finite model. Because of this complexity, 

19 



the designer’s moves tend, happily or unhappily, to produce 

consequences other than those intended. When this happens, 

the designer may take account of the unintended changes 

he has made in the situation by forming new appreciations 

and understandings and by making new moves. He shapes 

the situation, in accordance with his initial appreciation of it, 

the situation “talks back,” and he responds to the situation’s 

back-talk. In a good process of design, this conversation 

with the situation is reflective. In answer to the situation’s 

backtalk the designer reflects-in-action on the construction 

of the problem, the strategies of action, or the model of the 

phenomena, which have been implicit in his moves.” 

20 

However, as pointed out by Dorst (2004, p.5) “Schön’s 

failure to link the theories of reflective practice to a model 

of design tasks means that descriptions of design activities 

within this paradigm can not benefit from any structure 

that might be present in the design task. If anywhere, the 

structure of the design problem should be found in the frame 

a designer uses. It is a pity that Schön never addressed the 

questions how frames are made, and what the properties of a 

good frame would be.” 

1.1.3 – Conciliating the two paradigms 

Both paradigms previously described have been 

intensely explored in the last twenty years, particularly 

as a basis to gain better knowledge regarding design 

problems, its structure and its possible categorization in 

a taxonomy. This was also the case of the work of Kees 

Dorst (1997; 2001; 2003; 2004) that considered the use 

of these two approaches to be fundamental to better 

describe and study design processes. 



Although being based in two epistemological opposite 

sides of the spectrum (Coyne, 1995; Varela 1991) the 

Positivism 15 

(base for the Rational Problem Solving 

paradigm) and the Phenomenology 16 

(base for the 

reflexive practice paradigm) Dorst (2004, pp. 5-7) 

puts forward that the work of Gadamer (1986) in the 

hermeneutics domain offers the possibility of bridging 

this epistemological gap.

The fundamental concept that will allow that bridging is 

interpretation. Interpretation is seen by Gadamer (Dorst, 

2004 Apud Gadamer 1996) as being simultaneously 

“‘revealing of what the thing itself already points to’ and ‘an 

attribution of value to something’”. The first condition of 

interpretation can be seen as ‘objective interpretation’ 

being the second one what is called ‘subjective 

interpretation’. 

How is then seen interpretation in the context of Design 

processes? 

Empirical evidence resultant from Dorst (1997, pp. 83- 

150) work showed that are a few factors to consider in 

what he called the “designer’s interpretative behaviour” 

namely: 

> The design project’s goals and decisions tend to describe 

and present to all stakeholders with precision in order to 

reduce implicit data and ‘subjective’ interpretation; 

> The “subjective interpretation” is determinant when 

we have to deal with ill-defined problems in order to give 

sense to it. 

> When a design project gives or demands freedom 

of choice on designer’s part he depends upon its own 

perceptions and interpretation of the problem. In this 

case the design activity is better described in terms of a 

reflection-in-action activity. 

> Designers spend considerable amount of time at 

the beginning of a project trying to define the type of 

problem they deal with. They do it in terms of constraints 

of the problem that impose itself to the freedom of 

defining personal goals. Some designers reveal to 

be more comfortable with an ‘objective’ approach to 

problems others with a ‘subjective’ one.” 

In effect through interpretation that can be both 

‘objective’ and ’subjective’ it is possible to better access 

to design activities. Dorst (1997) has observed that 

the type of dominant interpretation varies not only 

throughout the different phases of design activities 

but also in terms of design situations. Ultimately the 

decision upon the need of using ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ 

interpretation throughout the design activity depends 

upon the designer itself. 

21 



22 

17. The concept of situated 

problem solving assumes that 

‘the design problem’ as such does 

not exist as an objective entity 

in the world. Instead there is “an 

amalgamate of problems that 

arise from the challenge described 

in design brief. Being so (…) there 

is never a complete representation 

of the design problem in the head 

of the designer”. (Dorst 2004, p.8). 

In sum situated problem solving 

means that the problem cannot 

be separated from the context 

and the dialogue the designer 

engages in with the situation. 

18. The analysis of hermeneutics 

made by Snodgrass and Coyne 

derives mainly from Martin 

Heidegger and Hans-Georg 

Gadamer. See Martin Heidegger, 

Being and Time, trans. John 

Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, 

London, Basil Blackwell, 1962; 

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and 

Method, London, Sheed and 

Ward, 1975; idem, Reason in the 

Age of Science, trans. Frederick G. 

Lawrence, Cambridge, Mass., MIT 

Press, 1981; idem, Philosophical 

Hermeneutics, trans. and ed. David 

E. Linge, Berkeley, University 

of California Press, 1976; idem, 

“Hermeneutics and Social Science,” 

Cultural Hermeneutics 2 (1975): 

307-16; 

19. Heidegger terms these 

three fore-structures “forehaving” 

(Vorhabe), “fore-sight” or “foreseeing” 

(Vorsicht), and “foreconception” 

or “fore-hypothesis” 

(Vorgriff). Vorhabe includes all 

the culturally acquired skills and 

practices we employ in acts of 

interpretation; these cultural 

practices are constitutive of our 

being, and thus determine what 

we find intelligible. Vorsicht 

includes all the resources of a 

common descriptive language, 

the vocabulary or conceptual 

scheme we bring to the act 

of interpretation, and which 

determines what we count as real 

and what are relevant aspects 

of what we interpret. Vorgriff is a 

hypothesis we have concerning 

the thing being interpreted; it is 

the “conceptual reservoir” that we 

hold in advance and bring to the 

interpretive act. See Heidegger, 

Being and Time, p. 193; 

But if interpretation in this hermeneutical view of design 

can bridge both paradigms it still remains important 

for design process’s comprehension the non objective 

structure of design problems. 

At this respect Dorst and Cross (2001) advanced the 

description of undetermined problem solving through 

the empirical study of design as situated problem solving. 17 

In their approach design processes are characterized by 

the co-evolution of the design problem and the design 

solution. This view is supported by the assumption that 

design problems can not be fixed through the imposition 

of a frame. In fact, design in the words of the authors: 

“seems more to be a matter of developing and refining 

together both the formulation of a problem and ideas for a 

solution, with constant iteration of analysis, synthesis and 

evaluation processes between the two notional design ‘spaces’ 

- problem space and solution space. In creative design, the 

designer is seeking to generate a matching problem-solution 

pair, through a ‘co-evolution’ of the problem and the solution. 

Our observations confirm that creative design involves a 

period of exploration in which problem and solution spaces 

are evolving and are unstable until (temporarily) fixed by an 

emergent bridge which identifies a problem solution pairing.” 

(2001, p.435). 

In this co-evolving process it is central the role of 

understanding and the way it arises. 

Again it is important to consider, as proposed by 

Snodgrass and Coyne (1997), the hermeneutical circle 18 . 

As the authors (1997, p.76) define it “the hermeneutical 

circle has to do with the circular relation of the whole and its 

parts in any event of interpretation. We cannot understand 

the meaning of a part of a language event until we grasp 

the meaning of the whole; and we cannot understand the 

meaning of the whole until we grasp the meaning of the 

parts.” 

Understanding thus involves a process of projection 

that Heidegger 19 

(1962) named as “fore structures of 

understanding”. What Heidegger proposed was that each 

interpretation event includes a pre-given perspective of 

the matter that a person places in a certain context.

This vision is what Snodgrass and Coyne (1997, p.78) 

described as a process where “every revision of the foreproject 

is capable of projecting before itself a new project 

of meaning, that rival projects can emerge side by side 

until it becomes clearer what the unity of meaning is, that 

interpretation begins with fore-conceptions that are replaced 

by more suitable ones. This constant process of new projection 

is the movement of understanding and interpretation.” 

These “fore-structures” were also approached by 

Gadamer (1997) that has termed it “prejudices”. He aimed 

to rescue the term from its pejorative connotations 

rehabilitating it as a prejudging legitimate moment. This 

prejudgement or pre-assumptions in Gadamer’s view 

can either be, as referred by Snodgrass and Coyne (1997, 

p. 78), “(…)enabling or disabling, depending on the way in 

which they are opened up to hermeneutical understanding. 

Interpretation, then, is ‘the working out of possibilities 

projected in understanding’ (Gadamer apud Snodgrass and 

Coyne) that is, it is the working out of how something figures 

in the context in which it stands”. 

This pre-understanding is clearly present as a central 

concept in Schon’s work (1983; 1987). Actually, reflexive 

practice approach to design refers undoubtedly to the 

working of the hermeneutical circle. In it the designers 

project the meaning of the whole and work out the 

implications of this projection by referring it back to 

the parts. Consequently, the design is recurrently redetermined 

by an anticipatory movement of the preunderstanding; 

understanding occurs than by a process 

of constant review. 

This hermeneutical approach to design made Snodgrass 

and Coyne (1997, p. 92) conclude that: 

“Designing is primarily an interpretative activity. It is an activity 

that pertains to understanding a design situation rather than 

to having knowledge of formulae, theorems and algorithms. 

Designing is a hermeneutical rather than an epistemological 

event. (…) 

In the hermeneutical event theory cannot be 

divorced from practice. The theory, such as it is, only comes 

into consciousness, is only clarified, disclosed, in the process 

of its application. Theory and practice coalesce in the act of 

23 



interpretation; general principles are revealed as what they 

are, are revealed to be what they are, come to be understood 

in their being, in the unfolding of their application in the 

event“. 

In the sequence of this short theoretical general 

approach to Design processes it is useful to concentrate 

in it in depth. That implies addressing the design process 

in its structural components with a special focus on 

those that are key subjects of this study. 

1.2 Accessing Design Processes 

24 

The study of design processes is one field of Design 

Research that for the past four decades consistently 

has produced more information and reflection among 

the design scientific community. Design processes are 

seen, for the purposes of this study, as problem solving 

activities that can be considered in the light of cognitive 

science in the way Christiaans and Restrepo (2004, p. 1) 

defined it: “ (…) as an information processing activity, being 

the problem solvers assumed as information processing 

systems.” 

However, as Christiaans and Restrepo (2004, p. 1) pointed 

out “ (…) because of the very nature of design problems, there 

is very often very little information about the problem, even 

less information about the goal (solution) and absolutely no 

information about the transformation function. This means 

that design problems require a lot of structuring.” 

So, in the face of the previously presented it is clear that 

it is necessary to consider, at least, the design problem; 

the solution; the transformation function and all its 

agents. 

Problem structuring and solution structuring have been 

studied intensely in the past twenty years in various areas 

of Design Knowledge. It is the case of design engineering 

where some of the models produced propose that first 

engineers make the analysis of the problem and in 

sequence they synthesize a solution (Jones, 1992; Pahl 

and Beitz, 1984, Roozenburg and Eekels, 1991, 1995; 

Cross, 2000).

Fig.4 | Four stage design process after Cross, 

2000; source: Dubberly, 2004, p. 30. 

25 

Some of the models produced by these authors are the 

expression of these findings. It is the case of the models 

of Cross presented in Figures 4 and 5. Together they 

illustrate the design process in its stages and in terms of 

the designer’s modus operandi. 

Figure 4 is a simple descriptive model of the design 

process that assumes the main four activities performed 

by the designer. It starts with the exploration of the illdefined 

problem space; the solution arises from the 

generation of a concept that is after subject of evaluation 

against the goals, constraints and criteria of the design 

brief. The end point of the process is the communication 

of the solution (a stage that was first proposed by Archer 

in 1963). 

Figure 5 focus on the design strategy used to solve 

the problem. According to Cross the overall aim of the 

designer’s strategy is to converge on a final detailed 

solution. Within the process of reaching that final solution 

there will occur moment of necessary (deliberate or 



26 

Fig.5 | Dynamics of divergence and 

convergence in design process after Cross, 

2000; source: Dubberly, 2004, p. 25. 

20. Software design schemas 

provide a means for abstracting 

software designs into broadly 

reusable components that can 

be assembled and refined into 

new software designs; It can 

provide designers with sets 

or sequences of operators to 

produce the design solution. The 

specialized design schemas can 

vary from simple rules to complex 

schemas that define the overall 

high-level decomposition for a 

class of systems. Software system 

schemas can be abstracted from 

previously developed software 

systems with similar structures 

but in different problem domains. 

The software system schemas do 

not necessarily impose a strict 

order in which to develop each 

of the subsystems, since they can 

be independent of each others. 

The software design schemas can 

induce top-down processing, and 

as a consequence, contributed 

to a systematic design process 

(Guindon, 1990b, p.300) 

unconscious) divergence to widen the search seeking 

new ideas, information and different perspectives. 

The model proposed by Pahl and Beitz (1984) that is 

shown in Figure 6 is a sequential process that includes 

iteration as a way of upgrading and improving the final 

solution. It corresponds to the vision of design processes 

being a general sequence of analysis and synthesis 

where iteration takes place with the main intention of 

refining the solution. 

In the case of software design it is also suggested 

by Guindon (1990a; 1990b) that the designer first 

negotiates the structure of the problem and only after 

develops the solution. For that purpose the designer 

often use simulation that acts as a mechanism for 

problem understanding and structuring (problem 

domain scenarios) that can lead to the inference of new 

constraints or requirements. 

Furthermore the author states to exist evidence of 

a“(…) mixture of applying retrieved software system design 

schemas 20 and discovering parts of the design decompositions, 

compounded with the inference of new requirements 

and evaluation criteria resulting in problem restructuring, 

(that) contribute to the opportunistic design behaviours 21 

(…)”(Guindon, 1990 b, p. 297).

27 

Fig.6 | Design process – Gerhard Pahl and 

Wolfgang Beitz (1984) 



28 

Fig.7 | Spiral model of the Design process 

(Barry Boehm, 1986). Source: Dubberly, 2004, 

p. 122) 

21. Opportunistic behaviour of 

designer’s along their processes 

means a “deviation from a 

structured plan or methodical 

process into the ‘opportunistic’ 

pursuit of issues or partial 

solutions that catch the designer’s 

attention” (Cross, 2006, p. 87). 

This behaviour was observed by 

several researchers (Visser, 1990; 

Guindon, 1990; Ball and Ormerod, 

1995) 

It is then the case to consider design as a guided search 

where only the most promising search paths can be 

pursued. As Guindon explains it “Design solutions are 

satisfactory, as opposed to optimal, because it is too expensive 

or impractical to generate all the alternative design solutions 

and because no objective metrics usually exist to evaluate the 

alternative solutions” (Guindon, 1990 b, p. 297). 

An example of a model produced in this area is the 

one of Barry Boehm (1986) that is presented in Figure 

7, where it is visible the use of simulation, modelling 

and prototyping as a way to address the problem’s 

complexity and reduce the risk of failure. 

The model of Boehm (Figure 7) assumes that software 

design processes are similar to repeated cycles where risk

assessment is a key element. The radial dimension of the 

model represents the cumulative costs (this particular 

aspect is relevant as it will be discussed in the strategic 

adequacy sub-chapter) when finishing the steps. The 

angular dimension represents the progress made in 

completing each cycle. Each loop of the spiral from 

x-axis clockwise through 360º represents one phase. 

One phase is split roughly into four sectors of major 

activities: a) objective setting; b) risk assessment and 

reduction; c) development and validation; d) planning 

the next phases. 

In terms of industrial design processes the sequence of 

empirical studies of Christiaans (1992), Christiaans and 

Restrepo (2001) and Restrepo and Christiaans (2003) 

made it possible to derive that: a) problem structuring 

occurs mainly at the beginning of the process but it 

reoccurs along its progression; b) designers approach 

the design assignments using two different strategies: a 

problem oriented and a solution oriented one. 

In reality the work of Lawson (1979, 1990) dedicated to 

the observation of problem-solving behaviour on the 

part of scientists and designers (architects) suggested 

differences in the two approaches: scientists solve by 

analysis, being generally problem-focused and designers 

solve by synthesis being in general solution focused. 

This behaviour however was found to be presumably 

learned since it is not displayed when comparing initiate 

students with senior ones. 

In 1980 Lawson made a comparison between the 

creative process (Kneller, 1965) and the design process. 

Figure 8 presents his reflection and it is visible the 

focus on solution after a first stage of recognition that 

a problem exists. The period of ‘first insight’ of creative 

process involves in design process the recognition and 

analysis of the problem; The next phase of ‘preparation’ 

involves a conscious effort to develop an idea for 

solving that problem in the Design process; The period 

of ‘incubation’ is one where the designer is unwittingly 

reorganizing and re-examining the previously deliberate 

thoughts; It is followed by the ‘illumination’ phase where 

there occurs the sudden emergence of an idea. Once the 

29 



30 

Fig.8 | Creative vs Design process, after 

Lawson (1980). Source: Dubberly, 2004, 

p. 42. 

idea emerges there is a final moment of ‘verification’ that 

implies a conscious development and test of that idea 

towards the final solution. 

It is also to underline that Lawson’s work (1979) is 

not consistent with the experiments conducted 

by Christiaans and Restrepo (2001; 2003) where a 

homogeneous group of designers, both in terms of 

experience and education, displayed both the problem 

oriented and the solution oriented types of behaviour in 

an idiosyncratic way. 

Moreover, the work of Thomas and Carroll (1979) had 

already anticipated that designers seem to display 

a combination of the two mentioned strategies. The 

authors observed conduct where problems are assumed 

by designers as being ill-defined (even if they are welldefined) 

and where the adopted strategy is one in which 

problem’s constraints and goals are changed along the 

process. 

A further insight was brought to the subject when Lloyd 

and Scott (1994) in a protocol study they made with

experienced engineers established that the use of the 

two strategies was related with the level and type of 

previous experience. Designers more experienced in the 

type of problem undertaken would be inclined to display 

a generative reasoning focusing more on solutions and 

the ones with less experience would show a deductive 

reasoning and focus in particular on problem analysis. 

Fig.9 | Model of Jane Darke design 

process (adapted from Irina Solovyova, 

2003, p. 4) 

Also relevant to this matter is the finding of Jane Darke 

(1979) of the existence of a ‘primary generator’, that is 

to say, a pre-solution that the designer generate before 

start talking about the problem. This concept was 

developed as an integrated element of a design process 

model that is presented in Figure 9. 

The model of Darke (1979) presents a three step 

process that is initiated with the ‘primary generator’ 

that is a concept or objective that helps to generate the 

solution (Darke, 1979). These ‘primary generators’ can be 

images (as referred by the author) but also, as pointed 

out by Restrepo and Christiaans (2003, p. 7) “could also 

be abstract relations describing the design situation. In our 

empirical studies, we called the representation of these 

first interpretations “early representations”. These early 

representations have a great influence on how the process 

continues.” 

Also Rowe (1998; first edition 1987) in his studies of 

architectural design found out that there is a substantial 

influence exerted by initial design ideas that designers 

tend to make work. 

It becomes clear until now that design processes, in spite 

of the specific domain of knowledge that is addressed, 

have in common the phases of researching, analysis, 

31 



32 

Fig.10 | Innovation planning (process), 

Vijay Kumar, 2003. Source: Dubberly, 2004, 

p. 125. 

synthesis and delivery (or communication). That is also 

the case of the model of Kumar (2004) shown in Figure 

10 that was designed as an Innovation planning process 

and that is worth to mention. 

In effect the aim of design processes is not just to find 

a solution for the problem in hands; it is to find the 

best solution and that is by all means related with an 

innovative outcome. (Utterbach et al, 2006; Cagan and 

Vogel, 2002; Stamm, 2003). 

The model proposes ‘modes of planning’ instead of 

phases and emphasizes the iterative and interrelated 

nature of design process. It display for each of the modes 

tools and methods to be used in order to advance in the 

process. The process is seen by Vijay as a continuous loop 

from knowing, through framing that leads to exploring 

that gives occasion to the final realization. This occurs 

in a process understanding that is framed by the axes – 

know/make and the one of abstract/real that determine 

the space where the transformation function will take 

place.

1.2.1 – A proposed design process model - 

a cognitive approach 

Significant to the comprehension of Design processes 

and in particular to the assessment of the transformation 

function is the concept (already explained in previous 

pages) proposed by Dorst and Cross (2001, p.11) that 

states that between input and output is where we find 

problem and solution co-evolving. 

This space where ‘transformation function’ occurs was, 

for the purpose of this research, initially defined in 

relation with the activities performed by designers, seen 

as contexts of knowledge management and decision 

making. Later it was refined due to the incorporation of 

findings resultant from the undertaken experiments and 

resulted in the final decision making model (presented 

in Chapter IV). 

Furthermore it is central to the understanding of our 

approach to Design processes analysis the already 

mentioned findings of Christiaans and Restrepo (2001; 

2003) that designers made use of two different strategies 

when facing a design brief: either they are problemoriented, 

or solution-oriented. 

33 

Based upon the premises presented above it was 

developed a design process’s model of analysis to 

support the execution of the first experiment. 

Figure 11 illustrates the first model of design process 

developed by the researcher that assumed design 

process as a knowledge management process addressed 

in terms of the activities performed by the designers 

along it. 

It is a model designed to support the analysis of verbal 

Protocols. The framework incorporates the possibility of 

designer’s use of different strategies in their processes 

(problem-oriented and solution-oriented) as observed 

in several studies. A new category was added, the 

process-oriented one that further ahead in this research 

was renamed integration – oriented (integration driven) 

and that has to do with the approach some designers 

have that is intimately related with the concept of coevolution 

of problem and solution (Dorst and Cross, 

2001). 



34 

Fig.11 | Design Process model I [action 

related] (Almendra, 2007) 

The model describes design processes as having as a start 

point the input of information that can be of different 

types: a) non existent (the one designers search/ask but 

it is not available); b) existent (the one who is searched 

and available) and c) retrieved (the one designers get 

from his/her memory storage). 

The output of Design process is assumed to be a solution 

where it is possible to trace back the contribution 

of: a) non existent/assumed information; b) existent 

information that was integrated partially or as a whole; 

c) retrieved information that was equated in terms of 

the final solutions; d) abandoned or even forgotten 

information that also have a say to the final outcome. 

In between input and output there is the space of 

transformation that is supported by a context that is 

accessed and put in action through decision making. 

This occurs while the designer develops several 

activities related with knowledge management which 

were identified as: a) asking; b) reading; c) reflecting; d) 

sketching; e) writing and f) using (modelling).

The context includes all the stakeholders: the designer, 

the clients, the producer, the user, the customer. 

Decision making occurs along the process feeding the 

‘design moves’ 22 

and the generation and selection of 

alternatives that will give origin to the final solution. 

After using the model as the basis of analysis of the first 

experiment (that was the main reason of the creation of 

this model) it become apparent to the researcher that 

decision making was one of the determinants of design 

processes that was central to the strategic adequacy and 

overall quality of its outcomes. Therefore, a particular 

effort was made to deepen the knowledge and to 

explore decision making in design processes. 

SUMMARY OF DESIGN PROCESSES 

The approach done to Design Process was supported 

by the critical assessment of both the paradigms of the 

Rational Problem Solving from Herbert Simon and the 

Reflection-in-Action one from Donald Schön. 

35 

That analysis made us to face as the correct approach 

to Design Process the one of Kees Dorst (1997) that 

proposed to use both paradigms in combination. 

The conciliation of both paradigms is made by the 

assumption of the role of interpretation (as Gadamer 

defends it) in Design Process. That assumption places 

Design as an hermeneutical process and the study of 

design as ‘situated problem solving’ (see footnote 17). 

It goes from this that Design Processes are processes 

where problem and solution co-evolve (Cross and 

Dorst, 2001) and must be understood by means of the 

‘hermeneutical circle’ (Snodgrass and Coyne, 1997). 

Furthermore it is useful to access Design Process in the 

way it is conceptualized. Therefore, the study of several 

Design Process models puts in evidence the way several 

authors consider the problem and solution structuring. 

The analysis of models coming from different Design 

domains illustrate several aspects of design process that 

22. Goldschmidt (1996, p. 72) 

defined a ‘design move’ as “ (…) a 

step, an act, an operation, which 

transforms the design situation 

relative to the state in which it was 

prior to that move”. 



must be taken into account. They are: the divergence/ 

convergence modus operandi; the iteration in design 

process; the framing and enabling mental and practical 

operations; the role of creativity and innovation in 

design processes. 


CAGAN, J., VOGEL, C. 2002. Creating Breakthrough products - 

innovation from product planning to program approval, FT Press. 

CHRISTIAANS, H. 1992. Creativity in Design: The role of domain 

knowledge in designing, Utrecht, Lemma. 

CHRISTIAANS, H., RESTREPO, J. 2001. Information Processing in 

Design: a theoretical and empirical perspective. In: ACHTEN, H., DE 

VRIES, B., HENNESSEY, J. (ed.) Design Research in the Netherlands 2000. 

Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, pp.63-73. 

CHRISTIAANS, H., RESTREPO, J. 2004. Problem structuring and 

information access in design. Journal of Design Research, 4(2). 

36 

COYNE, R. 1995. Designing information technology in the postmodern 

age, Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. 

COYNE, R., SNODGRASS, A. 1991. Is designing mysterious? Challenging 

the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies, 12(3), pp.124-131. 

DARKE, J. 1979. The primary generator and the design process. 

Design Studies, 1(1), 36-44. 

DORST, C. 2003. Understanding Design, Amsterdam, BIS Publishers. 

DORST, C., CROSS, N. 2001. Creativity in the design process: coevolution 

of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), pp.425-437. 

DORST, K. 1997. Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms, Delft, 

The Netherlands, Delft University of Technology. 

DORST, K. 2004. On the problem of design problems - problem 

solving and design expertise. Journal of Design Research, 4(2). 

DUBBERLY, H. (ed.) 2004. How do You Design?, San Francisco: Dubberly 

Design Office. 

GADAMER, H.-G. 1986. The relevance of the beautiful and other essays, 

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

GOLDSCHMIDT,G.1996. The Designer as a team of one. In: CROSS, N., 

CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: 

Wiley. 

GUINDON, R. 1990. Designing the design process: exploiting 

opportunistic thoughts. Human Computer Interaction, 5(2), pp.305- 

344.

JONES, J. 1992 Design Methods, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc. 

LAWSON, B. 1979. Cognitive strategies in architectural design. 

Ergonomics, 22(1), pp.59-68. 

LAWSON, B. 1990. How designers think: the design process demystified 

London, Butterworth. 

LLOYD, P., SCOTT, P. 1994. Discovering the design problem. Design 

Studies, 15(2), pp.125-140. 

LOVE, T. 2005. A unified basis for design research and theory. 

International Design Congress - IASDR 2005: New Design Paradigms. 

Douliou, Taiwan: International Association of Societies of Design 

Research, Taiwan. 

NEWELL, A., SIMON, A. 1972. Human Problem Solving, New York, 

Prentice-Hall. 

PAHL, G., BEITZ, W. 1984. Engineering Design, London, The Design 

Council. 

POLANYI, M. 1983 (1st ed. 1966). The Tacit Dimension, Gloucester 

Peter Smith, Mass. 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003a. Design Requirements: 

Conditioners or Conditioned? ICED03 - International Conference on 

Engineering Design. Stockholm. 

37 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003b. Problem Structuring and 

Information Access in Design. Paper accepted for the Design Thinking 

Research Symposium 6: ‘Expertise in design’. Australia. 

RITCHEY, T. 2007. Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with 

Morphological Analysis. Swedish Morphological Society [Online]. 

Available:http://www.swemorph.com/wp.html [Accessed 24 

November 2007]. 

RITTEL, H., WEBBER, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of 

planning. Policy Science, 4, pp.155-169. 

ROOZENBURG, N., CROSS, N. Year. Models of the design process - 

integrating across the disciplines. In: HUBKA, V., ed. Proceedings of 

ICED 91, 1991 Zürich. Heurista. 

ROOZENBURG, N., EEKELS, J. 1995. Product Design: Fundamentals and 

Methods, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

ROWE, P. 1998. Design Thinking, Cambridge and London, The MIT 

Press. 

SCHÖN, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in 

Action, New York, Basic Books. 



SCHÖN, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco, 

Jossey-Bass – A Wiley Imprint. 

SIMON, H. 1973. The ill structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial 

Intelligence, 4, pp.181-204. 

SIMON, H. 1996. Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, The MIT Press. 

SNODGRASS, A., COYNE, R. 1997. Is Designing hermeneutical? 

Architectural Theory Review, Journal of the Department of Architecture, 

2 (1), 65-97. 

THOMAS, J., CARROLL, J. 1979. The psychological study of design. 

Design Studies, 1(1), pp.5-11. 

UTTERBACH, J. ALVAREZ, E. EKMAN, S. SANDERSON, S. TETHER, B. 

VERGANTI, R. 2006. Chapter one: What makes products great? In 

UTTERBACH, J. (ED.) Design Inspired Innovation. Singapore, World 

Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 

VARELA, F., THOMPSON, E., ROSCH, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind, 

Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. 

VON STAMM, B., 2003. Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, 

London, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 

38

2. DESIGN PROCESSES AS DECISION MAKING PROCESSES 

Decision making is a field of study that is constantly 

addressed in all domain knowledge areas being the 

focal driver of those studies the cognitive assessment of 

how decision making occurs. As Longueville et al (2003) 

noticed in recent years a number of proposals have been 

advanced for the study of decision-making processes 

in knowledge areas such as management, cognition, 

engineering design, and artificial intelligence etcetera. 

As Simon et al (1986) also acknowledged decision 

making has many applications in different fields, from 

economics to business, statistics and government. The 

prescriptive theory of rationality of subjective expected 

utility (SEU) 23 as well as the theory of games 24 are good 

examples of it. 

Although it is possible to find different categorization 

regarding the nature of the approaches done to decision 

making processes it is assumed as Sarma (1994) proposes 

three main streams: a) Descriptive, that uses models and 

theories to describe and explain human decision-making 

behaviour by studying human beliefs and preferences 

as they are; b) Normative, that utilizes axioms to make 

optimal decisions studying mainly the logic of decision 

making and nature of rationality in an attempt to suggest 

how good decisions ought to be made and c) Prescriptive, 

that develops techniques and aids for supporting and 

improving human decision making. 

Along with this definition of the nature of approaches 

to this topic several nomenclatures had emerged in 

recent years. Among them there is one that is important 

to refer (since this thesis aims to be a descriptive study): 

the naturalistic decision making (NDM), a descriptive 

approach, that in the words of Endsley at all (2007, p.3) 

“evolved as a focused effort to describe how people make 

decisions in the real world”. 

This particular approach was initially based upon the 

work of Gary Klein (1986, 1989, 1993) and is seen by 

Endsley at all (2007, p.3) as rejecting some previous 

research on design theory mainly normative instead of 

descriptive being that the cause of the failure in capturing 

critical aspects of how people decide mainly when 

dealing with “(…) ill-structures problems, uncertainty, time 

stress, risk, multiple and changing goals, multiple individuals 

25. SEU is “a sophisticated 

mathematical model of choice 

that lies at the foundation of 

most contemporary economics, 

theoretical statistics, and 

operations research. SEU theory 

defines the conditions of perfect 

utility-maximizing rationality in a 

world of certainty or in a world in 

which the probability distributions 

of all relevant variables can be 

provided by the decision makers. 

(In spirit, it might be compared 

with a theory of ideal gases or of 

frictionless bodies sliding down 

inclined planes in a vacuum.) SEU 

theory deals only with decision 

making; it has nothing to say 

about how to frame problems, set 

goals, or develop new alternatives.” 

(Simon et al, 1986, p. 2) 

24. Game theory attempts to 

mathematically capture behavior 

in strategic situations, in which 

an individual’s success in making 

choices depends on the choices of 

others. While initially developed to 

analyze competitions in which one 

individual does better at another’s 

expense (zero sum games), it has 

been expanded to treat a wide 

class of interactions, which are 

classified according to several 

criteria. Today, “game theory is a 

sort of umbrella or ‘unified field’ 

theory for the rational side of 

social science, where ‘social’ is 

interpreted broadly, to include 

human as well as non-human 

players (computers, animals, 

plants)” (Aumann 1987). 

39 

CHAPTER II - THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK | 2. DESIGN PROCESSES AS DECISION MAKING PROCESSES


40 

(…)”. More recently NDM expanded its analysis to macro 

cognition incorporating the work of Klein, Ross, Moon 

and Hollnagel (2003) that had focus on the behaviour 

of experts providing a research that includes processes 

such as attention management, mental simulation, 

mental model development, uncertainty management 

and course of action generation. 

Klein et al (2003) work describes some aspects of 

the cognitive experience such as problem detection, 

sense making and situation assessment, coordination, 

planning, adaptation and replanning that are contrasted 

with micro cognitive processes studied by the traditional 

psychology such as memory and attention. 

In addition, Jin and Chusilp (2005) claimed that design 

concepts are created and elaborated after mental 

iterations of idea generation and evaluation. They 

defined these iterations as the repetition of cognitive 

activities occurring in designers’ thinking processes. 

When engaged in design, designers seem to generate 

questions and select directions within an internal 

dialogue. Understanding the design process is then to 

assess the mental activities of the designer relative to 

their context variables. 

Psychological research in decision making has 

demonstrated that judgment applied under uncertainty 

often relies on simplified heuristics that is to say as Cox 

(1987, p. 665) defined it. “Competencies as reasoning 

processes that do not guarantee a solution or a useful 

transformation but derive their validity from the usefulness 

of their results”. Being so, it is expected that within the 

decision making process, designers make use of specific 

cognitive heuristics to resolve the uncertainty in the 

problem space in order to explore and generate creative 

solutions. 

Also to consider the suggestion made by Christensen 

and Schunn (2009) regarding the need of studying 

the relationship between the cues designers are using, 

the creative cognitive processes employed and their 

functions for understanding what leads to creative 

outcomes. 

In that respect it is also useful to our study the work 

of Finke, Ward, & Smith (1992) that assessed creative 

processes and proposed they should be analyzed

according to two categories: generative and exploratory 

one. While analogical transfer; association; retrieval; 

and synthesis are regarded as generative processes, 

contextual shifting; functional inference; and hypothesis 

testing are considered to be exploratory processes. In its 

view in a design process a cue can promote one type 

of generative process and that might constrain another 

exploratory one. However, this two fold model of creative 

cognitive processes it is still insufficient to a thorough 

detailed understanding of these processes and their 

function and relationship with other key aspects of 

design processes such as knowledge management and 

decision making. 

Finally it is central to bring up the defense of the 

descriptive approach, in the way Longueville et al. (2003) 

defines it as an approach aiming at modeling in order 

to study, understand, represent and re-use existing 

decision-making processes. 

In our opinion, the most relevant contribution lays 

in the possibility it opens to analyze the relationship 

between the decision-making process and the quality 

and strategic adequacy of the result. The reason is our 

belief that product development should solve a profitmaximization 

problem (Herrmann, 2004). In controlled 

protocol studies one can only simulate part of this 

product development process, the conceptual stage 

of the product. But even within these constraints this 

process shows something of the product development 

organization in terms of a sequence of steps that 

transform customer requirements into a satisfactory 

product design; and of the information flow governed 

by one or a team of decision-makers who make both 

design decisions and development decisions under 

time and budget constraints. It is a decision production 

system (Herrmann, 2002). 

Most academic studies over the last decades, however, 

lack this perspective of understanding how detailed 

design decisions affect profitability. 

It is the case of John Gero’s FBS (function-behaviorstructure) 

model of designing, first presented in 1990 

and developed with his collaborators of the Key Centre 

41 



of Design Computing and Cognition at the University of 

Sydney (Gero and Kannengiesser, 2006). In this model, 

recently discussed in Design Studies (Vermaas and 

Dorst, 2007), decision-making is not addressed directly 

but in a diffused complex way. 

In site of the fact that the model is both prescriptive and 

descriptive and that the authors claim to be unique in 

its versatility - as opposed to the limitations of all the 

models used until now, such as those developed in the 

sequence of Delft Protocol Workshop (Cross et al, 1996) – 

it lacks the ability to make possible a ‘satisfying’ (in terms 

of usefulness for designers, companies and education) 

empirical analysis of how and why the decision-making 

process leads to a certain quality of the result. 

42 

However it is possible to find models (Jones, 1970; Pugh, 

1990; Ertas and Jones, 1996; Vanguard Group, 1999; Sun 

Product Lifecycle (PLC) n.d.; Sun Sigma, n.d.) where the 

outcome of a design process integrates the quality of 

results measured in financial/profit terms. The majority 

of these models come from the consultancies and firms 

territory and to approach it is to devise also possibilities 

of assessing the understanding of Design processes on 

both parts (Education and Business). 

Among the models that introduce the issue of 

profitability there are the ones proposed by Jones (1970) 

and Vredenburg (2003) that are clear examples of the 

previously said. Figure 12 presents the model of Jones 

(1970) where value analysis with a special focus on costs 

plays a key role. 

In fact the way value analysis is seen by Jones makes it 

similar to a design method that aims to “increase the rate 

at which designing and manufacturing organizations learn to 

reduce the cost of a product” (Jones, 1992, p. 106). 

Moreover, the model of Vredenburg (2003) that is shown 

on Figure 13, assumes the necessity of linking the 

design process with the business achievements possible 

through it. In this case, being a more recent model, other 

dimensions are explored, namely the User Centered 

Design (UCD) and the Integrated Product Development 

(IPD) hereby explored in the context of the IBM firm.

43 

Fig.12 | Value Analysis / Design Process 

(John Chris Jones, 1992, pg. 109; first 

edition 1970) 



44 

Fig.13 | Design Process – relationship 

among UCD, IPD and Business 

Management in IBM (Vredenburg, 2003); 

Source: Dubberly, 2004, p. 77)

The model of Vredenburg points up of how UCD 

integrates the IBM’s integrated product development 

and its overall business management process. 

Vredenburg (apud Dubberly, 2004, p.77) noted: 

“Developing a new process and further enhancing it is only 

one component, albeit an important one, in the overall 

strategy of building ease of use into the total user experience 

at IBM. Organizations need to be enabled to carry out new 

processes and be provided with leadership and guidance 

while executing them. UCD is a core enabling process in the 

overall integrated product development process, which is 

the business checkpoint mechanism used for all funding and 

project milestone reviews within IBM. Having UCD and UE 

(User engineering) included directly in the corporate-wide IPD 

process ensures that decisions made about an offering will be 

required to take UCD and UE information into account”. 

From the words of Vredenburg (2003) it is to retain the 

idea that decision making at an operational level can 

derive in a very effective way from the corporate wide 

decision processes. 25 

That rises up the allusion to the studies undertaken 

by Krabuanrat and Phelps (1998) that tackle the use of 

heuristics in analysis of strategic management decisions. 

As the authors (p. 83) observed “being the success of a 

firm’s strategy dependent on the interaction of the external 

environment, the firm’s internal strengths, and the decisions 

it makes it is on the last ones that firms can exert its complete 

control and promote more immediate changes in order to 

adapt to changes in others”. 

However, at this stage of the present study the focus is 

on the operational level of decision making in design 

processes. 

At that level, as Alexander proposes (1982, p. 281) “(…)if 

we regard decision-making as a process of choosing between 

alternative problem solutions which are already there, the 

question of their origin becomes secondary. At most, the 

solutions have to be found by means of alternative search 

mechanisms - systematic, heuristic (“rule-of thumb”) or 

intuitive.” 

These alternative search mechanisms to support decision 

making is rather important in accessing decision making 

processes. 

25. This topic will be further 

explored in the sub-section of 

strategic adequacy presented 

ahead in this thesis. 

45 



46 

Fig.14 | Contingent Variables Influencing 

the Decision Process in Selecting 

“Closing-down” Techniques. Rickards, 

1986, p. 16. 

26. Closing down procedures 

are related with the reduction of 

idea generation which prevent 

the process to get out of balance. 

As Rickards (p. 12) explains it 

“In non-technical terms, any 

behaviour by a system (including 

the application of a problemsolving 

technique) which opens 

up possibilities requires a 

balancing stage for closing down 

the numbers of possibilities. As 

some techniques have several 

opening-up stages, each of 

them will have a mechanism for 

closing-down, before the next 

stage is introduced. The various 

circumstances of the situation 

influence the type of closingdown 

mechanisms (…). Among 

the closing down approaches 

after idea generation there are five 

identified by Rickards as being the 

most used. They are: a) Voting; b) 

clustering; c) hurdles; d) weighting 

methods; e) gut feel. 

Related with it is the work done by Rickards (1987) that 

has developed a contingency model for explaining the 

decision making processes associated with closingdown 

procedures 26 . 

Figure 14 presents the model of Rickards. In there it is 

possible to distinguish a decision space that is influenced 

by situational factors such as the nature and reliability of 

data, time pressure etcetera. Then it is also to consider 

the experience and know-how of the decision takers, 

and their own biases towards left- or right-brain modes 

of decision making. 

Finally there are the desired outcomes that rise up some 

questions as the ones presented by Rickards: “(…) is 

there an over-riding requirement such as maintaining group 

consensus, or getting a rapid mechanism for eliminating least 

useful options?” (Rickards, 1986, pp. 15-16). 

Inside the decision space there are five identified 

techniques that are widely used to support the closingdown 

of the processes in terms of decision making. They

are: a) voting; b) clustering; c) hurdles; d) weighting and 

e) gut feel. 

Regarding the voting technique this one presents 

clear frailties especially when people are faced with 

ambiguous categories to vote in. However it is a good 

way as Rickards (1987, p. 12) states it “ (…) of identifying 

commitment and ownership of some problem. In the 

nominal-group version of brainstorming (Delbecq et al, 1975), 

representatives of subgroupings generate sets of “blocks and 

barriers” to some complex problem. Each representative then 

ranks the blocks so that differences of perception between 

groups emerge. Not surprisingly, voting “works” best where 

personal commitment is an important consideration in the 

decision-making process.” 

In what concerns clustering 27 

it is used to promote 

the systematization of ideas and the disclosure of 

its relationship that will bring light to the problem 

and hopefully to decision making. The technique of 

morphological analysis is a form of clustering in which 

system’s dimensions are arranged to throw light on the 

inter-relationships. 

Regarding the hurdles technique this one is used also 

when a large number of ideas, at different stages of 

development need to be scrutinized. Then a hurdle is 

created with differing degrees of severity. However, 

unlike clustering this technique as Rickards (1986, p. 13) 

points out 

“(…) brings about a culling. Sometimes the need to cull is 

more important than the need to preserve the variety within 

a smaller number of broad dimensions. This is the case 

when a management wants to allocate resources to ideas or 

strategies. In setting up hurdles, the trick is to impose cheap 

screens that filter out a lot of the ideas early on. Later the 

hurdles of payback times, strategic fit, etc, can come in. In 

new product development it is typical for ideas to arrive over 

a period of time. When sufficient ideas are collected they are 

entered for a race across the hurdles set them. A simple set of 

hurdles might be to allow ideas to pass the first hurdle if they 

reveal some evidence of a market need. Then the next hurdle 

might be to convert ideas into prototype or demonstration 

products in a given time. Those failing this hurdle are put with 

27. Clustering mean the assembling 

of components or ideas within 

some set into a smaller number 

of groupings, which can then be 

explored for interrelationships. 

Jones and Sims (1985) used 

the term mapping for a similar 

process. 

47 



ideas arriving to take place in the next race over the hurdles.” 

The weighting techniques are very common and take 

place when a group of ideas is assessed against a set of 

criteria, each of has an allocated importance or weight 

(Kepner and Tregoe, 1965). After the ideas are scored 

and ranked. However, as Rickards (1986, p. 13) states 

this technique presents the real danger of “(…) forcing 

weighting systems on “fuzzy” sets of ideas for which the 

weighting system was never intended.” 

Finally the technique of gut feel. Here it is useful to bring 

up the concept of ‘hedonic response’ , a psychological 

state prior to the moment of discovery that Gordon 

(1961) identified while applying a synectic method of 

creative problem solving. The idea is that you know 

before you know how you know. The synectics technique 

encourages the use of gut feel as a “promising” new 

way of looking at the problem. Rickards (1986, p. 13) 

appreciation of this technique is useful and is best 

synthesized on his own words: 

48 

“From observations in many synectics sessions, it seems to 

me that the client’s choice of a problem-statement or idea 

depends on the willingness of that person to “go at risk”. If the 

climate is not supportive, the choice will be more conservative; 

if the problem is an important one, again the choice is close to 

existing experience. The situation is analogous with that of a 

personal development discussion. The counsellor recognises 

that the “best” idea is the one that the client needs, even if 

it is not possible to justify within a rational framework. The 

difficulties with relying on gut feel arise when others do not 

share the feeling — as often happens in industrial situations.” 

2.1 Factors Influencing the Decision Process 

The Decision making in design processes is in our view, 

and after the conclusion of some of the experiments, 

dependent essentially on three substantive elements: 

a) knowledge access and management; b) thinking and 

communication skills, and c) use of a strategy or plan to 

solve problems and provide solutions. 

From those broad categories it is possible to isolate some

factors that influence the decision-making along design 

process affecting its development and outcome. Among 

them it can be discriminate: a) knowledge management 

with a special focus on the information content and the 

way subjects value it and use it along the process b) 

the idea generation along the process; c) sketching as a 

means of searching the solution space; d) the expertise/ 

knowledge of the subject (that includes capitalized 

knowledge reuse i.e. the reuse of any knowledge 

capitalized from the same project or other projects, e) 

the individual and/or group dynamics. 

2.1.1 Knowledge management – information 

access and use 

As appointed by Beheshti (1993) and Wang et al (2008) 

design knowledge can improve the quality of design 

decisions by supporting designers to make better 

decisions thus achieving the improvement of the design 

efficiency. 

To be so, as Wang et al (2008) puts it “(…) there is an 

overwhelming need to provide design decision with enough 

knowledge support throughout the design process.“ 

There exist several assessments to both engineering 

(Vincenti,1990; Zhang, 1998; Ahmed, Bracewell, and Kim, 

2005) and industrial design (Teixeira, 2007; Restrepo, 

2004; Christiaans, 1992) knowledge. 

Considering the case of engineering design approach it 

is of use to mention the classification of Vincenti (1990) 

that includes six categories such as fundamental design 

concepts, criteria & specification, theoretical tools, 

quantitative data, practical considerations and design 

instrumentalities. However, and unlike Zhang (1998) it 

does not include ‘design process’ that is a fundamental 

area of knowledge. 

The classification shown in Figure 15 belongs to Zhang 

(1998; apud Wang et al, p. 128). 

49 



Fig.15 | Design Knowledge (source: 

Zhang, 1998 in Wang et al, 2008) 

The diagram proposed by Zhang (Figure 15) recognizes 

the existence of domain knowledge of different natures 

and coming from diverse sources. All of it contributes 

to decision making and influences its course and 

outcomes. 

50 

Furthermore Ahmed et al (2005) also addressed product 

design knowledge and categorized it according to two 

dimensions that are presented in Table 1. In the first one 

the knowledge is separated into process-related and 

product-related knowledge. In the second dimension, 

the knowledge is split into stored externally Information 

and stored internally in human memory (including 

explicit knowledge, implicit knowledge, and tacit 

knowledge). 

In terms of industrial design Christiaans (1992, pp. 67-68) 

in his study with learner reports from design students, 

proposed an assessment matrix system that relates three 

natures of knowledge with four types of it. The natures 

of knowledge are: 

a) Basic knowledge (that include knowledge and 

skills that are supplied by other domains, experiences 

suggesting ‘learning about yourself’, knowledge about 

the working conditions); 

b) Design knowledge (knowledge and skills involved in 

the design task); 

c) General process knowledge (knowledge that is 

abstracted from the design task as metacognitive 

knowledge – evaluation, knowledge related to the 

process; knowledge of techniques for optimizing the 

process).

The types of knowledge that were identified by keywords 

are: 

Table 1 | Classes of Knowledge and 

Information (source: Ahmed, 2005, p. 3) 

a) Declarative knowledge – keyword: “I learnt that…”( the 

one that is stated by the subject, a value statement); 

b) Procedural knowledge – keyword: “I learnt how… 

“(that presupposes that insight or understanding of the 

procedure is evident); 

c) Situational knowledge – keyword: “I learn when …” or 

“if…then…” (it is a type of knowledge that asks not only 

for the keyword but also for an action). 

d) Strategic knowledge; keyword: “Before I…” or “First, 

I start with…” (it occurs when a sequence of activities is 

planned in time). 

Also Teixeira (2007, p. 14) conducted research where 

it was possible to identify evidence that “(…)enable 

the validation of the hypothesis that design knowledge is 

seldom applied by organizational knowledge to identify new 

business opportunities, but also identified new opportunities 

to leverage design knowledge contribution to organizational 

knowledge.” 

This contribution is rather important since it is central 

to identify how design knowledge relates with 

organizational knowledge given that both are involved 

in the decision making processes especially at its macro 

level analysis. 

Figure 16 shows Teixeira (2007, pp. 15-16) diagram that 

is put forward by the author as it follows: 

“The opportunity identified in this study presents an 

intriguing new research avenue that focuses on exploring 

51 



52 

Fig.16 | Design Knowledge 

and Organization knowledge 

integration – a space for new 

business opportunities. Source: 

Teixeira, 2007, p. 15 

the mechanism in which the unique expertise of design 

knowledge to understand user values and behavior (H) can 

influence organizational knowledge (B) in its identification 

of business opportunities (Z). As a starting point for future 

research, the exploration of designers’ unique expertise in 

understanding user values and behavior can be used to overlap 

the context of use (G) with the context of production (E) to 

identify innovative business opportunities for organizations 

(Z). The proposal is to explore ideas of how the creation and 

delivery of meaningful and therefore valuable products for 

the user can generate economic value for organizations (F). 

It also highlights the need for a deep understanding of how 

organizations apply their knowledge to identify new business 

opportunities (C) and define a clear proposal of how designer 

insights, experience, values and information (A) can be

embedded into existing organizational routines, processes, 

practices, and norms (C) to enhance its knowledge (B) in 

identifying new business opportunities (Z), developing new 

products, improving existing ones to add or create new value 

for organizations and users (F).” 

Additionally Qiu et al. (2007, p.53) defend that “(…) 

decision-making is a knowledge-intensive activity with 

knowledge being its raw materials, work-in-process, byproducts 

and finished goods.” Therefore, the ability to 

manage knowledge with proficiency is significantly 

influential in terms of the competitiveness of decision 

makers, particularly when we consider the global 

knowledge society. The way knowledge is supporting 

decision making is illustrated in Figure 17. 

Fig.17 | Utilising knowledge to 

support decision making for solving 

problem. Source: Adapted from Haque 

et al (2000). 

53 



Figure 17 shows how knowledge is structured to help in 

problem definition, solution development and solution 

selection according to Haque et al (2000) and Kreitner 

and Kinicki, (2004) suggestion. The idea is that decision 

making must adopt a customer centric strategy that is 

basically sustained by three issues: a) requirement of 

knowledge from the hands of the right person at the 

right time; b) customizing knowledge needed to keep 

update on what is happening; and c) using expert choice 

to aid the team in structuring and documenting. 

54 

As Wang et al (2008, p.131) recognize: “(…) contemporary 

design process becomes increasingly knowledge-intensive 

and collaborative”. Under these circumstances to support 

design processes in terms of knowledge becomes 

critical not only in respect with its appropriateness 

and availability in time but also in terms of its delivery 

among all stakeholders involved in the process. Marsh 

(1997) found out that the proportion of designers’ time 

captivated by information acquirement activities to 

be 20-30% being the majority of information got from 

personal contacts, who in 78% of cases retrieved it from 

memory. (Wang et al, 2008, p.131 apud Marsh, 1997). 

This information is relevant given that part of the 

structuring of design problems is made through the use 

of information that is taken to the process not only to 

provide problem structuring but also to allow problem 

solving. 

Regarding information access and use, as appointed 

by Song, Dong and Agogino (2002) the choices made 

by designers depend on their comprehension of the 

problem and its context as well as on their ability to 

structure both. That structuring is intimately connected 

with the obtainment of appropriate information 

regarding both problem and its context. Furthermore 

it is essential to have access to that information. There 

are numerous issues conditioning the accessibility of 

an information source, like awareness of the source, 

value of the results, format, level of detail, etc. (Choi and 

Rasmussen, 2002; Fidel and Green, 2004). 

Restrepo and Christiaans (2003) also identified in 

their studies that there are differences between the

information gathered and used in problem structuring 

and in problem solving. In the first case the information 

by and large refers to the context and stakeholders 

and implies a more active interpretation before use; 

in the second one is related with more concrete and 

operational issues such as materials, technical and 

constructive data. 

The information used along the design process can 

be, as previously stated, of different natures. Eastman 

(2001) identified two main information origins: a) the 

use of information gathered through gained knowledge 

and experience on the part of the designer and b) 

information from external sources of information that 

can have different natures and types. However, as noted 

by Ullman et al (1988) there is also the information 

generated or inferred throughout the design process. 

Equally pertinent is the identification of the sources of 

information used by designers that depend upon the 

activity being performed. Fidel and Green (2004) (and 

also the findings of the survey made in this research) 

reveal that specific data about materials and properties 

is searched mostly in books and manuals while when 

negotiating the structure of the problem a person is 

the preferred consultant since a person can translate 

knowledge in terms that fit the doubts of the asking 

designer. 

As Restrepo and Christiaans (2004, pp. 10-11) 

state 

“Access to information will be improved if the information 

provided is deemed by the user as relevant, for relevance 

is not a property of the information itself, but an attribute 

endowed by the user in a certain situation“. 

2.1.2 Idea Generation and Creativity 

Idea generation occurs along design processes and it 

somehow moulds its course of action. When talking 

about idea generation, creativity is an issue to attend to 

(Goldschmidt, 2005). In fact, it is not to say that all ideas 

generated along design processes are creative because 

they are not; but it is expected that at least some of 

them are thus contributing to a better outcome. In fact 

55 



Table 2 | Comparing creative design 

processes. Source: Howard et al, 2008, 

p.165 

the general belief that the generation of a large amount 

of ideas correlates with better quality of outcomes was 

found to be false (Goldschmidt, 2005, p.603). Analyzing 

the table proposed by Howard et al (2008) that is 

presented as Table 2 it is possible to clearly see that idea 

generation integrates the creative design processes. 

56

A brief analysis of Table 2 shows that phases in the 

generation column are not precisely synonymous. That 

has do to with the fact that it is observable a tendency 

over time of a general shift from describing the creative 

processes as subconscious cognitive stages (Helmholtz 

1826; Wallas 1926; Kris, 1952) to activity-based stages 

(Jones, 1970; Parnes 1981; Amabile, 1983). 

In the face that the two concepts are so intimately linked 

it is useful to try to first explain them. 

Design ideation or idea generation “(…) can be seen as a 

matter of generating, developing and communicating ideas, 

where ‘idea’ is understood as a basic element of thought that 

can be either visual, concrete or abstract” (Jonson, 2005, 

p.613). 

Creativity on the other hand as Christiaans (1992) 

mentions can not be assumed as an universal concept 

since it depends upon domain specific elements (as 

Amabile stated in 1983), the commitment of the creator, 

previous knowledge being also culturally defined. 

Amabile’s model of creativity presented in Figure 

18 highlights most of the issues addressed with the 

exception of the cultural determinants that constrain 

Fig.18 | Model of Creativity (Amabile, 

1983) 

57 



not only problem structuring but also the generation 

of ideas, the development of solutions and the overall 

process of decision making. 

Even without a precise and complete definition of 

creativity thus assuming creativity as a ‘relative’ concept 

it is possible to say that it is a mental and social process 

that involves the generation of new/novel ideas or 

concepts. As Christiaans (1992) advanced, probably 

at the design specific domain, unlike for example the 

art domain, the products of creative thought must 

guarantee both originality and appropriateness. 

Regarding idea generation Jin and Chusilp (2005, p. 30) 

stated that they “(…) include in generate activity not only 

memory retrieval but also perceptual stimulation that can act 

in response to iteration and stimulate designer’s ideation.” In 

fact the authors aiming primarily to understand iteration 

in design processes made it through an idea generation 

approach focusing on the contents and ideas flowing 

during iteration 28 process. 

58 

In reality there exists substantial evidence (Goldschmidt, 

1991; Lawson, 1994; Suwa and Tversky, 1997; Suwa 

et al, 2000; Tovey et al, 2003) to put forward that the 

production of design ideas emerge to depend greatly 

on the interaction with conceptual sketches, i.e. the ones 

done along design process while having what Schön 

(1983) described as a “conversation with the drawing”. 

28. Jin and Chusilp (2005, p. 25) 

“classify iteration into two primary 

types: iteration of design tasks and 

iteration of cognitive activities. 

For the first type, iteration is 

recognized as repeating design 

tasks in a design project, which 

is often carried out by a team 

of designers. For the second 

type, iteration is recognized as 

repeating cognitive activities in a 

single designer’s mind when he/ 

she is performing design tasks.” 

It is then evident the relationship between idea 

generation and sketching (further discussed) since 

it is a mean to achieve it. As van der Lugt (2001, p. 49) 

underlines through sketching it is possible to stimulate a 

re-interpretive cycle of idea generation process either in 

the mode of thinking (where you can move from general 

descriptions to specific depiction), talking (when you 

communicate your ideas you stimulate its development 

and allow re-interpretation) or storing (that provides 

accessibility to earlier ideas that can lead to a better 

integrated idea generation process). 

Not only sketching influences idea generation. The visual 

stimuli is also an important variable in idea generation 

as Malaga (2000) found out in an experiment where 

participants had to generate ideas having the stimuli

of word, picture and combined word picture where the 

use of picture stimuli elicited more creative ideas than 

the other two stimuli. 

Focusing now on the creative process it is central to 

state that it is a rather complex one that is subject of 

widespread research. 

Solovyova (2003, p.1) hypothesized in her studies “(…) 

that the level of creativity of design solutions is associated 

with thematic impulses triggered during the design process 

via memories of emotional experiences.” According to 

her those memories trigger emotions that influence 

decision-making and also the formation of belief and 

value system of a designer. 

Also Downing (2000) stated that designers use the 

knowledge and emotional impact enclosed in their 

memorable experiences in order to support them in the 

creative design process. 

On the other hand there is to refer the work of Chua and 

Iyengar (2008, p.164) that equates creativity as a matter 

of choice 29 being prior experience and task instruction 

boundary conditions for the effects of choice on 

creativity. Through two experiments, they found that 

“(…) only individuals with high prior experience in the task 

domain and given explicit instruction to be creative produced 

more creative outcomes when given more choice. When either 

of these two conditions is not met (i.e., low prior experience or 

given non-creativity instruction), more choice did not lead to 

more creative performance”. 

Kim and Kim (2007, p.1) conducted several experiments 

exploring the relationship between creativity and the 

dynamics of teams. In their words they tried “to explore 

subjective perception on creativity in relation to personal 

creativity modes; (…) compare creativity of conceptual design 

teams of two groups.” (…) The result shows that the teams 

in experimental group acquired higher score than those in 

control group without teamwork practice activity. Also we 

conducted detailed team interaction analysis of protocol data 

for a diverse team composed of various creativity modes and 

a uniform team composed of the same creativity mode. The 

analysis result of team interactions indicates that personal 

creativity modes could affect the way design teams interact.” 

29. Greenberg (1992) found 

that subjects who had choice 

in selecting which problems 

to work on in a given task 

situation produced more creative 

outputs. The main psychological 

mechanism that underlies these 

findings is that choice confers 

self determination and intrinsic 

motivation — key ingredients for 

creative performance (Amabile, 

1983, 1990). 

59 



2.1.3 Sketching 

Sketching influences decision-making in the way that 

it allows subjects to engage two types of reasoning as 

identified by Goldschmidt (1991, p. 131), one based 

on analogical or metaphorical thought, dealing with 

extracting new meaning from a sketch, that she describes 

as ‘seeing as’ and another type, the ‘seeing that’ that 

deals with design consequences of this newly acquired 

meaning of the sketch. This role of sketching as being 

“(…) not merely an act of representation of a pre-formulated 

image (but) in the context (…) more often than not, a search 

for such an image” (p.131) reinforces the importance 

sketching has in the decision-making process being 

evident the role of ‘reflection while sketching’. 

60 

It is also important to consider the already mentioned 

work of Van der Lugt (2001) that establishes sketching 

as affecting the idea generation process (that is subject 

of an accurate scrutiny by decision-making process) 

in the way that: a) thinking sketches stimulates a 

re-interpretive cycle in the idea generation process 

(by means of its indeterminacy) b) talking sketches 

stimulates re-interpretation in the idea generation 

process; c) storing sketches stimulates the use of earlier 

ideas by enhancing their accessibility. 

Sketches also appear to be critical for adjusting and 

refining ideas, generating concepts and assisting 

problem solving (Do et al, 2000). 

Thus, sketching makes design thinking easier by ‘seeing 

it’ and ‘storing it’. In other words, “(…) sketching puts much 

less load on the cognitive processes needed to design”. (Bilda, 

2006, p.607). 

However, there is evidence that particularly in expert 

designers of sketching not being fundamental in the 

early phases of conceptual designing (Bilda et al, 2006, 

p. 587). 

To summarize it is of use the words of Goldschmidt 

(2006, p. 553): 

“(…) research suggests that (a) Designers, like others, can 

use mental imagery to manipulate shapes and forms and 

recombine them in meaningful and even creative ways in

an activity that is most relevant to designing. (b) Sketching 

is useful (i.e., leads to more creative results) to those who 

due to experience are proficient users of sketching in design 

problem solving, in certain types of spatial manipulations 

of simple forms. It is postulated that the advantage results 

from the self-generated sketches becoming displays that are 

particularly rich in useful cues. (c) Domain specific design 

experience controls performance and qualifies the benefit 

from sketching in problem solving. (d) Visual displays in the 

work environment act as stimuli and possibly as prompts in 

design problem solving.” 

2.1.4 Expertise 

Many studies have been conducted on expertise in 

diverse domains ranging from chess to physics and 

arts, and from novices to experts. The central aspects 

that define expertise seem to be: (1) quantitative and 

qualitative training, (2) motivation, and (3) acquiring 

complex mechanisms for controlling, executing and 

monitoring their performance. As one of the most 

experienced authors in the field of expertise Ericsson 

(2005) claims: ‘The acquisition of reproducible superior 

performance on domain-specific tasks goes beyond 

accumulating knowledge. The development of high 

levels of skill requires the acquisition of representations 

that allow efficient control and execution of performance 

as well as mechanisms that support planning, reasoning 

and evaluation that mediate further improvement and 

maintenance of high levels of performance’ (p. 238). 

Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) found out that superior 

performance of experts is normally domain-specific and 

it is not transferable across domains. 

Also Cross (2006) during the last 15 years studied the 

design processes and in it the role of expertise normally 

along with other parameters like designing, design 

strategies etcetera. Cross (p. 27) stated that “conventional 

wisdom about the nature of expertise in problem-solving 

seems often to be contradicted by the behaviour of expert 

designers. “ 

61 



In order to understand design expertise Cross has done 

studies (besides the ones with less experienced designers 

or students) with expert designers. Cross (2006, p. 74) 

observed that expert designers display among them 

similar strategic aspects such as: “a) taking a broad 

‘system approach’ to the problem rather than accepting 

narrow problem criteria; b) ‘framing’ the problem in a 

distinctive and sometimes rather personal way; and c) 

designing from ‘first principles’ 30 . These aspects were 

suggested by other researchers (Jones, 1970; Schön, 

1983) but make known separately and never all together 

like in Cross’s case. 

Moreover the Delft protocol study (Cross, Christiaans 

and Dorst, 1996) brings light to the expertise analysis 

in design processes. Expertise was one of the research 

questions studied by comparing novices and final year 

design students. The most striking findings in this study 

were that the creativity of the solution was not dependent 

on the level of expertise, while the information-seeking 

behaviour definitely was. 

62 

In establishing relationship between expertise and 

decision making it is important to allude to Morrow et 

al (2003, p.1) that stated that “Experts excel on domainrelevant 

tasks in part because their knowledge supports 

comprehension and decision making. (…)More familiar 

situations that readily map onto knowledge structures may 

be easily recognized, so that decisions about appropriate 

responses are quickly made. However, such strategies may 

be less likely to occur for less familiar (or more anomalous) 

situations, where experts must engage in more effortful 

processes to identify problems and generate solutions (Klein, 

1993; Patel and Arocha, 2001).” 

2.1.5 Individual versus Group Dynamics 

30. Designing from ‘first principles 

is usually advocate has a way to 

generate good and or creative 

designs (French,1985) In the 

definition of Roozenberg (1993) it 

is the abductive leap of reasoning 

from function to form that is 

regarded as the kernel of design. 

Deciding individually is different from group decisions, 

and it influences the outcomes of design processes. 

That can be perceived if we attain to Visser (2009, pp. 

203-204) that defends that: 

“(…) there is no reason to suppose that cooperation modifies 

the nature of the basic cognitive activities and operations 

implemented in design (i.e., generation, transformation, and

evaluation of representations). (…) Because cooperation 

proceeds through interaction, it introduces, however, 

specific activities and influences designers’ representational 

structures (both on socio cognitive and emotional levels. 

Some examples of such activities are coordination, operative 

synchronisation, construction of inter designer compatible 

representations, conflict resolution, and management of 

representations that differ between design partners through 

confrontation, articulation, and integration. Activities 

involving argumentation that is, in our view, activities aiming 

to modify the representations held by one’s interlocutors 

obviously play a particularly important role. The construction 

of inter designer compatible representations (Visser, 2006), 

their existence beside designers’ private representations, and 

their management introduce factors that may add complexity 

to collective design situations compared to individual 

design.” 

Goldschmidt (1996) approached the study of the 

differences between the performance of a team of 

designers and an individual one. In synthesis she 

found out that “(…) the team participants do not resemble 

different aspects of the individual designer, but rather that 

the individual designer is a unitary system that resembles the 

team.”(p.90) 

Also Günther et al (1996, p.117) analysed the some topic 

and allude to the fact that “(…) working together in a group 

gives another dimension to the use of designer’s abilities. The 

way in which a group discusses, solves conflicts and makes 

decisions may increase or decrease the performance of its 

members. Thus the prerequisites 31 of the group are of great 

influence on the process and its result.” 

Also important is the role of the leader of each 

process since it will be the one who formally has the 

responsibility of organizing the work and of planning 

tasks and work to be done. Leader and members should 

also have the ability to manage conflict and to overcome 

situations of blockage or of low motivation. 

Cross and Cross (1996) also addressed the study of 

teamwork in design processes. Their observation 

was based upon the following aspects: “a) roles and 

relationships; planning and acting; information gathering 

and sharing; problem analyzing and understanding, concept 

31. Prerequisites are considered by 

the author as previous knowledge 

and skills that the designer has 

and that might influence the 

process and the result. 

63 



generation and adoption and conflict avoiding and resolving” 

(p.291). The main conclusion of their work is consistent 

with the view of Günther et al view since they found 

out that “(…) teamwork is a social process, and therefore 

social interactions, roles and relationships cannot be ignored 

in the analysis of design activity performed by teams. (…) 

many aspects of the design teams activity are influenced by 

social process factor. (…) personal commitments to particular 

concepts lead to social process actions such as expressing 

commitment and persuading others” (p. 316). 

At this respect also Brereton et al (1996, p. 339) reveal 

that “The content of the evolving design depends heavily 

upon negotiation strategies and other more subtle and 

ubiquitous social processes that shape design work.” (…) 

Depending on their level of commitment and other team 

member’s alignment they adopt appropriate strategies of 

persuasion. “ 

64 

According to Huitt (1992) individual differences in 

problem solving and decision making must be taken 

into account to adequately understand the dynamics 

of these processes. Personal characteristics of the group 

members clearly influence these processes in the way 

that they make use of specific techniques in problem 

solving. 

Furthermore, Kleinsmann and Valkenburg (2008, p. 369) 

researched the barriers and enablers for the creation 

of shared understanding during a co-design process in 

industry. This knowledge is important “since it influences 

both the effectiveness and quality of the design process”. To 

accomplish their research the authors defined three 

organizational levels: the actor, the project and the 

company level and clustered the barriers and enablers 

according to its content. 

In their words (p. 369) “The results show that the clusters 

of barriers and enablers all concerned a different type of 

interface. Within each interface barriers and enablers on the 

three different organizational levels exist. This means that 

the effectiveness of creating shared understanding is not 

only dependent on face-to-face communication, but also on 

project management and project organization.”

SUMMARY OF DESIGN PROCESSES AS A 

DECISION MAKING PROCESSES 

To approach Design Process as a decisional process 

was thought to make it easier to make converge the 

understanding of it from both the managerial and the 

designer’s point of view. 

The nature of the study that was done is a descriptive 

one meaning that we seek to explain human decision 

making behaviour by studying human beliefs and 

preferences. 

The critical analysis of literature regarding design process 

in general and also as a decision making process allowed 

us to identify several aspects that influence the process 

all along. Among those aspects we focused upon: 1) 

Knowledge management and information access and 

use; 2) Idea generation and creativity; 3) Sketching; 4) 

Expertise and 5) Individual versus group dynamics. 

These will be aspects to be addressed and studied in 

detail in the experiments that were developed in this 

research. 


AHMED, S., BRACEWELL, R. KIM, S. 2005. Engineering Knowledge 

Management. A Symposium in Honour of Ken Wallace. Cambridge, 

UK. 

ALEXANDER, E. 1982. Design in the decision-making process. Policy 

Sciences, 14, pp.279-292. 

AMABILE, T. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential 

conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 

pp.357-376. 

BEHESHTI, R. 1993. Design decisions and uncertainty. Design Studies, 

14(1), pp.85-95. 

BILDA, Z., GERO, J., PURCELL, T. 2006. To sketch or not to sketch? That 

is the question. Design Studies, 27(5), pp.587-613. 

BRERETON M., C., D., MABOGUNJE, A., LEIFER, L. 1996. Collaboration 

in design teams: how social interaction shapes the product. In: 

CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H.,DORST, K. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. 

New York: John Wiley & Sons,pp.319-340. 

CHOI, Y., RASMUSSEN, E. 2002. Users’ relevance criteria in image 

retrieval in American history. Information Processing and Management, 

38,pp.695-726. 

65 



CHRISTENSEN, B., SCHUNN, C. 2009. Putting Blinkers on a Blind 

Man. Providing Cognitive Support for Creative Processes with 

Environmental Cues. In: MARKMAN, A. (ed.) Tools for Innovation. 

Oxford University Press. 



CHUA, R., IYENGAR, S. 2008. Effects of experience, instruction, and 

choice on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(3), pp.164-180. 

COX, V. Year. An Application of Cognitive Science to Understand 

Problem Solving Activity for Well Structure Problems: Cognition, 

Algorithms, Metacognition and Heuristics. In: Proceedings of 

Frontiers in Educational Annual Conference, 1987. pp. 664-669. 


CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (EDS) 1996. Analysing Design 

Activity, Chichester, Wiley. 

CROSS, N., CROSS, A. 1996. Observations of teamwork and social 

processes in design. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H.,DORST, K. (ed.) 

Analysing Design Activity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp.291-317. 

DELBECQ, A., VAN DE VEN, A., GUSTAFSON, D. (ed.) 1975. Group 

Techniques for Program Planning: a Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi 

Processes, Glenview, Illinois.: Scott Foresman. 

66 

DO, E., GROSS, M., NEIMAN, B., ZIMRING, C. 2000. Intentions in and 

relations among design drawings. Design Studies, 21(5), pp.483-503. 

DOWNING, F. 2000. Remembrance and the Design of Place, College 

Station, Texas, A&M University Press. 

DUBBERLY, H. (ed.) 2004. How do You Design?, San Francisco: Dubberly 

Design Office. 

EASTMAN, C. 2001. New Directions in Design Cognition: Studies on 

Representation and Recall. In: C.M. EASTMAN, W. M., MC CRACKEN, 

W.C. NEWSTETTER (EDS) (ed.) Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition 

in Design Education. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.79-103. 

ENDSLEY, M., HOFFMAN, R., KABER, D., ROTH, E. 2007. Cognitive 

engineering and decision making: an overview and future course. 

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), pp.1-21. 

ERICSSON, K. 2005. Recent advances in expertise research: a 

commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Applied 

Cognitive Psychology, 19, pp.233-241. 

ERICSSON, K., LEHMANN, A. 1996. Experts and exceptional 

performance: evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. 

Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp.273-305. 

FIDEL, R., GREEN, M. 2004. The many faces of accessibility. Journal of 

Information Processing and Management, 40(3), pp.563-581. 

FINKE, R., WARD, T., SMITH, S. 1992. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research 

and Applications., Cambridge, MIT Press.

GERO, J. S., KANNENGIESSER, U. 2006. A Function-Behaviour-Structure 

ontology of processes. In: GERO, J. (ed.) A Function-Behaviour-Structure 

ontology of processes. New York: Springer, pp.407-422. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1991. The dialects of sketching. Creativity Research 

Journal, 4(2), pp.123-143. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1996. The Designer as a team of one. In: CROSS, N., 

CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: 

Wiley , pp.65-92. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 2005. How good are good ideas? Correlates of 

design creativity. Design Studies, 26, pp.593-611. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G., SMOLKOV, M. 2006. Variances in the impact 

of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design 

Studies, 27, pp.549-569. 

GORDON, W. 1961. Synectics: the Development of Creative Capacity., 

New York, Harper and Row. 

GUNTER, J., FRANKENBERGER, E.; AUER, P. 1996. Investigation of 

Individual and team design processes. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, 

H.,DORST, K. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: John Wiley & 

Sons, pp.117-131. 

HAQUE, B., BELECHEANU, R., BARSON, R., PAWAR, K. 2000. Towards 

the application of case based reasoning to decision-making in 

concurrent product development (concurrent engineering). 

Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(2/3), pp.101-112. 

HERRMANN, J. 2004. Decomposition in Product Development - 

Technical Report 2004-6. College Park: Institute for Systems Research, 

University of Maryland. 

HERRMANN, J., SCHMIDT, L. 2002. Viewing product development as 

a decision production system. In: Proceedings of DETC 2002, ASME 

2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and 

Information in Engineering Conference, September, 29 - October, 2, 

Montreal, Canada. 

HOWARD, T., CULLEY, S., DEKONINCK, E. 2008. Describing the creative 

design process by the integration of engineering design and 

cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29, pp.160-180. 

HUITT, W. 1992. Problem solving and decision making: Consideration 

of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 

Journal of Psychological Type, 24, pp.33-44. 

JIN, Y., CHUSILP, P. 2005. Study of mental iteration in different design 

situations. Design Studies, 27(1), pp.25-55. 

JONES, J. 1992 Design Methods, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc. 

JONSON, B. 2005. Design Ideation: the conceptual sketch in the 

digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), pp.613-624. 

KEPNER, C., TREGOE, B. 1965. The Rational manager: a systematic 

approach to problem solving and decision making, New York, McGraw- 

Hill. 

KIM, M., KIM, Y. 2007. Perceived Creativity and Design Team 

interaction. IASDR07. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. 

67 



68 

KLEIN, G. 1989. Recognition-primed decisions. In: ROUSE, W. (ed.) 

Advances in man-machine systems research. Greenwich: JAI Press, 

pp.47-92. 

KLEIN, G. 1993. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid 

decision making. In: KLEIN, G., ORASANU, J., CALDERWOOD, R., 

ZSAMBOK, C. (ed.) Decision making in action: Models and methods 

Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.138-147. 

KLEIN, G., CALDERWOOD, R., CLINTON-CIROCCO, A. Year. Rapid 

decision making on the fire ground. In: Proceedings of the Human 

Factors Society, 1986 CA. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 

pp.576-580. 

KLEIN, G., ROSS, K., MOON, B., KLEIN, D., HOLLNAGEL, E. 2003. 

Macrocognition. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(3), pp.81-85. 

KLEINSMANN, M., VALKENBURG, R. 2008. Barriers and enablers for 

creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies, 

29, pp.369-386. 

KRABUANRAT, K., PHELPS, R. 1998. Heuristics and rationality in 

strategic decision making: an exploratory study. Journal of Business 

Research, 41, pp.83-93. 

KREITNER, R., KINICKI, A. 2004. Organizational Behavior, New York, 

McGraw-Hill. 

LAWSON, B. 1994. Design in mind, Oxford, Architectural Press. 

LONGUEVILLE, B., LE CARDINAL, J., BOCQUET, J., DANEAU, P. 2003. 

Towards a project memory for innovative product design: a decisionmaking 

process model. International Conference on Engineering 

Design (ICED03). Stockholm. 

MALAGA, R. 2000. The effect of stimulus modes and associative 

distance in individual creativity support systems Design Support 

Systems, 29, pp.125-141. 

MARSH, J., 1997. The Capture and Utilisation of Experience in 

Engineering Design, PhD Thesis, Cambridge University. 

MORROW, D., MILLER, L., RIDOLFO,. H., KELLY, R., FISHER, U., STINE- 

MORROW, E. 2003. The influence of pilot expertise on comprehension 

and decision making. 12th International Symposium on Aviation 

Psychology. Dayton. 

PATEL, V, AROCHA, J., 2001. The nature of constraints on collaborative 

decision-making in health care settings. In SALAS, E., KLEIN G. (Eds.), 

Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. Mahwah, NJ, 

Erlbaum. 

QIU, Y.-F., CHUI, Y-P., HELANDER, M. 2007. A cognitive approach to 

understanding knowledge-based virtual team decision making in 

product design. International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, 1(1), 

pp.45-64. 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003. Design Requirements: 

Conditioners or Conditioned? ICED03 - International Conference on 

Engineering Design. Stockholm. 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003. Problem Structuring and 

Information Access in Design. Paper accepted for the Design Thinking 

Research Symposium 6: ‘Expertise in design’. Australia.

RICKARDS, T. 1987. “Closing Down”: a classification of creative decision 

making aids. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2(3), pp.11-16 

SARMA, V. 1994. Decision Making in Complex Systems. Systems 

Practice, 7(4), pp.399-407. 

SIMON, H., DANTZIG, G., HOGARTH, R., PIOTT,C., RAIFFA, H., 

SCHELLING, T., SHEPSLE, K., THAIER, R., TVERSKY, A., WINTER, S. 1986. 

Report on the Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and 

Problem Solving. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. 

SOLOVYOVA, I. 2003. Conjecture and Emotion: An Investigation of 

the Relationship Between Design Thinking and Emotional Content. 

DTRS6 - Design Thinking Research Symposium 6 , Creativity and 

Cognition Studios. Sidney, Australia: University of Technology. 

SONG, S., DONG, E., AGOGINO, A. 2002. Modeling information 

needs in engineering databases using tacit knowledge. Journal of 

Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 2, pp.199-207. 

SUWA, M., GERO, J., PURCELL, T. 2000. Unexpected discoveries and 

S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design 

process. Design Studies, 21(6), pp.539-567. 

SUWA, M., TVERSKY, B. 1997. What do architects and students 

perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 

18(4), pp.385-403. 

TEIXEIRA, J. 2007. Applying Design Knowledge to Create Innovative 

Business Opportunities. Available: trex.id.iit.edu/papers/design_ 

knowledge.pdf [Accessed February 2009]. 

TOVEY, M., PORTER, S., NEWMAN, R. 2003. Sketching, concept 

development and automotive design Design Studies, 24(2), pp.135- 

153. 

ULLMAN, D., DIETTRICH, T., STAUFFER, L. 1988. A model of the 

mechanical engineering process based on empirical data. AI EDAM, 

2(1), pp.33-52. 

VAN DER LUGT, R. 2001. Sketching in design idea generation 

meetings. TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering. 

VERMAAS,P., DORST, K. 2007. On the conceptual framework of John 

Gero’s FBS-model and the prescriptive aims of design methodology. 

Design Studies, 28(2), pp.133-157. 

VINCENTI, W. 1990. What Engineers Know and How They Know It?, 

Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press. 

VISSER, W. 2009. Design: one, but in different forms. Design Studies, 

30(3), pp.187-223. 

WANG, K. R., L., TONG, S., EYNARD, B., MATTA, N. 2008. Design 

Knowledge for Decision-Making Process in a DFX Product Design 

Approach. In: YAN, X., ION, W., EYNARD, B. (ed.) Global Design to Gain 

Competitive Edge: an Holistic and Collaborative Approach Based on 

Computational Tools. London: Springer, pp.127-136. 

ZHANG, Y. 1998. Computer-Based Modelling and Management for 

Current Working Knowledge Evolution Support. PhD Thesis, Strathclyde 

University. 

69 



3. DESIGN AS A STRATEGIC RESOURCE – 

THE STRATEGIC ADEQUACY OF DESIGN PROCESSES 

The strategic adequacy of the design process’s outcomes 

was elected as one of the key issues to be addressed in 

this study. As described in the ‘glossary’ this concept 

was to be evaluated in all experiments by all the jury 

members and had the following definition: “the extent 

to which the concept integrates and aligns the formal, 

technical and constructive aspects with business aspects i.e. 

the extent to which the product is able to assume a correct 

market positioning, contributing for brand consolidation and 

company’s reputation.” 

To assume strategic adequacy of the design outcomes 

in the previously stated way is implicitly to presuppose 

design as a strategic resource in business. Therefore it is 

vital to access the way Design assumes a strategic role in 

business as well as the way business has made use of it 

until now. 

70 

Behind every object created by a designer lie several 

design decisions concerning not only the appearance, 

but also ergonomics, efficient use of materials, ease of 

manufacture, user friendliness etc. That means that as 

Walsh (2000, p. 75) mentions it “someone makes a series 

of decisions that result in a product of a particular function, 

cost and appearance, any of which may contribute to its 

commercial success. (…) Design is therefore an important 

activity for manufacturing firms and an important topic for 

economic and sociological analysis while the management of 

design is a vital aspect of corporate strategy.” 

The recognition of Design as a strategic resource is not a 

recent avenue. Fifteen years ago, Kotler and Rath (1984) 

noticed that “Design is a powerful but neglected strategic 

tool”. In reality, several other studies undertaken in the 

ninety’s (Borja de Mozota, 1985; Roy et al, 1986, 1998; 

Potter et al, 1991; Walsh, 1995; Svengren, 1995; Riedel 

et al, 1996; Sentence and Clarke, 1997; Borja de Mozota, 

2000; Hertenstein, Platt and Brown, 2001; Nieminen 

et al, 2005; Walton, 2003; Design Council, 2004, 2005) 

have achieved results proving that Design improves the 

performance of the firms affecting positively several

economic indicators such as sales, profit, turnover, 

product cost as well as qualitative indicators such as 

customer satisfaction. 

Although sometimes design investments can pay back, 

as both Roy and Potter demonstrated (1993), vast 

evidence suggests that the potential of design is most 

often wasted by business (Walsh, et al. 1992; Potter et 

al, 1991. 

Furthermore, the expectations of firms differ as it was 

observed by Walsh (2000) that discovered that the most 

striking difference was the one between the contribution 

of the industrial designer and the engineer/engineering 

designer. There are firms that see design as primarily 

about appearance and might only employ industrial 

designers, while there are others that see design as 

mainly about performance and might only employ 

design engineers. At this respect it is important to 

consider Moody (1984) explanation of the distinctions 

between ‘industrial design’ and ‘engineering design’. He 

(1984, p. 62) says that: “Industrial design seeks to rectify the 

omissions of engineering; it is a conscious attempt to bring 

form and visual order to engineering hardware where the 

technology does not of itself provide these features”. He 

details his reasoning arguing that: 

“(…)when form does not automatically follow function, 

industrial design tries to relate the hardware to the 

dimensions, instinctive responses and emotional needs of the 

user. Through the conscious control of form, configuration, 

overall appearance and detailing, industrial design is 

capable of conveying to the user the abstract characteristics 

of a product – for example, robustness, precision … It can 

arrange for controls to be comfortable, pleasant and easy to 

operate. It is capable of imbuing a product with a distinctive 

ambience, style and feeling of good quality that equates with 

the personal taste of the user. In these various ways ,therefore, 

industrial design makes a contribution to innovation that 

produces a more rounded-out effect, meeting the needs 

(explicit, unconscious, or possibly only assumed) of the user.” 

(p.62) 

Still, in what concerns design’s “meaning”, as Walsh (2000) 

observed in her studies, it helps to mention that there 

71 

CHAPTER II - THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK | 3. DESIGN AS A STRATEGIC RESOURCE 

THE STRATEGIC ADEQUACY OF DESIGN PROCESSES


are enormous variations in what firms, managers and 

people in general mean by “design”. It can be defined 

for only one element of design such as fitness to use or 

performance or visual appearance or in some cases all 

three. 

In the words of Walsh: 

”Designers also have different perspective on design: some 

see their work in terms of creativity, other in terms of problem 

solving or even in terms of art. The marketing managers may 

see the work of designers as differentiating their products 

from those of competitors (…). To consumers the function of 

design may be the creation of new stiles and images (...) or 

the improvement of products so that they are easier to use, 

long-lasting (…). Strategic management may see the function 

of design as adding value, increasing production efficiency in 

use of materials and energy, and generating increased profits”. 

(2000, p.76) 

72 

Also the study developed by De.:SID 32 , that the researcher 

integrates, launched a survey were among other issues 

it were addressed the perceptions managers have about 

the nature and use of Design. The outcomes will be 

discussed in Chapter IV. 

3.1 Firm’s Strategic options Towards Design 

Despite the strategic importance of design to the 

firms, the diffuseness of design makes it difficult to use 

strategically. This diffuseness of design, argue Dumas 

and Whitefield (1989, p. 51), is both “conceptual and 

organizational. It is conceptual in relating to issues such as: 

what design disciplines does a firm need? Or even: what does 

the firm means by design? It is organizational in that design is 

an activity without well-defined organizational boundaries.” 

32. De.:SID is the acronymous 

of a research project entitled: 

“Design as Company’s strategic 

resource: a study of the impacts 

of Design”, that was funded by 

the Foundation for the Science 

and Technology (FCT) and hosted 

by FAUTL during 36 months from 

3 September 2007 until August 

2010. 

In addition it was found that a variable mixture of inhouse 

and consultant designers was employed by 

firms (Walsh 2000). This happens mainly for three 

reasons: there is a general lack of in-house skill or lack 

of a particular skill and also some firms, as a matter of 

principle or company strategy, employ consultants in 

order to have a flow of fresh ideas.

Walsh also found a wide variety of attitudes and 

strategies towards design. “Firms (including firms in the 

same sector and of similar size) vary enormously in the extent 

of time, effort, money and professional expertise they believe 

should be accorded to design and the extent to which design 

is carried out by professional staff, (employed in-house or 

retained as consultants). Sometimes firms take design very 

seriously and allocate resources accordingly” (Walsh 2000, 

p. 76). 

Furthermore there is a wide variation in the location of 

design in firms (Walsh 2000) – sometimes firms have a 

specialist design and development department, others 

have it as a part of R&D, where it is captured by the term 

research, design and development; It may be defined 

as part of the production department; It can be the 

responsibility of marketing department or, in some 

cases, design is split up between departments. 

Another fact that contributes to this situation is the 

widespread phenomenon of “silent design” (Gorb and 

Dumas, 1987) that is related to a firm’s commitment to 

design. ‘Silent Design’ is the process in which marketing, 

production and other staff contributes to design 

decisions, or do design and development work part 

time. They may be highly qualified in, and committed 

to design, but their managerial responsibilities make 

it impossible to devote much time to design. It is very 

common and very often creates difficulties to the correct 

integration of Design in the firms. 

That is also the situation in Portugal as it is documented 

in Chapter IV (De.:SID survey). 

The particular features of the institutionalization of 

design and its location with respect to the boundaries 

of the firm is partly explained by the combination of 

similarities and differences between design and R&D 

and design and Innovation. “Design is an activity more 

widespread than R&D in any particular firm; since it makes a 

contribution to marketing and production as well as to new 

product development” (Walsh 2000). 

It is then important to consider here the existent 

organization structures. From the perspective of design 

management, Owens (2000, p. 58) argues: 

73 




“designed products derive from long chains of decisions, 

and that different decisions made at critical points in the 

process result in differences in the designed products. (…) 

This suggests that a design can be understood in terms of the 

decision-making process used to arrive at it, not only in terms 

of the aesthetic, market, or technological factors commonly 

assumed to drive designs. For products designed in groups, 

this means the organizing structures used to facilitate 

coordination during the design process have a substantive 

effect on the content of design”. 

In fact, one of the primary intents of organizing structures 

is the control of how decisions are made. Being so, 

it should be taken into account the implications of 

different types of organizing structures used to manage 

design practice. 

74 

The general business trend since the nineties indicates 

a progress towards flat, low-hierarchical organizational 

structures that are based upon self managing teams 

(Dumaine, 1990; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) that 

empower members to assert their own expertise when 

needed. These structureless models make decision 

making in groups more complex, especially when 

it comes to relevant design decisions – such as the 

innovative definition of a product – that most often 

lay on subjective arguments based on incomplete 

information, ill-defined judgments and personally-held 

values. 

In such low hierarchical structures the role of leadership 

assumes a particular value. Relevant work regarding 

this topic is the one developed by Birgit Jevnaker (2000) 

based on case-studies observation, literature analysis, 

research studies and interviews. She sustains that design 

must be championed, being that role “an education 

process that works best if it comes from a variety of internal 

and external sources” (p. 26). Jevnaker (2000) gathered 

evidence that “Design Management is also about leadership 

and human interaction” (p.26), being leadership significant 

when design becomes a more prominent component of 

management. 

In fact, behind the best cases of design management - 

such as the work of Peter Behrens in AEG or the case of

Charles Eames at American Herman Miller – it happened 

that individuals “acted as persistent design promoters, 

providing the design leadership essential to connect and 

support design expertise to the particular corporate wisdom 

and core competencies in place (…) Design championing is 

a dyadic process rather then one excellent person, and it is 

fuelled by more than one entrepreneurial persona”(Jevnaker, 

2000, p. 28). 

The design-capable organizations, in the words of 

Jevnaker, depend upon many organizing activities 

that enable them to nurture constructive design 

developments in firms. 

Table 3 presented below is elucidative of the actions 

underlying design capabilities. 

75 

Table 3 | Relationship between Design 

Capacities and Leadership Activities. 

Source: Birgit H. Jevnaker (2000, p. 29) 




Observing Table 3 it is clear that design intervention is 

broad and anchored on business strategy, thereby being 

indispensable the validation of design as a strategic 

area of the business that must be correctly valued and 

explored. 

In fact Kristensen (1998, p.219) noticed that “design was 

still an embryonic field since it was not clear under what 

circumstances a successful and differentiated design approach 

could be adopted or generated by business firms”. 

In addition to that, from research studies such as the 

one of Dougherty (1992, p. 200), it is possible to assess 

“how design integration can be impeded in manifold ways by 

divisional structures and routines, as well as by the dominance 

of a core group of expertise or by interpretive barriers.” 

76 

Furthermore Nevado et al (2008, p. 9) suggest that 

“Designers represent the competences best placed within 

the company to act as a mobilizing force for projects for the 

development, monitoring and implementation of new ideas. 

The responses of companies to appeals from the market are 

many and touch on different areas of knowledge. Therefore it 

is necessary for somebody to know how to coordinate all of 

this knowledge of different specialties and different strategic 

involvement and make the intangible into something 

tangible.” 

The reality is that, nowadays, business management 

is confronted with complex and rapidly changing 

opportunities and threats within a global and digitalized 

economy. So, as Jevnaker (2000,p. 33) states “in face of 

the exposed how can leaders foster a design leadership that 

may help gain and sustain a competitive advantage? (…) in 

such a competitive context it is important to facilitate not 

only the introduction of a professional design approach in 

firms, but also to identify how creative leadership can foster 

a more dynamic design capability – that is, an ability to sense 

and respond in a timely way to new opportunities that can 

create and capture new values”. 

Jevnaker (2000, p. 34) also proposes that, in practice, 

that dynamic capability can be fostered if the leadership 

assumes four key aspects that are summarized in Figure 19.

Dual Entrepreneurial Design/Business Championing – 

The importance of a design ambassador to lever design 

within a firm is one of the first lessons learned by the 

analysis of all the design-related literature. It implies 

courageous moves by both sides (the managerial and 

the design one) being difficult to point out which side 

is most essential in terms of the creation of the new 

design relationship. In addition, says Jevnaker (2000, p. 

34), “we need the dual champion-related terms to appreciate 

the skillful opportunity finding and the vital advocacy of the 

best available design directions.” 

Fostering creative collaboration in experiments, projects 

and relationships – dedicate and keep resources in 

design development tactic. Once initiated the process of 

reciprocal and collaborative actions the start of a longterm 

design relationship is established. (For example 

IDEO invites new clients into brainstorming session of 

a five-day “deep-dive” workshop in addition to regular 

presentations and interim meetings). 

Triggering person-committing movements – this third 

point refers to “the combined element of skilful action and 

charismatic engagement” (p. 34). (One example of that is 

what happened with the hired industrial designer Roy 

Fig.19 | Four leadership processrelated 

aspects identified as key in 

design championing. Source: Jevnaker, 

2000, p. 34 

77 




Tandberg, from the Tvengsberg consultancy, when 

he wanted to set up his own design business. At that 

moment, the technical director of Tomra invited him. 

This suggestion leads to Tomra’s internal but partly 

independent, design consultant, a hybrid solution that 

leads to a triggering dynamic between internal and 

partly external resources). 

Providing an accumulation of design values – Jevnaker 

(2000) notices that “as demonstrated by IBM, continued 

design investments by firms and designers can accumulate 

visible outcomes, as well as experiential and tacit knowledge. 

The latter can be distributed on three continents and when 

combined, can create momentum”. 

These studies and reflections reveal the vital and 

specific importance of human capital to overall design 

integration. 

3.2 Design Processes inside the Firms 

78 

Design processes inside the firms can be seen as Mozota 

(2003) proposes, at three level, the strategic one, the 

tactical (management) and the operational one (see 

table 4). Design processes get facilitated through the 

company’s enablers. Walton (2003, apud Nieminen et al, 

2005, p.29) defines the term ” ‘Enabler’ as ‘something with 

suitable power, means, opportunity and authority to achieve 

a specific result of action’.” 

Table 4 | Operational, Tactic and 

Strategic Levels of Design (source 

Mozota p.259). 

Enablers concern design usage in companies that have 

not a particular way of being organized. Enablers depend

79 

in a very close way upon the company’s drivers. The 

drivers of a company are its characteristics and factors in 

business environment that affect both the organization 

and the content of design strategies. According to 

Nieminen et al (2005) study the most important drivers 

for design usage are the maturity and velocity of the 

industry, customer type, and the size of the company. 

At the three different stages there are specific decisionmaking 

levels of design along with different designer’s 

participation in decision making and furthermore 

distinct expected results. 

Figure 20 presents the evaluation model of strategic 

impacts of design developed by Nieminen et al (2005, 

p. 30) that focus on the enablers at the three referred 

levels. 

As it can be observed in Figure 20 the type and 

complexity of design decision making depends upon 

several relevant factors and areas of knowledge that 

interact with it at different stages. 

Fig.20 | Enablers in the Evaluation 

Model for Strategic Impacts of Design. 

Source: Nieminen et al, 2005, p. 30 




Organizing the design process inside a company is 

therefore challenging. As Cooper and Press (1995) 

referred the extent to which design is seen as an 

individual creative activity or as a corporate planning 

process depends upon company characteristics such as 

company size, the complexity of its production system 

and the nature of both the corporate and national 

cultures. 

In addition, as Nieminen et al (2005, p. 30) pointed out: 

80 

“external drivers have an impact; for instance, in highvelocity 

industries, companies need to be able to react fast 

to new trends (product features, colour, etc.) and develop 

matching products. Therefore, there is an immense need for 

organizing the design process – the time for experimentation 

is limited and the focus is on the exploitation of accumulated 

design knowledge. Moreover, production constraints affect 

the organization of the design process: a high-technology 

product requires tight co-operation with other functional 

departments, and the designer cannot work in isolation. 

Fluent cross-functional communication is important in any 

case.” 

Nieminen et al (2005) considerations bring out the 

mediation role of design since it must cooperate with 

other functional areas inside the firms. That relationship 

can be either formal or informal, the separation of tasks 

can be precise or loosely defined and the work can be 

organized either sequentially or members of different 

functions can be organized in project teams. 

Under these circumstances the role and impact of 

design activity in business is diverse and the designer’s 

responsibilities and their role in decision making are a 

crucial issue. 

According to Nieminen et al (2005, p. 45) “The right 

timing by effective scheduling of decision-making procedure 

minimizes the need for time-consuming corrective actions 

in the idea-to-markets process. The company’s reactivity 

under risky conditions is extremely important: for the 

competitiveness and risks, it is better if the company can 

make the decisions later in the process. Strategic planning 

and a well-timed decision-making procedure reduce delaying 

corrections and renewals.”

3.3 Strategic adequacy and decision making 

The understanding of what strategic design usage 

means was reflected by Nieminen et al (2005, p. 74) that 

questioned it in this way: “Does it mean that design usage 

should be increased, planned in the longer horizon, or that 

designers participate in strategic decision-making?“. 

To ensure the strategic design usage it is central that 

the three different levels of design intervention are 

coherently linked. As Nieminem et al (2005, p.75) put 

forward “It is vital that the operative level has direct contacts 

with strategic decision making to assure that set decisions 

remain and that information arising in the operative level will 

be utilized in strategy development. In addition, there has to 

be design competence both at strategic and operative levels 

in order to assure that design usage supports the company’s 

strategic goals. “ 

Furthermore, as stressed by several representatives of the 

case companies’ operative levels (Nieminen et al, 2005, 

p. 75) it is very important to have “adequate, competent 

design resources to support internal argumentation in 

decision making during the whole project.” 

Also pertinent to the strategic design usage is the 

designer’s influence in the vision and strategic 

development that was designed by Nieminen et al 

(2005, p. 75) as it is presented in Figure 21. 

Fig.21 |Designers’ possibilities to 

influence strategy development. 

Source: Nieminen et al, 2005, p.75. 

81 




Figure 21 presents four different levels of design 

influence in strategic terms. They are: 

A - Possible design inputs to strategic decision making, 

namely by means of future visions and scenarios. This is 

a possibility of design information to support strategic 

decision making. As found out in Nieminen et al (2005) 

study it is crucial to have a direct flow of information 

and market research conducted from the design 

perspective; 

B – Participation in strategic decision making, because 

as stressed by Nieminen et al (2005, p. 75) “ When there is 

no design representative in strategic decision making but the 

company relies on the design competence of the management, 

there is a risk that design decisions are prolonged and the 

significance of design is not adequately stressed. Centralizing 

the design authority brings order but heterogenic evaluation 

has also benefits – discussions and conflicts may also be 

fruitful and increase management’s design competence and 

commitment.” 

82 

C - Influencing the design briefing, by means of creating 

concepts based on a slackly defined design brief, the 

strategy is ‘emergent’ instead of intentionally controlled; 

In Nieminen et al study the case companies considered 

the design brief and evaluation as the most important 

ways of improving the design usage. “The case companies 

emphasized the role of design in creating a concrete and 

unambiguous interpretation to strengthen and fasten the 

decision-making process.” (Nieminen et al, 2005, p. 75) 

D - Influencing design evaluation, given that design 

evaluation includes many subjective issues, being 

essential that the company decides the degree of trust 

it places in a designer’s foresight. Besides, as Nieminen 

et al (2005, p.76) stated “Leaving the designer outside the 

design evaluation is contradictory to the initial choice of 

investing in design. If design solutions are not justified, there 

is a risk that they may be neglected. The research showed that 

when a designer is able to justify design solutions based on 

the given goals and constraints, decision-making becomes 

easier.” 

Affecting also the degree of participation in strategy 

and vision development decision making is the role

of design as a competitive edge. Nieminen et al (2005, 

p.76) reinforce this idea stating: “the greater the design’s 

significance was perceived, the better were designers’ chances 

to influence, especially in briefing and evaluation of design”. 

Figure 22 illustrates how designers’ influence on strategy 

development increases in parallel with the perceived 

importance of design in the company up to a point 

where design is of such grand significance that the 

requests of organizational design competence begin to 

outshine the designers’ influence. 

Michel (2007, p.34), that developed a diagnostic tool to 

help leaders to understand the decision making culture 

and routines in their organizations, recognizes that “(…) 

CEOs 33 really want to know where specifically their systems 

are already supporting at scale the development of good 

judgment, creativity, discipline and rigor of thought, and 

where specific changes and investments need to be made.” 

In the view of Michael (2007, p. 34) “Formal decision-making 

practices are a competitive advantage. They can not walk 

away, and they can not be copied easily (…)”. Furthermore 

as acknowledged by Hammond et al (1999) decisionmaking 

can not be measured directly. Being formalized 

it gets effortless to do it since criteria can be established 

and information can be accessed easily. 

Figure 22 | Designers’ influence in 

strategy development in the case 

companies. Source: Nieminen, 2005, 

p.76 

33. See Acronymous 

83 




Fig.23 | Decision making Balance 

Scorecard (Michel, 2007, p.37) 

84 

Fig.24 | Decision making Balance 

Scorecard nine principles (Michel, 

2007, p.40) 

In fact to measure decision making there are three 

possible approaches: a) The result of good quality 

decisions as content (Yates et al, 2002) or organizational 

performance; b) The use of formal decision-making 

practices and how they create leadership team alignment 

(Kopeikina, 2005) and c) The quality of the underlying 

practices as the standards of formal decision making. 

In order to understand how decision making creates 

values in organizations Michel (2007, p.36) created the 

decision making balance scorecard presented in Figure 

23. Michel has selected fourteen distinct metrics to 

address how well the processes, practices and principles

85 

generate rigor in decision making, and to measure how 

well the systems are employed to convey the expected 

performance. 

When assessing Michel’s Scorecard it is necessary to 

know that scores greater than 75 indicate decision 

making competences that are well developed and that 

have the impending to deliver performance, decrease 

risks or fuel growth. Scores between 55 and 74 designate 

decision making capabilities that entail enhancement. 

These capabilities are about industry average. Scores 

below 54 signify decision making capacities that do not 

convey value. 

Figure 24 presents the scorecard combining nine 

principles that can be activated through various control 

levers. The ultimate goal is to ensure that decision 

balance the various trade-offs. 

A brief explanation of these nine principles its levers and 

benefits is done in Table 5. 

Table 5 | Using the Scorecard to 

address control levers (Michel, 2007, 

p.40) 




The possibility of having a Balanced Scorecard that is 

built up having a focus on decision making is that it 

makes easier to see how design process can contribute 

to the overall business strategy. In fact it presents the 

possibility of establishing it as a common tool shareable 

both by the managers and the designers. In that way it 

can be seen as a bridging tool being decision making 

the shared, ‘language’ . 

SUMMARY OF THE STRATEGIC ADEQUACY OF 

DESIGN PROCESSES 

The strategic adequacy of design processes was defined 

as an operational concept central to this research. 

It assumes that the design outcomes must contribute to 

brand consolidation, firm’s reputation and to the success 

of the overall strategy of the business. That implies 

Design to be seen as a strategic resource in Business. 

86 

From literature on this topic it is possible to assert the 

positive impacts of Design in the performance of forms. 

However, despite the strategic importance of design 

there are several problems in its consistent use on the 

part of the firms. That has to do with a few aspects such 

as: 1) the conceptual and organizational diffuseness of 

design; 2) the variety of attitudes and strategies, on the 

part of firms, towards design; 3) the phenomena of ‘silent 

design’ (Dumas and Mintzberg, 2000); 4) the leadership 

role of design. 

On the other hand, it is important to consider the three 

levels of design processes inside firms: the operational, 

the tactic and the strategic one. 

The approach to design process in our study is focused 

essentially on the operational level but considering 

its impact and relationship with the other two levels. 

Furthermore the focus is placed in decision making and 

that gave us the opportunity to present some traditional 

business tools such as the Balanced ScoreCard as a 

promising tool in decisional processes since it promotes 

a better understanding of Design’s place in Business for 

both the managers and the designers.


BORJA DE MOZOTA, B. 1985. Essai sur la fonction du design et son 

rôle dans la stratégie marketing de l’entreprise, Université de Paris I 

Panthéon Sorbonne. 

Design Council. 2004. The impact of Design on Stock Market 

Performance: An Analysis of UK Quoted Companies 1994-2003. 

[Accessed 19 April 2007]. 

Design Council. 2005. The Business of Design: Design Industry 

Research 2005. Available:http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/Design- 

Council/3/Publications/?PageNum=2 [Accessed 19 April 2007]. 

DOUGHERTY, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product 

innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), pp.179-202. 

DUMAINE, B. 1990. Who needs a boss? Fortune. Time Inc’s Fortune/ 

Money Group. 

DUMAS, A., WHITEFIELD, A. 1989b. Why design is difficult to manage: 

A survey of attitudes and practices in British industry European 

Management Journal, 7(1), pp.50-56. 

GORB, P., DUMAS, A. 1987. Silent Design. 8(3), pp.150-156. 

HAMMOND, J., KEENEY, J., RAIFFA, H. 1999. Smart Choices: A Practical 

Guide to Making Better Decisions, Boston, MA, Harvard Business 

School Press. 

HERTENSTEIN, J., PLATT, M., BROWN, D. 2001. Valuing Design: 

enhancing corporate performance through design effectiveness. 

Design Management Journal, 12(3), pp.10-19. 

JEVNAKER, B. 2000. Championing design: perspectives on design 

capabilities. Design Management Journal; Academic Review,1, pp.25-39. 

JEVNAKER, B. 2000b. How design becomes strategic. Design 

Management Journal, 11(1), pp.41-47. 

KATZENBACH, J., SMITH, D. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the 

High-Performance Organization, Boston, Harvard Business School 

Press. 

KOPEIKINA, L. 2005. The Right Decision Every Time: How To Reach 

Perfect Clarity on Though Decisions, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice- 

Hall. 

KOTLER, P., RATH, G. 1984. Design: a powerful but neglected strategic 

tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), pp.16-21. 

KRISTENSEN, T. 1998. The Contribution of Design to Business: 

A competence-based perspective. In: BRUCE, M., JEVNAKER, B. 

(EDS) (ed.) Management of Design Alliance. Sustaining Competitive 

Advantage. Chichester: Wiley 

MICHEL, L. 2007. Understanding decision making in organizations 

to focus its practices where it matters. Measuring Business Excellence, 

11(1), pp.33-45. 

MOODY, S. 1984. The Role of Industrial Design in the Development 

of New Science based Products. In: LANGDON, R. (ed.) Design and 

Industry. London: The Design Council 

87 




88 

NEVADO, P., BARATA, J., ALMENDRA, R., ROMÃO, L. 2008. The “Igloo 

Model”: A proposal for an analysis of the contribution of design to 

the competitiveness of companies. ICAM - 15th Annual International 

Conference on Advances in Management. Hyatt Harborside 

Hotel,Boston. 

NIEMINEN, T., LAUTAMAKI, S., SALIMAKI, M. 2005. Modelling 

the Strategic Impacts of Design in Businesses. Helsinki: UIAH/ 

Designium. 

OWENS, D. 2000. Structure and status in design teams: implications 

for design management. Design Management Journal, Academic 

Review, 1(1), pp.55-64. 

POTTER, S., ROY, R., CAPON, C., BRUCE, M., WALSH, V., LEWIS, J. 1991. 

The Benefits and Costs of Investment in design: using professional 

design expertise in product, engineering and graphics projects. 

Design Innovation Group, Milton Keynes: The Open University and 

UMIST. 

PRESS, M., COOPER, R. 2003. The Design Experience – the Role of Design 

and Designers in the Twenty-first Century, UK, Ashgate. 

RIEDEL, J., ROY, R., POTTER, S. 1996. Market Demands that Reward 

Investment in Design. 8th International Forum on Design Management 

Research and Education. Barcelona. 

ROY, R., POTTER, S. 1993. The commercial impact of investment in 

design. Design Studies, 14(2), pp.171-193. 

ROY, R., RIEDEL, J., POTTER, S. 1998. Market Demands that Reward 

Investment in Design (MADRID): Final Report submitted to the 

Design Council. Design Innovation Group, Milton Keynes: The Open 

University. 

ROY, R., SALAMAN, G., WALSH, V. 1986. Research Grant Final Report, 

Design-based Innovation in manufacturing Industry. Principles 

and Practices for Successful Design and Production. Milton Keynes: 

Design Innovation Group, Open University. 

SENTENCE, A., CLARKE, J. 1997. The Contribution of Design to the 

UK Economy. In: COUNCIL, D. (ed.). London: Centre for Economic 

Forecasting, London Business School. 

SVENGREN, L. Year. Industrial Design as a Strategic Resource. In: The 

European Academy of Design, 11-13 April 1995 University of Salford 

WALSH, V. 1995. The evaluation of design. International Journal of 

Technology Management, 10(4/5/6), pp.489-509. 

WALSH, V. 2000. Design, Innovation and the Boundaries of the Firm. 

Design Management Journal, Academic Review, pp.174-92. 

WALTON, M. 2003. Building a case for added value though design. 

Report to Industry New Zealand. Wellington: NZ Institute of Economic 

Research (Inc.). 

YATES, J., VEINOTT, E., PATALAN, A. 2002. Hard Decisions, Bad 

Decisions: on Decision Quality and Decision Aiding. In: SCHNEIDER, 

S., SHANTEAU, J. (EDS.) (ed.) Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and 

Decision Research. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

4. QUALITY AND DESIGN PROCESSES 

The quality of the design outcomes is essential since 

it enhances the possibility of the product’s success 

in markets. On the past 30 years several quality 

systems were developed having its origins either in 

the management field or in the engineering one. The 

most known is probably Total Quality Management 

(TQM) approach (Deming, 1986,1993; Feignbaum, 1951; 

Ishikawa, 1982,1985; Juran, 1995,2004; and Taguchi, 

1984) that seeks to integrate all the elements of an 

organization in order to meet the needs and expectations 

of its customers. 

Also in the field of design management the quality topic 

was addressed. Peter Gorb assessed its importance and 

(1991, p. 74) described it in the following words: 

“Quality is usually measured and controlled in three ways: 

a) by inspecting at the end of the process (…); b) by an 

attitude among the people concerned in manufacture (…) 

(that) place quality at the forefront of their thinking during 

the manufacturing process (…) Quality circles and related 

organizations systems fall in this category and c) by ensuring 

that specification itself is developed in such a way that it 

becomes very difficult not to meet that specification. All of 

these ways of dealing with quality have their place and none 

is mutually exclusive. Nevertheless the third one contributes 

the most effective route – it shifts the problems of controlling 

quality to a point in the process before manufacture (…)The 

fact is that it is generally recognized that it is better designing 

quality into a product than inspecting it out.” 

Moreover and according to Mozota (2003, p. 77) “(…) 

design and design management can be measured and 

improved by total quality methods. (…) design processes 

optimize total quality, and methods are developed to measure 

perceived quality, which is then incorporated in total quality 

management methods. (…) Designers contribute to creating 

perceived quality.” 

Quality is then a key part of design processes which 

specifically contributes to the quality of the end products 

that can be experienced at different levels. 

The quality of design, being a way of validating the 

outcomes of design processes, was one of the first issues 

89 

CHAPTER II - THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK | 4. QUALITY AND DESIGN PROCESSES


to be addressed in this study. In fact the researcher 

(2008, p. 1) tried to follow the backwards trajectory (in 

terms of quality) from the “end product” to the “designed 

product”. That way it was thought to be feasible to put 

forward and assess possible components of quality 

in a design process so that designed quality could be 

reached through materialized quality. The developed 

framework of quality analysis is presented in the next 

pages. 

4.1 From Total Product Quality to Product 

Designed Quality 

90 

Henry Stoll (1999, p. 22) proposed that “each design 

decision contributes in some way to the quality of the end 

product.” Hence, the concept of total quality is broken 

down so that the designer can clearly and systematically 

focus on quality as an objective that structures the 

design throughout the creation process. Stoll’s total 

quality system envisages the subdivision of the total 

quality of the product design into: a) the quality of the 

product design as a finished product and b) the quality 

of the product design as a process referring only to end 

products and not specifically to quality of the design of 

the product. 

Therefore it was made an effort to follow the process 

from the “finished product” to the ‘product design’ from 

which it originates in order to identify and describe the 

components that can characterize quality in its different 

facets and at different points in time. This way hopefully 

it will become more clear the contexts and constraints 

of ‘designing quality’. 

4.1.1. Total Product Quality 

Total product quality as proposed by Stoll (1999) can 

be divided into external quality and internal quality; the 

former refers to how the products satisfy the consumers 

whereas the latter relates to the quality achieved in 

product production.

The external quality of a product depends on consumers’ 

perception and their evaluation of its value and this is 

one of marketing’s privileged areas of intervention. 

The internal quality of a product qualifies the product’s 

performance and capacities in terms of manufacturing 

and it is the focus of the production engineers’ special 

attention. 

As can be seen in Figure 25, external quality can be 

subdivided into: 

A – quality of the concept, which concerns the 

performance, product features, aesthetic and ergonomic 

questions, in other words, the aspects which make the 

product desirable to the end consumer and make him 

acquire it. 

B – quality of ownership, namely the experience that the 

user has as a result of owning and using the product. 

The criteria that determine this quality are: ease of use, 

cost of operation (measurement of ease of use, safety 

and economics), durability (material-related, involving 

a trade-off between manufacture costs and operational 

costs) reliability, service orientation, maintenance, the 

condition of the product when purchased, and client 

service. This kind of quality should give rise to repeat 

business and client satisfaction. It is closely linked to 

the company’s reputation and can be achieved for 

example by: a) identifying all defects that may occur; 

b) anticipating the likelihood of defects occurring; c) 

implementing corrective action to prevent or reduce the 

probability of occurrences. Conditions must therefore 

be created for easy repairs and the product structure 

must be determined by questions related to improved 

conditions for assembly and dismantling and ease of 

maintenance, etc. 

C – Operational robustness, which characterizes the 

product’s capacity to tolerate changes in variables 

that are difficult to control and that affect the working 

of the product. There may be three kinds of variables: 

a)variables linked to the environment in which the 

product is used: temperature, humidity, input of voltage 

dust, external load, type of use; b)variables resulting 

from changes and degradation that occur over time 

and/or use of the product: loss of strength due to 

corrosion, deterioration caused by high temperatures, 

91 



92 

Fig.25 | From Total Product Quality to 

Total Design Quality (Almendra, 2008) 

change of calibration or adjustment of slack; c)variables 

that occur due to product-to-product variation, though 

manufactured with the same specification: variation in 

the size of the parts, calibration levels resulting from the 

manufacturing process. 

Maximizing operational robustness involves the 

development of a robust conceptual design, optimizing 

the setting of parameters and the setting of specifications, 

and tolerances. 

In what concerns internal quality, as can be seen from 

Figure 25, this one is subdivided into:

D – Producibility which refers to the ease of 

manufacturing, assembly, inspection and testing of a 

product and also includes considerations regarding 

the available supply of components, raw materials and 

resources for production; the clarity and simplicity of 

detailed information supporting the manufacture of 

the product is also implicit. A producible design is one 

that is suitable to the quantity required in accordance 

with production planning and one where trade-offs can 

be made in order to optimize costs in minimum time, 

and one where conformity with the set specifications is 

acceptable. A high level of producibility raises the internal 

quality by reducing the complexity of manufacturing. 

Producibility can be maximized by: a) identifying design 

concepts that are intrinsically easy to manufacture 

and have a good cost/time balance; b) focusing on the 

design of components so as to simplify manufacture 

and assembly; c) integrating the product design and the 

manufacturing process to assure the best articulation 

between needs and requirements. 

E – Conformity which refers to the extent to which a 

product or component conforms to the design aim 

– where the aim is the intended value or target value 

of the characteristic. The specifications of widths or 

tolerances are essential and, in order to improve the 

conformity quality, the product must be designed so 

that it is possible to use extensive width specification 

measurements; very easy to control and extremely 

repetitive processes are used. 

F – Robustness of manufacturing which means the 

manufacturing system’s capacity to tolerate alterations 

in the product and in its volume of production resulting 

from changes in market needs, business needs and 

technological innovation. The aim is to minimize the 

consequences on capital and time invested, incurred due 

to indispensable changes. A product with a high level 

of manufacturing robustness can be rapidly adapted to 

market changes with a minimum impact on production 

operations and investment. To improve manufacturing 

robustness, the designers should study and plan for the 

future five or six generations of the product anticipating 

probable changes. 

93 



The researcher approach explored the relationship 

between the quality of the design of the product and 

the quality of the product itself; this occurs insofar as 

guaranteed quality of the design reduces the risk of a 

lack of quality or decline in the quality of the design’s 

end result i.e. the end product. It is therefore essential 

that the design works on all the components of total 

product quality in advance and incorporates them into 

the initial statement of the problem. 

As such, (Figure 25) part of the total quality of the design 

is determined by its capacity to assume itself as the 

complete response to total product quality. One of the 

components of the quality of the design is therefore 

defined; in other words, its direct implication in the 

product quality, defined here as its internal component, 

is the element that promotes interface with the end 

product. 

94 

The second component of the design quality, referred 

in Figure 25 as the external quality of the design, 

characterizes specific aspects of the design, its process, 

what forms it, its presentations and communicative 

capacities etc. 

Which criteria should be defined to determine the 

external quality of a product design? 

Which aspects of the design contribute directly to this 

external quality? 

Should the design be characterised as a “finished 

product” in itself which could be evaluated in terms of 

quality, or, alternatively, should we focus on the design 

process to characterise and assess external quality? 

Just as with the part of the diagram that shows the 

components of total product quality, if the design is taken 

as an ‘end product’, it is possible to devise an external 

quality – based on client-related aspects and included 

above all in the sphere of graphic/communication 

design – and an internal quality – based on the technical 

aspects of the production of the product itself.

4.1.2 The Design outcome as an end product 

Internal Quality of the Design 

A - The internal quality of the design concerns the 

suitability of the design to the product as a response to 

all its total quality components. 

It therefore includes considerations related both 

to aspects involving the design’s incorporation of 

elements/response to the quality of the concept, 

ownership and operational robustness and also 

contents/responses related to the producibility, 

conformity and manufacturing robustness. A design 

with high internal quality is also one that strategically fits 

the business goals, optimising the creation, introduction 

and continuation of a product in the market in terms of 

costs, time, manufacture and human capital. 

The design’s internal quality can be maximised by: a) 

The correct identification of the components of the 

total product quality; b) The correct assumption and 

integration in the company strategy; c) The design that 

responds to the organisational contexts – human and 

material resources – from the very first phase; d) The 

integration of the design, manufacture process and 

product so as to assure greater articulation between 

needs and requirements. 

External Quality of the Design 

The external quality of the design relates to aspects of 

interaction with the client and is placed above all in the 

sphere of graphic/communication design. It includes 

three aspects, namely: 

B – The quality of the communicative interaction which 

refers to the design’s capacity to trigger interaction 

with all those involved in the design process, in other 

words, all the stakeholders implicated in the design 

value chain. This involves the potential to visually and 

verbally stimulate intervention so as to guarantee the 

total understanding of the ideas, contexts, concepts and 

technical solutions which make up the product design. It 

concerns competence to balance the synthesis and the 

development of the parts, thereby triggering proactive 

questioning that fosters critical thought and the growth 

95 



96 

34. Darrel Rhea (1992) phases 

of the design experience model 

integrate: a) the context that has 

to do with the social and cultural 

background of each new design. It 

includes the people behaviour, life 

patterns, cultural issues, beliefs 

as well as all the products and 

innovations that help moulding 

that context. b) involvement a phase 

related with the acknowledgement 

of the product on the part of the 

customer. It has to do with the 

development of at least three 

tasks: the development of the 

awareness of a distinctive presence 

of the product, the attraction 

and maintenance of interest on 

the part of the customer and 

finally the communication of the 

key attributes of the product; 

c) use - the phase where the 

product is used and integrates 

a life experience on the part of 

the customer. The experience 

must deliver pleasure and fit with 

the life of the customer and d) 

resolution, a phase related with 

the lasting impression of the 

product with the reflection on its 

experiencing that should conduct 

to the satisfaction of the customer 

in order for him to integrate a new 

cycle of design experience. 

of knowledge about the product and its implications 

at the “cycle of experience“ level proposed by Darrel 

Rhea (1992, p. 12) that foresees four phases : context; 

involvement; use and resolution 34 . It can be maximised if 

a culture of communication and information-sharing is 

fostered and if channels and precise tools are developed 

for recording and inquiry that are in the common use of 

all those involved and are activated at key moments of 

the processes. 

C – the quality of communication, namely the design’s 

communication capacities in verbal and visual terms. 

It characterises the capacity of design and writing, of 

coherent visual and verbal meaning through the use 

of different means of communication. It is related with 

the creation of sign systems of the six communicative 

functions referred by Clive Ashwin (1989, pp. 203-209) as: 

a) referential – objective communication, use of standard 

codifications -, b) emotive – emotive communication 

that tries to trigger subjective responses of an emotional 

nature -, c) conative – communication that tries to 

persuade the receiver to respond and act in a specific way -, 

d) poetic – communicates in a way that is intrinsically 

self justifying - , e) phatic – communication that does not 

seek the recording or communication of information but 

has the purpose of starting, maintaining or concluding 

the communication - and f) meta-linguistic – created 

in order to explain other signs e.g. caption; these are 

combined at different levels depending on the kind of 

representation and/or of the written document. 

The quality of communication can be maximised if 

competences are developed in communicative design 

and if a communicative strategy is defined for the 

design, which take the six communicative functions 

into consideration and anticipate its effective use and 

incidence. 

D– The operational quality which is related to the 

ease and clarity that accompany the verbal and visual 

dismantling of the design. This concerns the use of the 

elements that make up the design and characterises 

its capacity to integrate the diversity of information 

and the multiple forms of communicating. It is also 

linked to the design’s ability to transform complex

information, maximising consultation of it through the 

use of diagrams, matrixes, figures and other forms of 

abbreviated information and analytical support. This 

quality enables reading time to be reduced and simplifies 

the interpretation of the elements of the design. 

This quality can be tested using what Press and Cooper 

(2003, p. 145) call the “silent test” in which the design 

is presented without verbal explanations; if it has 

operational quality there should be perfect harmony 

between the interpretation of the brief made by the 

designer and the set of intentions expressed by the 

clients. 

The operational quality can be maximised if the qualities 

of communicative interaction and communication are 

correctly articulated. 

4.1.3 The Process as a component of Total 

Design Quality 

Considering the etymological definition of Process, 

which comes from the Latin procedere, it is to assume 

that a verb designates the action of advancing, moving 

ahead. As such, the prominent idea is one of progress, 

of making a positive advance; the idea is also of a series 

of steps or actions that formalise this ‘progression’. In 

fact, most processes are no more than a set of (usually 

sequential and with recurrent iteration) pondered 

actions aimed at reaching a specific target. 

It is also important to consider that the process 

concept is associated to actions of creation, planning, 

transformation, production, control, maintenance and 

use of products and systems. 

In the design as a process (Figure 25) there are several 

descriptors of quality and they are linked to the 

management of: a) communication (information and 

knowledge as it is managed internally and between the 

different parties); b) decision making (uncertainty, risk); 

c) resources (human, material, immaterial – ideas, time; 

etc) d) design of the process (stages, links, decisions) 

and f) creation of the strategic contents. 

97 



98 

In terms of external quality of the design as a process we 

considered three components that relate the process 

with the outside. They are: 

A - The quality of communication which, in exactly the 

same way as in the design as a final product, is linked to 

the design’s communication capacity in verbal and visual 

terms but which also refers to the mechanisms that are 

developed so that the information and knowledge is 

managed between the different agents effectively and 

throughout the process. It can be maximized through 

the correct management of information and with the 

creation of mechanism for the dissemination and control 

of vital information. 

B - Strategic quality, which involves the articulation 

between the different areas involved in the process 

bearing in mind the company’s planning, formulation 

and strategic implementation. It can be maximized 

if there is a translation in terms of the process of the 

strategy, product/market matrix, internationalisation 

and diversification. This translation foresees an 

alignment of the process with the formulated strategy 

and a connection with all the operational, support and 

strategic areas implicit at the different points in time in 

the defence of this same strategy. 

C - Quality of resources, mainly: a) human – where 

the evaluation of the leadership in design is of great 

importance notably in what Turner and Topalian 

(2002) defines as ‘leadership by Design’, the sustained 

leadership of Design over time, and the gaining 

of knowledge through the intervention of Design. 

According to these authors, the responsibilities of 

leadership can be summarised in six activities: vision of 

the future; manifestation of strategic intent; direction 

of design investment; management of the company 

reputation; creation and feeding of an environment 

of innovation and training for leadership in design. b) 

material – besides striving for the physical quality of the 

materials, this also strives for the design of specifications 

and conformity, thereby assuring the quality of the end 

product. c) immaterial – this quality is linked with the 

way the knowledge produced and used on the basis of 

ideas, brand reputation etc is managed and directed.

It also includes time and the way this is managed 

throughout the process. 

In terms of the internal quality of the design as a process 

there were defined two components that relate to the 

nature, form and substance of the process. These are: 

A - The quality of the design of the process, which can be 

determined by the internal coherence of the process, 

by the definition of the stages that can be flexibly 

managed and the capacity to absorb change, adaption, 

the dissemination of the key elements that structure the 

design. It should also include a system that can envisage 

review and control, anticipate mistakes and integrate the 

adoption of corrective measures and the incorporation 

of forms of active records. 

B - Quality of decision making, which is linked to 

reducing risks, managing uncertainty and enhance the 

efficiency of resource’s usage. It can be maximized if a 

comprehensive set of methods and techniques is used 

that incorporate the identification of uncertainties 

and their impacts, their mitigation and exploitation so 

that the negative effects can be reduced and positive 

effects increased, the clarification of future alternatives, 

the construction of risk plans and the construction of 

internal control systems. 

SUMMARY OF QUALITY IN DESIGN PROCESSES 

The quality of the design outcomes is determinant for 

the success of the products. Therefore it is important to 

understand how that quality is built up along design 

process. 

There exist several quality systems developed mainly by 

the areas of Engineering and Management. However, 

these quality systems focus on the end product and not 

on its design. 

What is then ‘designed quality’? 

To answer that question the researcher developed a 

framework to analyse ‘designed quality’. The ‘model’ 

departures from Total product Quality (as it was defined 

99 



by Henri Stoll, 1999) and it is develop trying to address 

the Total Design Quality in a twofold perspective: a) 

the design as a ‘finish product’ and b) the design as ‘a 

process’. 

Regarding the first one, the design as ‘a finish product’, 

two components were considered: a) an internal one 

were design must have the ability to match completely 

all of the eight components of Total Product Quality and 

b) an external one that integrates aspects such as: 1. the 

quality of communicative interaction; 2. the quality of 

communication and 3. the operational quality. 

100 

In what concerns the quality of design as ‘a process’ 

again two components were created: a) an external 

one, that relates directly with the design as a ‘finished 

product’ and that integrates three aspects: 1. the quality 

of communication; 2. the strategic quality and 3. the 

quality of resources and b) the internal component that 

comprehends two aspects: 1. the quality of the design 

of the process (in terms of its coherence and structuring) 

and 2. the quality of decision making. 

With this exploratory work it was aimed to expand the 

awareness about quality to the level of considering not 

only the quality of Product but also the quality of the 

design behind it. 

5. HYPOTHESES OF THE RESEARCH 

After the literature review it was possible to formulate 

the hypotheses of this research. Being an exploratory 

study the hypotheses are justifiable as guidelines of 

an also exploratory evaluation of the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the models and tools created. In fact, 

hypotheses in this approach are assumed as assumptions 

of the researcher that have oriented both the literary 

critics and the experiments contents and its treatment 

and interpretation. 

The design process as previously presented in this chapter 

is seen as a dialogical cycle of question and answer were 

what is questioned are mainly the prejudgments, the 

pre-understandings values and attitudes that the

designers bring to the design situation. This also 

establishes the difference from hermeneutic projection 

and scientific hypothesis as stated by Snodgrass and 

Coyne (1997, p. 93): 

“It would be an error to suppose that hermeneutic projections 

are simply hypotheses, or that the hermeneutical design 

process described in the preceding is nothing other than the 

hypothesis-testing model of designing. The hermeneutical 

circle is wholly different to the process of verification or 

falsification of a hypothesis. The hypothesis, as conceived in 

Positivist methodology, formulates a specific anticipation, 

which is accepted in total or rejected outright on the evidence 

of testing procedures; experience answers the hypothesis 

with a simple yes or no, but in no way alters its content. The 

state of affairs proposed in the hypothesis is existent or nonexistent. 

The hermeneutical anticipation, by contrast, feeds 

back into the particularities of the situation. The anticipation 

is either “fulfilled” or “disappointed”; if fulfilled it enriches the 

particularities, which then play back to enrich the anticipations; 

and if disappointed it likewise places the particularities in 

a new light, opening up new expectations and triggering 

further projections. In either case, whether the projection is 

fulfilled or disappointed, the horizon is enlarged.” 

In fact the logic based models are unfitted to capture 

the contradictory and complex nature of much of the 

designer’s activities. As Snodgrass and Coyne explain 

it (1997, p. 94) “Design actions and design situations make 

up a “text” that can be read. This “reading,” however, can only 

be explained not by reference to some external criterion, but 

to other readings that have reference to a projected whole. 

No argument based solely on logic is relevant in this neverending 

play of interpretive readings.” 

As Gadamer (1975; p. 327) points out: 

“The openness of the question is not boundless. It is limited 

by the horizon of the question. A question which lacks this 

is, so to speak, floating. It becomes a question only when the 

fluid indeterminacy of the direction in which it is pointing 

is overcome by a specific alternative being presented. In 

other words, the question has to be asked. The asking of it 

implies openness, but also limitation. It implies the explicit 

establishing of presuppositions, in terms of which can be seen 

what still remains open.” 

101 

CHAPTER II - THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK | 5. HYPOTHESES OF THE RESEARCH


That means that as Snodgrass and Coyne (1997, p.95) 

mention “the design process is an uncovering of tacit 

understanding, and this hidden understanding is not 

something fixed, crystalline, frozen. It is processual, fluid, in 

incessant flux. (…) Understanding is always in process, and 

this process is unending. It has no endpoint; it can never reach 

finality or completion. We never reach a point where it can be 

said, “Disclosure is complete,” because new understandings 

are ever possible. Interpretation is never at an end. “ 

After making explicit the way hypotheses must be 

understood in this research process it is possible now 

to present it. The main hypotheses or assumptions are 

stated below. 

1. It is possible to identify and describe the major 

determinants intervening in Design Processes that have 

a major influence in the strategic adequacy and overall 

quality of its outcomes. 

2. Knowledge management and idea generation are 

narrowly linked to decision making and influence in 

decisive ways the outcomes of design processes; 

102 

3. The development of analysis models of how decision 

making occurs in design processes can provide a basis to 

the improvement of these processes both at the Design 

Education and Companies levels; 

4. Decision making is a key factor in determining 

strategic adequacy and overall quality of the design 

process’s outcomes. 


ALMENDRA, R. 2008. Reflection on the quality of design: from the 

product to the project. Journal of Design Principles and Practices: an 

international Journal., 2 (1), pp.1-6. 

ASHWIN, C. 1989. Drawing Design Semiotics. In: MARGOLIN, V. (ed.) 

Design Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 

BORJA DE MOZOTA, B. 2003. Design Management. Using Design 

to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation, New York, Allworth 

Press. 

DEMING, W. 1986. Out of the Crisis, MIT Press. 

DEMING, W. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government, 

Education., Cambridge, MA, MIT Centre for Advanced Engineering 

Study.

GADAMER, H.-G. 1975. Truth and Method, London, Sheed and Ward. 

GORB, P. 1990. Design Management, London, Architecture Design 

and Technology Press. 

ISHIKAWA, K. 1982. Introduction to Quality Control, Tokyo, JUSE Press 

Ltd. 

ISHIKAWA, K. 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way., 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall. 

JURAN, J. 1951. Quality Control Handbook, New York, McGraw Hill. 

PRESS, M., COOPER, R. 2003. The Design Experience – the Role of Design 

and Designers in the Twenty-first Century, UK, Ashgate. 

RHEA, D. 1992. A new perspective on design: focusing on customer 

experience. Design Management Journal, 9(4), pp.10-16. 


Architectural Theory Review, Journal of the Department of Architecture, 

2(1), 65-97. 

STOLL, H. 1999. Product Design Methods and Practices, New York, 

Marcel Dekker, Inc. 

TURNER, R., TOPALIAN, A. 2002. Core Responsabilities of Design 

Leaders in Commercially Demanding Environments. Design 

Leadership Forum (Inaugural session). London: Alto Design 

Management. 

103 

CHAPTER II - THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK | 5. HYPOTHESES OF THE RESEARCH


CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY AND METHODS 

1. METHODOLOGIES FOR DESIGN RESEARCH 

The establishment of a methodology to be used in 

a research made in the area of Design requires the 

knowledge of the discipline both in epistemological 

and praxiological terms. 

Regarding the plans and methodologies used in 

Design acknowledging the subjective nature of human 

behaviour as well as the dialoguing nature of design 

processes was recognized since the first instance. As 

Bruce Archer (1979, pp.17-20) proposes it is assumed 

that design has its own distinct things to know, ways of 

knowing them, and ways of finding out about them. 

Being so the methodology and methods to be used in 

Design should embrace this complexity and creativity of 

Design nature and processes. 

104 

35. The major characteristics of 

traditional qualitative research are 

induction, discovery, exploration, 

theory/hypothesis generation, 

the researcher as the primary 

“instrument” of data collection, 

and qualitative analysis. 

36. The major characteristics of 

traditional quantitative research 

are a focus on deduction, 

confirmation, theory/hypothesis 

testing, explanation, prediction, 

standardized data collection, and 

statistical analysis. 

37. Building on Peirce’s lead, James 

(1995, 1907 original) argued 

that “The pragmatic method is 

primarily a method of settling 

metaphysical disputes that 

otherwise might be interminable. 

. . The pragmatic method in such 

cases is to try to interpret each 

notion by tracing its respective 

practical consequences” (p. 18). 

Extending the works of Peirce and 

James, Dewey spent his career 

applying pragmatic principles 

in developing his philosophy 

and in the practice of educating 

children (e.g., the Experimental 

School of Chicago). Dewey (1948, 

1920 original) stated that “in 

order to discover the meaning 

of the idea [we must] ask for 

its consequences” (p. 132. (see 

operational concepts) 

After studying the specialized literature about the 

subject and the one related with Design research 

in general, it becomes clear that the qualitative 

approach 35 bears a fundamental importance in design 

research especially when combined with a quantitative 

approach 36 in what is called a mixed methodology. 

A mixed methodology is what Johnson and 

Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) define as “the class of research 

where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and 

qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, 

concepts or language into a single study.” 

As the authors explain, in philosophical terms, “(…) 

mixed research uses the pragmatic method and system 

of philosophy” 37 . Its logic of inquiry includes the use of 

induction (or discovery of patterns), deduction (testing 

of theories and hypotheses), and abduction (uncovering 

and relying on the best of a set of explanations for 

understanding one’s results)”. So, it suggests an eclectic 

approach to method selection and to the entire 

development and orientation of the research. 

In fact, mixed methods research presents challenges in 

writing the research question and hypotheses since so 

little literature addresses this step of research. Normally

authors make the option of specifying purpose 

statements rather than research questions. However the 

construction of both research question and hypotheses 

in a mixed method study that includes both qualitative 

and quantitative research helps to narrow and focus the 

purpose statements, even when predictions on the basis 

of existing theory can not be made yet. 

Also important to consider is the fact that the Design 

discipline is trying to consolidate its own way of 

researching. Therefore is important to take into account 

the circumstance that “in many cases the goal of mixing 

is not to search for corroboration but rather to expand one’s 

understanding” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004; p. 18) being 

this attitude fundamental to the development of Design 

Research. 

The correctness of the use of a mixed approach implies 

a deep knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of 

both qualitative and quantitative approaches (see Tables 

6 and 7) so researchers as Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 

point out (2004, p.18) can “mix or combine strategies and 

make use of what Johnson and Turner (2003, p.301) call the 

fundamental principle of mixed research. According to this 

principle, researchers should collect multiple data using 

different strategies, approaches, and methods in such a way 

that the resulting mixture or combination is likely to result in 

complementary strengths and non overlapping weaknesses.” 

Also important is to synthesize and get aware of the 

advantages and disadvantages of a mixed approach that 

obviously derive from both qualitative and quantitative 

research characteristics as it can be found in Table 8 

presented in page 108. 

What type of mixed methods research design can be 

used in our study? 

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.20) claim that 

mixed research derive from two major categories known 

as mixed-model (mixing qualitative and quantitative 

approaches within or across the stages of the research 

process) and mixed method (the inclusion of a 

quantitative phase and a qualitative phase in an overall 

research study). “Based upon that classification the authors 

have created six mixed-model designs that are shown in Figure 

105 

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY AND METHODS | 1. METHODOLOGIES FOR DESIGN RESEARCH


106 

Table 6 | Strengths and Weaknesses 

of Quantitative Research - (adapted 

from: Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 

2004, p.19) 

26 (mixed models range from design 2 to design 7). These are 

what the authors refer to as being “across-stage mixed-model 

designs because the mixing takes place across the stages of 

the research process.” 

Regarding the mixed-method designs Figure 27 presents 

nine of them. In respect to these designs it is determinant 

that the researcher at the beginning of the process 

establishes whether she/he wants to operate largely 

within one dominant approach or not and whether s/he 

wants to conduct the research phases concurrently or 

sequentially. As defended by the authors it is possible to 

create more complex designs inclusively also those that 

include both mixed-models and mixed-methods design 

features.

107 

Table 7 | Strengths and Weaknesses of 

Qualitative Research (Source: Johnson 

and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.20) 



108 

Table 8 | Strengths and Weaknesses of 

Mixed Research (Source: Johnson and 

Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.21) 

In the face of the previously presented information 

regarding mixed methods designs Johnson and 

Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 22) advanced a mixed methods 

research model (Figure 28) that comprises eight 

steps: (1) determination of the research question; (2) 

determination of the appropriateness of the mixed 

design; (3) selection of the mixed method or mixedmodel 

research design; (4) collection of the data; (5) 

analysis of the data; (6) interpretation of the data; (7) 

legitimating of the data; and (8) drawing conclusions (if 

warranted) and writing the final report. 

The model assumes that variation can occur regarding 

the order of the steps (i.e., they are not necessarily linear 

or unidirectional), and also assumes that the question

Fig.26 | Monomethod and mixedmodel 

designs. (Source: Johnson and 


109 

and/or purpose can be revised when necessary. Also it 

is visible in the model that we are facing a research that 

involves a recursive interactional process. That recursion 

can occur within a single study but also across related 

studies. That way it can support of future research and 

conducting to new or reformulated research purposes, 

questions and hypotheses. The steps referring to 

purpose (2) data analysis (5) and legitimation (7) are 

central in mixed methods research. 

Fig.27 | Mixed-method design 

matrix with mixed-method 

research designs shown in the 

four cells. (Source: Johnson and 




In what regards the purpose, Greene et al (1989, p. 

259) identified five rationales for conducting mixed 

methods research: a) Triangulation (here assumed as 

a methodological one) that Mackey and Gass defend 

(2005, p. 181) involving the use of multiple research 

techniques and several sources of data in order to 

explore the issues from all feasible perspectives. 

Triangulation seeks convergence and corroboration 

of results from different methods and design studying 

the same. (b) Complementarity, meaning the search for 

enhancement, illustration, and clarification of the results 

from one method with results from the other method. (c) 

Initiation that has to do with discovering paradoxes and 

contradictions that lead to a re-framing of the research 

question); (d) Development by using the findings from 

one method to help inform the other method); and (e) 

Expansion or seeking to expand the breadth and range 

of research by using different methods for different 

inquiry components). 

110 

The model presented in Figure 28 incorporates 

Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie’s (2003, p. 363) seven-stage 

conceptualization of the mixed methods data analysis 

process. In their work the authors identify the following 

seven data analysis stages as follows: (a) data reduction, 

(b) data display, (c) data transformation, (d) data 

correlation, (e) data consolidation, (f) data comparison, 

and (g) data integration. Data reduction has to do with 

the reduction of the dimensions of both qualitative and 

quantitative data; Data display concerns the description 

in pictorial terms of both qualitative and quantitative 

data; This can be followed by the data transformation 

stage, wherein quantitative data can be converted into 

narrative data that can be analyzed qualitatively and/ 

or qualitative data are converted into numerical codes 

that can be represented statistically. Data correlation 

involves the quantitative data being correlated with the 

qualitized data or the qualitative data being correlated 

with the quantitized data. 

Data consolidation comes after, wherein both 

quantitative and qualitative data are combined to 

create new or consolidated variables or data sets. Next, 

data comparison that has to do with comparing data

111 

from the qualitative and quantitative data sources. 

Data integration characterizes the final stage, whereby 

both quantitative and qualitative data are integrated 

into either a coherent whole or two separate sets (i.e., 

qualitative and quantitative) of coherent wholes. The 

legitimation step involves assessing the trustworthiness 

of both the qualitative and quantitative data and 

succeeding interpretations. 

Fig.28 | Mixed research process 

model. (Source: Johnson and 




2. THE METHODOLOGY FOR THIS RESEARCH 

In methodological terms this study is a mixed form 

of both an exploratory study and a descriptive one 

that has a sequential nature with the dominance of 

qualitative methods over quantitative ones but that 

also uses within its stages the mixing of qualitative and 

quantitative approaches. 

To consider also that the general aim was that this 

research would be able to translate the praxiological 

and hermeneutical aspects of product design processes. 

That was possible by dominance of active research 

done through the use of several experiments. The initial 

synthesis of the research framework is presented in 

Figure 29. 

Fig.29 | Synthesis of the Initial 

Research Framework 

The final adopted research design excludes the creation 

of a methodology and proposes, as one of the final 

112

outcomes of the research, the creation of a descriptive 

model that can be used in the future by teachers 

and professional designers as a framework to the 

development of their own methodologies. 

The areas identified in Figure 30 with the orange 

colour were the ones either added or changed when 

reformulation occurred in the research. 

It is also important to refer that Figure 30 does not 

translate with precision the complementarities and 

interactions among different methods. For that purpose 

a specific diagram (Figure 31) was designed that aims to 

highlight those relationships. 

Regarding the classification of the mixed research 

designs proposed by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie in 

point 1 of this chapter, this study is a combination of both 

mixed-model and mixed-method types since it combines 

designs that integrate each of the approaches. 

Fig.30 | Synthesis of the Final 

Research Framework 

113 

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY AND METHODS | 2. THE METHODOLOGY FOR THIS RESEARCH


114 

Fig.31 | The activities / methods 

undertaken 

On the subject of the activities undertaken it is to 

mention that it will be presented in detail in Chapter IV. 

Below it are just listed the main characteristics of it. 

The study with design students included the following 

methods: 

> two surveys – the same questionnaire (one concluded 

in 2007 with the participation of 24 students; the other 

one in 2009 with the participation of 21 students) 

> verbal protocol experiment - individual exercise with 

both Portuguese (13) and Dutch (10) students (initiated 

in 2007 and finished in 2008) 

> an individual exercise about design processes 

characterization and improvement , with the participation 

of 32 Portuguese students (in an education context since 

it was integrated in the Design processes management 

course) of the Design Program of FA. 

> an experiment where a Portuguese group of students

Fig.32 | Monomethod and mixedmodel 

designs used in this 

research. (Adapted from Johnson 

and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.21) 

115 

(32 in total) worked for a company (CLIMAR experiment, 

May-June 2009, that integrated also the Design processes 

management course) and 

> an experiment with Portuguese (8) and Dutch 

(8) design students groups inside a company (CIMP 

experiment, June – July 2009) 

Fig.33 | Mixed-method design 

matrix with mixed-method 

research design used in this 

investigation. (Adapted from: 

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, 

p.22) 

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY AND METHODS | 2. THE METHODOLOGY FOR THIS RESEARCH


116 

The study of companies is integrated in the research 

project “Design as a company’s strategic resource: 

a study of the impacts of design” (FCT ref. PTDC/ 

AUR/70607/2006). It included: 

> an electronic survey, launched in October 2008, to 

a sample of 1370 companies from the Portuguese 

manufacturing industry about the use of Design (that 

was preceded by a pilot survey in 2007) 

> Companies Case –studies (12) - include interviews 

to CEO’s and other managers in companies that were 

selected from the sample used in the Portuguese 

manufacturing Industry survey. From these only 3 

had the complete intervention of the researcher. The 

remaining had no direct participation. 

These case-studies are not yet complete. Being so the 

data gathered served to complete information obtained 

in the survey. 

In the sequence of the identification of the different 

methods we made use of the two types of mixed research 

designs models presented in point 1 of this chapter to 

illustrate the combined nature of this investigation. The 

Figures to attend are Figure 32 and Figure 33. 

3. APPLIED METHODS 

3.1 Surveys 

In this research we made use of three surveys: two in the 

education field and one in the industry field. 

The ones on education field were addressed to design 

students (two groups of Design students from the final 

year were questioned in two sequential education years, 

2007; 2009). They were preceded by a pilot survey and 

were based upon online questionnaires. 

The one in the industry field was addressed to the 

Portuguese manufacturing companies (2008-2009) and 

had the participation of the researcher in its creation 

and data interpretation. It was also preceded by a pilot 

survey and was also based upon online questionnaire.

The main goal behind the use of this methodology was 

to identify the way design, its nature, methods and 

practices are thought and evaluated on the part of both 

design students and companies. 

As previously mentioned, the work done with companies 

was developed inside the research project with the title 

“Design as a company’s strategic resource: a study of the 

impacts of Design” that was funded by the Portuguese 

Science and Technology Foundation (FCT). 

This research project was developed by a multidisciplinary 

research team that includes the knowledge areas of 

economy, management, design, engineering, statistics, 

and artificial intelligence. This enlarged study includes 

the analysis of company’s design processes of a 

representative sample of Portuguese Manufacturing 

Industries one of the most important markets for 

Designers being important to assert the strategic 

adequacy and overall quality of the outcomes under the 

perspective of these stakeholders. 

117 

3.2 Semi structured – Interviews 

The interviews in this research were implemented in the 

Industry field. They were undertaken with managers, 

marketers and designers from different companies and 

with the purpose of identifying and consolidating quality 

criteria of product design projects and possible project 

tools based upon time management and strategic 

adequacy management to be tested throughout 

the experiences. The role of the interviews was also 

determinant for the construction of the case studies. 

An interview script was developed to support the 

interviews; it was based on the survey previously 

conducted with the company and on data collected 

from literature. 

The interview script addressed the thematic blocs 

that structured the questions of the survey seeking to 

disclose deepest data and previously gathered less clear 

or inexistent data. 

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY AND METHODS | 3. APPLIED METHODS


3.3 – Individual Exercise analysis 

An exploratory exercise was created in order to reveal 

the way design students perceived and represented their 

own design processes. That allowed the researcher to 

make the analysis of an individual assignment that had 

as outcomes: a) the student’s analysis of his/her design 

process (based upon a design he/she had developed 

previously) and b) a model of a design process that 

would “correct” and improve the weaknesses identified 

in the previous analysis. 

The analysis to be done was based on content analysis 

and some criteria were defined in order to classify the 

student’s outcomes. The criteria adopted were: 

Macro level: inductive and deductive reasoning 

abilities; 

118 

Micro level: identified design phases; identified variables 

in design process; identified constraints in design 

processes; identified methods and tools used in design 

process; visual synthesis of the parts and whole process 

(communication quality of the outcome); 

3.4 – Experiments 

The use of experiments (Active Research) was one 

of the chosen methods to investigate project design 

processes and that was related with the intention to 

gather a detailed observation of designers in action in 

order to achieve to a critical vision of the product design 

project’s practice and results through the qualitative 

characterization of designer’s processes in respect to 

their sensibility, ideas and modus operandi. Another 

reason that has governed the method’s choice was the 

fact that design discipline never coded in a systematic 

way its practices in order to include a critical reflection 

based upon ethnographical methods analysis. 

In experiments it is particularly relevant the coding of 

data. Coding data is a data reduction method that as 

previously said helps to manage information and to keep 

focus on the relevant issues that should be scrutinized 

critically.

The analysis of data is consequently determinant for 

the defense of this method. It involves two types of 

processes: a) a process of immersion where researcher 

immerses himself/herself in the collected data by 

reading or examining some portion of the data in detail; 

b) a process of crystallization wherein the researcher 

suspends temporarily the process of reading and 

examining the data (immersion process) in order to 

reflect on the analysis experience attempting to identify 

and concatenate patterns or themes perceived during 

immersion course. 

The research experiments in this research had three 

formats: passive observation of design practice 

processes in a classroom environment (CLIMAR 

experiment); practical experience with the intervention 

of both professional designers and industrial staff (CIMP 

experiment - active research, using sample groups) 

and, finally experiences made with individual students 

in a room, with a specific brief, with a time limit of 2:30 

hours for the accomplishment of the task, that served 

a verbal protocol analysis (VPA). Below it is presented 

a brief description of the different experiments in its 

major characteristics. 

119 

3.4.1 – Verbal Protocol Analysis – Individual 

Exercise 

The use of verbal protocol analysis in design now has 

built up a tradition of about 20 years. The method, 

meant to get an understanding of the cognitive process, 

has proved to be efficient in describing a number of 

characteristics of the design process. Examples are the 

use and the role of drawing, the information-seeking 

behaviour, and the decision taking process. The results 

of such experiments aim in general to contribute to 

support and improve problem solving in design practice, 

and to train design students and practitioners in a more 

effective way. 

In Verbal Protocol Analysis the verbalization can occur 

either during decision making (concurrent data) or 

after (retrospective data). Although both methods have 



advantages and disadvantages there is some evidence 

namely in the study performed by Kuusela and Paul 

(2000, pp. 387-404) that compares the effectiveness of 

both approaches, that in general the concurrent protocol 

analysis method outperformed the retrospective one. In 

its own words “(…)Not only was the number of concurrent 

protocol segments elicited higher than that of retrospective 

protocol segments, but concurrent data provided more 

insights into the decision-making steps occurring between 

stimulus introduction and the final choice outcome” Kuusela 

and Paul (2000, p. 387). 

120 

38. Definition of STM - Short-term 

memory (sometimes referred to 

as “primary memory” or “active 

memory”) refers to the capacity 

for holding a small amount of 

information in mind in an active, 

readily available state for a short 

period of time. The duration 

of short-term memory (when 

rehearsal or active maintenance 

is prevented) is believed to be in 

the order of seconds. Estimates of 

short-term memory capacity limits 

vary from about 4 to about 9 items, 

depending upon the experimental 

design used to estimate capacity. 

A commonly-cited capacity is 

7±2 elements. In contrast, longterm 

memory indefinitely stores 

a seemingly unlimited amount of 

information. Short-term memory 

should be distinguished from 

working memory which refers to 

structures and processes used 

for temporarily storing and 

manipulating information (see 

more details below). Source: 

Wikipedia 

In this respect also Ericsson and Simon (1984, p.239) 

observed that “verbalization of complex recalled thoughts 

is in many ways similar to verbalization of new sequences of 

thoughts. Because of the limits of short time memory (STM) 38 

capacity, complex thoughts are not kept as entities in STM. A 

complex thought can be heeded as a whole only in the sense 

that all the subordinate elements are directly available for 

retrieval and subsequent attention. 

It is also assumed by these authors (1984, p. 242) that 

“For both newly generated thoughts and (to a lesser degree) 

thoughts recovered from memory, the evidence shows that 

the sequence of verbalization parallels closely the sequence of 

thoughts. “. Also to mention the fact pointed out by these 

authors (1984, p. 379 that “For tasks of longer duration, the 

validity of think-aloud reports appears to be higher than of 

retrospective reports”). 

3.4.2 Experiments – Verbal Protocol Analysis – 

Group Exercise 

The use of Verbal protocol experiment analysis can also 

be done in group sessions. That occurred in this study. 

However, in this case the experiments included different 

methods of capturing information that were combined 

with the traditional videotaping of the experiment. 

In both developed experiments there was made a 

passive observation. Some groups were videotaped and 

others were only audiotaped. One of the experiments 

was undertaken in a classroom environment and the 

other one was developed in a company’s context. This

last case introduced new players in the experiment, 

the company’s agents that interacted directly with the 

students. The procedures undertaken as well as the 

method used to encode the information will be accessed 

in detail in Chapter IV of this document. 

As a final remark it is important to underline the relevance 

of the experiments in this research. In reality it is made 

use of triangulation of three distinct experiments in order 

to devise the existence of congruence in its outcomes. 

It was by purpose that there were selected different 

context, and general characteristics of the experiments. 

In this study we cross information gathered from one 

individual experiment of two hours with two group 

experiments: one developed in an education context 

and the other one inserting students in a professional 

environment. 

SUMMARY 

This is a mixed research supported by the use of several 

methods both qualitative and quantitative ones with 

a special focus on the last ones. This option was made 

since we aimed to make an exploratory descriptive 

study about designer’s behaviour and cognition along 

design processes. Being this the scope of the research 

a qualitative approach, mostly supported in an active 

research made through the use of experiments as 

methods to gather information, appeared to be the 

most adequate. 

The main reasons to have had a stronger focus on the 

qualitative approach have to do with the fact that it 

provides and understanding and description of people’s 

personal experiences of phenomena, i.e. the ‘emic’ or 

insider’s viewpoint. On the other hand it gives the chance 

to have rich detail in descriptions as the phenomena is 

situated and embedded in local contexts. Furthermore 

it is possible to study dynamic processes and document 

sequential patterns and changes. 

121 



Finally, using these qualitative methods (experiments; 

exercise) along with quantitative (survey) ones allowed 

us to produce a more complete knowledge since it was 

possible to add insights and understandings that might 

be missed when only a single methods is to be used. 


ARCHER, B. 1979. The three R’s. Design Studies, pp.117-20. 

JOHNSON, R., ONWUEGBUZIE, A. 2004. Mixed methods research: a 

research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 

33(7), pp.14-26. 

ONWUEGBUZIE, A., LEECH, N. 2004. Enhancing the interpretation 

of significant findings: The role of mixed methods research. Annual 

meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Clearwater. 

122 

JOHNSON, R., TURNER, L. 2003. Data collection strategies in mixed 

methods research. In: TASHAKKORI, A., TEDDLIE, C. (ed.) Handbook of 

mixed methods in social and behavioral research Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage, pp.297-319. 

GREENE, J., CARACELLI, V., GRAHAM, W. 1989. Toward a conceptual 

framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp.255-274. 

KUUSELA, H., PAUL, P. 2002. A comparison of concurrent and 

retrospective verbal protocol analysis. The American Journal of 

Psychology, University of Illinois Press, 113(3), pp.387-404. 

ERICSSON, K., SIMON,H. 1984. Protocol Analysis. Verbal Reports as 

Data, Cambridge, MIT Press. 

YIN, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social 

Research Methods, SAGE Inc. 

ONWUEGBUZIE, A., TEDDLIE, C. 2003. A Framework for Analysing 

Data in Mixed Methods Research. In: (EDS), C. T. (ed.) Handbook of 

Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage, pp.351-383. 

MACKEY, A., GASS,S. 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology 

and Design, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Part three: Exploring Design Processes 

CHAPTER IV - ACCESSING/EXPERIMENTING/ 

DESCRIBING DECISION MAKING IN DESIGN 

PROCESSES 

The in depth study of how decision making occurs in 

design processes was done through the use of different 

methods already referred in Chapter III with special 

emphasis in the experiments. Those studies served also 

the purpose of the construction of theoretical models to 

support hypothesis to be tested along the research and 

afterwards. 

1. AN INNER ASSESSMENT – DESIGN STUDENTS 

AND COMPANY VIEWS OF DESIGN PROCESSES 

The inner assessment was made both by the gathering 

of data regarding (i) the way students see and describe 

their own design processes and (ii) the way companies 

see/describe design processes. On the following pages 

a description and analysis of the results in both cases 

will be presented. 

1.1. How design students see their own 

processes 

The way students see their own design processes was 

studied making use of different methods – two surveys 

(to students of the 5th grade in 2 sequential years) and 

an exercise about ‘design processes’ done in the course 

‘design processes’ management’ (optional course from 

the 5th grade of Design Program). There were two 

moments of collecting data (2007 and 2009) but the 

data was treated as a whole. 

Also important is to notice that regarding the survey data 

analysis next to the analysis of the collected data there 

existed a second moment of analysis when information 

collected from the experiments was confronted with the 

ones of surveys. This way it was possible to make some 

statistical hypothesis tests and to associate information 

that was collected in different phases of the research. 

123 

CHAPTER IV - ACCESSING/EXPERIMENTING/DESCRIBING DECISION MAKING IN DESIGN PROCESSES | 

1. AN INNER ASSESSMENT – DESIGN STUDENTS AND COMPANY VIEWS OF DESIGN PROCESSES_


124 

1.1.1 Surveys undertaken in 2007 (24) and 2009 

(21) – students from the 5th grade 

The launch of an electronic questionnaire created to 

access the way students view design processes was 

preceded by a pilot questionnaire (undertaken by 

20 students at the end of 2007- Appendix B). Some of 

the preliminary results of that pilot survey are worth 

to mention since they helped to redesign the final 

questionnaire and to prepare the first experiment with 

design students. Among the results, the most significant 

are: 

> Being time been evaluated by only 23,7% students 

as an important factor in respect to their performance 

in Design studio course, it was identified at the same 

time by 84% of the sample as a decisive factor in 

terms of student’s low performance results. The reason 

appointed to that fact is a bad management of time in 

general as well as in what concerns design process (92% 

of respondents). 

> Students that keep a record of ideas (notebook) tend 

to find it less difficult to manage time. 

> Students that frequently appeal to the construction of 

3D models have a tendency to iterate less in the design 

process and to have less management problems with time. 

> The first action taken by students after the moment 

they are confronted with a brief is: to search for similar 

problems and its solutions (89%). 

> Drawing (software) programmes usage is seen as a 

possibility to generate a greater number of ideas in less 

time (65%) but it also promotes a loss of control over the 

global time management (84%). 

Design questionnaire – the Design process in the 

perspective of the designers/students 

The questionnaire [Appendix C] served the purpose of 

inquiring the design students about their perception 

and beliefs about their own design processes. It had as 

central aims: 

> The identification of claimed critical moments in the 

design process

The description of how students assume the approach 

to critical moments 

> The understanding of the role time and information 

management had in design process 

> the acquisition of a better knowledge of how subjects 

define quality in the process and final outcomes 

> the disclosure of possible elements in design processes 

that are worth to be studied. 

In terms of the questionnaire’s design this was done 

taking into account several issues: the method, the 

formal aspects of the tool and the contents – its structure 

and nature. 

Method – the option to develop a survey based in an 

online questionnaire was supported by the following 

considerations: it is quicker than traditional methods, 

it reduces data transfer errors, it gives the researcher 

the opportunity to cross information in a quicker way 

and it is less expensive. Nevertheless unlike usual 

online surveys this one was filled up during two plenary 

sessions in which the researcher was present (has it 

occurred in the pilot survey on paper) in order to respond 

to possible unclarities. This was possible because the 

sample was not randomly chosen but instead selected 

since the aim was specifically to gather information 

from design students who were in the last year of their 

undergraduated course. 

Formal aspects of the questionnaire – being a “long” 

questionnaire (47 questions) the formal aspects of 

this tool were taken into account. The idea was the 

construction of a visual interface that would favour 

the openness to answer and reduced the possible 

emergence of fatigue. Therefore, in spite the constraints 

of the electronic tool, the questionnaire was designed 

in such a way that the questions where clearly identified 

with a number, were easy to read (no more then 10 

words in each line), had a legible type of letter, where 

the space for the answer was clearly marked and the 

nature of possible answer – multiple choice or not – was 

evident. The use of a different colour to differentiate 

the scale used facilitated data gathering and the full 

comprehension of the work to be done. The choice of 

125 




126 

the colour palette of the tool was also thought in terms 

of trying to reduce the fatigue along the fulfilment of 

the survey. 

The content of the questionnaire – structure and nature 

Structure – the pilot questionnaire was clearly divided 

in sections that identify the nature of the questions and 

the issues to be addressed. This option was abandoned 

in the final questionnaire because it was observed in 

the first case that people tended to respond according 

to the context of the question and to pay less attention 

to the last questions of the section. We realized that it 

would be better, even in terms of the dynamics of the 

fulfillment process, to mix the different issues addressed 

so the subjects were “forced” to pay attention to 

different issues and have less possibility to built a “social 

desirable” view (if that was the case); In practical terms 

this means that the titles of the sections were abolished. 

In fact, a certain structure of the adressed issues is still 

observable but only those that concern demographic 

data and information related with the course. The type 

of questions varies: there exist a few open questions, 

and regarding the close ones there are dichotomous 

questions (YES/NO) and also questions build upon 

a Likert scale (1-5). Moreover there are contingency 

questions so it is possible to isolate those that must 

answer some issues with a high level of detail. Finally 

there are also multiple choice questions (based upon 

checkbox matrixes). 

Nature of contents: 

1. Demographic data: age; sex; address area (this is 

important because usual claims of students are related 

with the amount of time they spend coming to and going 

from the university) mother’s and father’s profession 

(level of education; possible relation between the 

cultural level at home being related with the students 

performance); 

2. Course related data: here it was aimed to know if the 

course was their first option or not, what was their first 

option, how they evaluate the course so far (in order to 

see if there is a relation between their course evaluation 

and the perception they have of their performance);

3. Design studio related data: here it was intended that 

subjects evaluate the design studio course as well as 

the weight of the course in the Design Program and 

the factors that affect their performance in the design 

studio course. 

4. Design process related data: questions where 

constructed with the goal of obtaining information 

about the use of process methods and tools along the 

process; the way they describe their own processes; the 

relevant issues in a process; the critical moments and 

ways to overcome it; 

5. Time related data: several questions were made 

regarding time: its management importance; the 

relevance it has in the process and its different phases; 

ways used to better manage/control time in the 

processes; 

6. Quality related data: a question was made about 

the definition of design quality. This question presents 

several optional answers to be graded and later on this 

information will be crossed with the evaluation subjects 

have made of their Verbal Protocol experiments. 

7. Information management related data: the role of 

information management in design processes was 

assessed through several questions; the nature of 

information, the easiness of access and use and the 

overall importance along the different phases of the 

process were some of the issues addressed. 

Data Treatment and Analysis – the data was transferred 

to SPSS 39 

to be subjected to statistical treatment and 

analysis. The global results are presented in Appendix D. 

The number of students that answered the questionnaire 

was 45 (24 answered it in 2007 and 21 answered it in 

2009) but only 39 questionnaires were validated. All the 

subjects filled in an Informed Consent (Appendix E) before 

filling in the questionnaire. 

On the basis of those 39 questionnaires we will present 

some of the achieved results. 

First, the characterization of the sample in its 

demographic data will briefly be presented: 

39. See List of Acronymous 

127 




128 

Fig.34 | Ages of the subjects 

(question 1) 

> In relation with the age of the subjects it is visible in 

Figure 34 that the majority of the subjects was aged 

between 21 and 24 years old. 

> In terms of the gender frequency the sample was 

divided into 71,8% of feminine subjects and 28,2% 

masculine ones (Figure 35). These numbers are consistent 

with the general average of the design program that 

displays normally a significant higher number of women 

over men. 

> The majority of the subjects (82%) live in Lisbon or in 

the neighbourhood; the other 18% live in the Centre 

region of Portugal (more than 50 kilometres far from 

Lisbon) 

> However it is important to mention that among those 

living in Lisbon around 40% are students that come from 

other regions of Portugal and had to rent a place to stay 

near the Faculty, Figure 36. 

Regarding the course related data it was found out 

that: 

> For 59% of the subjects the design course was the 

first choice they made when applying to the university 

(Figure 37).

Fig.35 | Gender Frequency of the 

subjects (question 2) 

> From the remaining 41% of the subjects, for 87% of 

them it was their second option and for 13% the third 

option (Figure 38). 

> 54% of the subjects consider that the design course 

corresponds to their expectations, 10% answered that it 

exceeded their expectations and 36% classify it as being 

below their expectations (Figure 39). 

Fig.36 | Subjects’ area of Residence 

(question 3) 

129 




Fig.37 | Design Course as the first 

choice (question 6) 

130 

Fig.38 | Subjects order of design’s 

course choice (question 7) 

Fig.39 | Subjects evaluation of the 

Design course (question 9)

On the perception topic of subjects have of the Design 

Program and Design Studio course we decided 

to present the questions and the results of each 

synthesized in tables of frequency and means. 

Question 10 - How do you perceive the design studio 

course in the ‘design program’ context? 

(1 - COMPLETELY DISAGREE; 5 – FULLY AGREE) 

The design studio course is perceived by the average 

of the subjects as being the most important one in the 

curricular structure and also the one to dedicate more 

time to. 

Question 11 – Classify at what point the design 

studio course determines your appreciation of the 

Design program. (1 – DOES NOT DETERMINE AT ALL; 

5 - DETERMINES COMPLETELY) 

There is a high correlation between the degree of 

importance (Q10) and (Q11): those who perceive the 

design studio course as most important also perceive 

this course as determining the appreciation they have 

about the Design program. 

In the face of such meaningful assumption of the design 

course’s importance it was useful to assess the factors 

that could affect negatively the subject’s performance 

in it (Table 11). 

Table 9 | Subjects perception of the 

Design course (question 10) 

Table 10 | Subjects perception 

of the Design course/Design 

Program (question 11) 

131 




Question 12 - Which are the factors that mostly affect 

in a negative way your performance in Design Studio 

course? (1- DOES NOT AFFECT; 5 – AFECTS EXTREMELY) 

Table 11 | Factors affecting 

negatively design studio’s 

performance (question 12) 

The psychological personal factors along with the 

time to be dedicated to the course were the ones that 

gathered a higher average value. 

132 

The approach to Design processes perceptions and 

acknowledgement started with a question addressing 

the initial phase of the process: the brief. 

Question 13 - When facing a design problem for the 

first time what are your immediate concerns? (1- LESS 

RELEVANT CONCERN; 5 – MOST RELEVANT CONCERN) 

Table 12 | Immediate Concerns 

facing ‘Brief’ (question 13) 

The results of question 13 presented in Table 12 

demonstrate that the concerns more valued by the 

average of the subjects when facing the brief are: a) the 

evaluation of the problem, its origins and limits and b) 

to assume the user’s point of view.

After this analysis a cross analysis was made with the 

results of the experiments (verbal protocol analysis 

of an individual assessment to a design problem and 

a group exercise with a brief from the firm CLIMAR) 

of the subjects in order to understand if there was an 

association between the ‘design strategy’ (see page 256) 

of the subjects and the immediate concerns that were 

stated by them. The results show that in fact there is a 

direct correspondence among the stated concerns and 

the strategy displayed by the subjects. Table 13 presents 

the frequency of the three design strategies in terms of 

the sample. 

The solution driven subjects were those that elected 

as first concern: search existent solutions; as a second 

concern it was placed draw/test ideas; The problem driven 

subjects elected as first concerns: evaluate the problem, 

its origins and limits and search similar problems; the 

co-evolution driven (later named integration driven) 

subjects were less clear in theirs options but all elected 

both problem and solution concerns as well as the 

assumption of the user’s point of view. The evaluation 

of the subject in terms of their design strategy was done 

both by the researcher and an independent judge. 

In order to reduce subjectivity in the study it is also 

relevant to understand if the subjects acknowledge the 

different phases of design processes in similar ways. 

Table 14 synthesizes the way subjects describe the 

phases of design processes. 

Question 14 - Which are the phases you identify in your 

design process? [Appendix F] 

Broaden categories were created (on the basis of 

a thorough analysis made Appendix F), for the given 

Table 13 | Problem / solution / 

co-evolution driven approach 

133 




134 

Table 14 | Phases of Design process 

* Descriptors that were added 

and remeted in column 2 of 

percentages. 

descriptions; After, an alphabetic code was attributed 

a letter to identify the sequence of the moments/ tasks 

described by the subjects; Furthermore, the matching 

of those categories within the four phases mentioned 

along the questionnaire was made by the researcher. 

The averages were calculated not only in terms of each 

category but also in a cumulative way to broad phases. 

The conclusions to be taken of the analysis of data 

gathered on question 14 are: 

> The large majority of the subjects assume the existence 

of 3 phases that either are mentioned in a very synthetic 

way or in a detailed one. Those phases are the Research; 

the Concept and the Development of concept. 

> A significant average of the subjects (46,15%) 

identify specifically what can be seen as a pre-phase

of the conventional one that gives respect to the Brief 

acknowledgement. 

> The initial phases are consensual to the majority of 

the subjects but the more we go to the late moments 

in design processes the less information is given by the 

subjects and the given one is not homogeneous in terms 

of description. 

Next, an attempt was made to isolate possible causes 

of quality level in its outcomes. As mentioned before 

time management and information management were 

particularly focused upon in the questionnaire. 

Question 15 aims to find out if the subjects make use 

of a chronogram to support design process planning, 

monitoring and general development. 

Question 15 - It is usual in your design process to 

establish a chronogram where you identify the tasks 

and the time of execution? 

Table 15 | Chronogram Use 

About 1/3 of the subjects do not make use of such a 

plan tool and about 2/3 do. The importance of these 

results is reinforced by the outcomes of question 16 

that specifically addresses the eventual circumstance of 

subjects experiencing difficulties managing time along 

design process. 

Question 16 - Do you have difficulties managing time 

along the design process? 

Almost 85% of the subjects recognize to have difficulties 

managing time along the design process. Such an 

Table 16 | Existence of difficulties 

managing time along the process 

135 




impressive percentage asks for a deeper exploration by 

way of question 17 (Figure 40). 

Question 17- If YES, what is(are) the reason(s)? 

136 

Fig.40 | Reasons for managing 

badly time 

The answers to question 17 [Appendix G] were grouped 

in larger categories that can be seen in the legend of 

Figure 40. 

The “difficulty of predicting the necessary time to 

accomplish the different tasks” was the reason more 

often mentioned by the subjects (19%); On second 

place the subjects attribute the difficulty of managing 

time to “the amount of work they have to deliver in 

other disciplines” (11%). Thirdly, but with a very close 

average to the previous reason (10%), there are three 

reasons pointed out by the subjects. These are: a) 

“Personal life”; b) “lack of organization and discipline

on the part of the subjects”; c) “accumulation with work 

outside the Faculty”. 

Also important was to identify in which phases subjects 

usually spent more time (question 18) and what are the 

reasons behind it (question 19). The answers to those 

questions are presented in Table 17 and Figure 41, 

respectively. 

Question 18 - Which is(are) the phase(s) in the process 

where you usually spend more time? 

Table 17 | Phase of the process 

that takes more time 

In general, subjects spend more time in the conceptual 

phase followed by the one dedicated to technical 

development. It is relevant to note that at the faculty it 

is rare to develop the designs until the pre-production 

phase. 

Question 19 - Why do you spend more time in this 

(those) phase(s)? 

Regarding the conceptual phase (that has the highest 

mean in terms of time spent) subjects elected as the 

Fig.41 | Reasons for spending 

more time in conceptual phase 

137 




main reasons for spending more time in this phase: 

a) the fact that in this phase the decisions concern 

creativity and decisions on that are harder to be taken 

(20%); b) the circumstance of being this the phase that 

determines the whole process (20%); c) the condition 

that having an innovative idea is crucial and difficult to 

generate (20%). 

138 

Fig.42 | Reasons for spending more 

time in technical development 

phase 

Reasons to spend more time to the technical 

development phase are: a) the complexity of the tasks 

to be developed (37%); b) the specialized knowledge 

necessary to accomplish the task with success 

(27%); c) the fact that it is hard to match the rigorous 

representation of the product with the conceptual 

mental representation of it (27%). 

Fig.43 | Reasons for spending 

more time in detailing phase 

Reasons to spend more time to the detail phase are: a) 

the fact that 3D modeling softwares are complex to use 

and the whole process of making renders takes time 

being the results not always the ones expected (32%); 

b) it has an high level of complexity not only in terms of 

contents but also in terms of the management of tasks 

and relationship of all the design parts (28%).

Using an exploratory method, the author wanted to 

disclose possible variables to be further investigated 

and also to validate some variables gathered during the 

literature revision. Therefore, a few of these variables 

were presented as being possibly critical in design 

process. The subjects had to evaluate them making use 

of a Likert scale 40 (Table 18). 

Question 20 – Which elements usually appear as being 

critical along your design process? (1- NOT CRITICAL AT 

ALL; 5 – VERY MUCH CRITICAL) 

Process time management and technical constraints 

management are the two elements that subjects 

perceive as being more critical along the design process. 

Also the gathering of information (both technical and of 

production methods) is considered to be of relevance. 

As mentioned in the introduction of this survey study 

the assessment of the concept of ‘quality of design’ 

was one of the issues to explore in the questionnaire. 

Question 21 addresses it proposing several definitions 

that subjects had to classify at a Likert scale ranging 

from ‘Not relevant at all’ to ‘Very much relevant’. The 

results are synthesized in Table 19. 

Question 21 – Classify the definition of ‘design with 

quality’ with which you identify yourself more (1- NOT 

RELEVANT AT ALL; 5 – VERY MUCH RELEVANT) 

Table 18 | Critical elements along 

design process 

40. Likert scaling is a bipolar 

scaling method, measuring either 

positive or negative response 

to a statement. Normally it is 

constituted by 5 Likert items 

that are the statements to be 

evaluated. 

139 




140 

Table 19 | ‘design with quality’ 

definition 

Table 20 | Use of facilitator 

schemes along design process 

The ‘design with quality’ definition with the highest 

mean are: a) the one “that presents sustainable and 

ethically responsible solutions as an outcome” 41 

and 

b) the one that associates quality of the design with 

the optimization of the human, material and financial 

resources. The highest score is the one that is integrate 

the firm’s strategy. 

As previously said the questions were not grouped 

according to their nature or issue to be addressed. As 

a consequence along the questionnaire subjects were 

demanded to give information about different issues 

that did not obey to an organized sequence. That is 

the case of questions 22 and 23 that call again for their 

appreciation regarding the use of some instruments 

to manage design process. Furthermore there are 

questions like question 24 that is a repetition of a 

previous question (15) but formulated in a diverse way. 

This was done since it was necessary to guarantee the 

consistency of the subject’s reasoning. 

Question 22 - Do you make use of any type of schemes 

to facilitate the development of the design process? 

41. It is important to notice that 

this concern with sustainability 

and ethics in design practice were 

also relevant and verifiable in the 

experiments done within this 

research. 

The large majority of the subjects (84,6%) stated that 

they make use of schemes as design process facilitators. 

Question 23 offers the subjects the possibility to identify 

the nature of those schemes. The results on this question 

are shown in Table 21.

Question 23 - If YES, which ones and in what phase of the 


Table 21 | Schemes use/Phases of 

Design Process 

141 




142 

In summary, a high percentage of subjects use a 

checklist in all phases of the design process; mostly in 

the development phase (71,8%). 

The chronogram (that was specifically addressed by 

question 15 were 64,1% of the subjects confirmed its 

use) obtains in all the different phases percentages of 

use that are lower than previously ranging from 33,3% to 

46, 2% of use. However, it is possible that this difference 

is due to the fact that question 15 addressed the use of 

chronogram in general and there is the possibility that 

some subjects answer question 23 in a negative way 

presuming that here it was referred to more detailed 

chronograms and not a general one. 

Again a question was introduced that had the aim of 

testing the consistency of the answers given by subjects. 

It is the case of question 24 that is similar to question 

15 (the one that refers the use of chronogram) but 

that uses a different set of options since it includes the 

option of ‘sometimes’. This difference allow us to have 

a more refined assessment of the extent of use of this 

instrument. 

Question 24 - Do you establish, at first, a plan of tasks 

limited in time? 

Table 22 | Establishment of a Plan 

of tasks 

The results on question 24 show us that between those 

that always establish a plan of tasks and the ones that 

do it sometimes the account for the use of a plan of 

tasks limited in time is of 87% of the subjects. However, 

in question 15 (a YES/NO question) only 64,1% of the 

subjects acknowledge the use of a chronogram. The 

difference is relevant but it is possible that it is due to 

the fact that question 15 did not allow an ‘in between’ 

situation in terms of the use of this instrument. Another 

possible reason (although thought as being less credible) 

is that subjects are not used with the term chronogram 

and acted accordingly.

In order to go deeper in the assessment of this issue, 

another question was added for those subjects who 

answer Q24 with Yes and Sometimes. 

Question 25 - If you answered ‘Yes’ or ‘sometimes’ to the 

previous question which of the following statements is 

close to your practice? (34 out of 39) 

A significant percentage of subjects (70,6%) perceive the 

use of a ‘plan of tasks with time limits’ as helping mostly 

the time management of the design process. For 23,5% 

of the subjects the plan is an instrument of monitoring 

and adjustment of the process. Therefore it is possible to 

assess that the plan is for the majority of the subjects an 

under used instrument. 

When identifying possible important elements in the 

design process the issue of blockage moments seem 

significant since for our own experience it was a very 

common reason stated by students in relation to a 

deficient performance in design outcomes. 

Question 26 - Do you have blockage moments along 

your design process? 

It depends on how you judge the category ‘sometimes’ 

to define wether this is a problem or not. If we add 

the subjects that have at least ‘sometime’ blockages 

along we obtain a huge average (92,3%) meaning that 

Table 23 | Reasons to make a plan 

of the tasks 

Table 24 | Frequency of Blockage 

moments along Design process 

143 




it is really an issue in the design process. However, it is 

important to note that the number of those that have it 

‘rarely’ or ‘sometimes’ is far more expressive (about 2/3) 

then the one obtained by the sum of the subjects that 

have it ‘several times’ and ‘always’ (about 1/3). 

In which phases of the process those blockages occur 

more frequently? 

Question 27 - Identify by order of importance the phases 

in which those blockages occur. 

144 


moments in terms of process 

phases 

As predicted it is the conceptual phase that is assumed 

to be more frequent in terms of blockage’s occurence. 

These results are possible influenced by the fact that 

design students have a consecutive training on the two 

initial phases while this training is less in developing the 

“design until the detail” phase and even rarely in entering 

the pre-production phase. Being so it is possible that 

they don’t consider having blockage moments in those 

particular phases since they do not develop it so often. 

In addition, it is interesting to know what type of 

blockage they experience with question 28. The subjects 

had to classify it according a Likert scale ranging from 

‘less incidence’ to ‘major incidence’. (See Table 26) 

Question 28 – Identify in terms of incidence the blockages 

that occur along design process.(1- LESS INCIDENCE e 5 

–MAJOR INCIDENCE) 


type incidence 

Again we found some consistency in the subjects 

answers. The blockage with highest incidence was the

one related with the creative process; The second most 

frequent blockage type is the one that occurs during the 

technical development phase and that is related with 

the lack of specific knowledge. 

Having hypothesized that blockage was an important 

element in the design process the question is how subjects 

overcome those inconvenient moments (question 29). 

Again a set of possible actions was previously selected 

based upon the experience of the researcher. The results 

of that assessment is presented in Table 27. 

Question 29 - When blockage occur what type of actions 

you take in order to overcome the situation? 

145 




146 

Table 27 | Actions undertaken 

to overcome blockage in design 

process 

The most relevant insight given by the data treatment 

on question 29 is: 

> In the conceptual creative phase (the one that subjects 

identified as being the one where blockage has more 

incidence) the first way used by students to overcome 

it is to do additional research (79,5%); Also important to 

prevail over these moments is the advise with the design 

studio teacher (74,4%) and with peers (74,4%); 

> Regarding the blockages related with lack of knowledge 

that occur during the technical development phase it is 

unanimous among subjects that the best way to solve it 

is to consult the design studio teacher (94,9%) being also

important to assess to advise given by other teachers 

(87,2%) and to undertake additional research (71,8%). 

This is the phase among all, that presents more intense 

use of different resources to overcome blockage, either 

it concerns external advise or gathering of information. 

> The peers advise is highly considered in the conceptual 

phase while the advise of both the design studio 

teacher and other teachers were considered when more 

technical phases are being addressed. 

> The ‘process revision’ action obtains the lowest levels 

of adhesion on the part of the subjects although when 

compared with other actions it is not that low. That 

suggests that the reflection upon the already developed 

work is perceived by subjects as being less important 

than the reflection upon new information to be 

gathered (additional research action) or the reflection 

that is mediated by other individuals (teachers and 

colleagues). 

Once again in the questionnaire is put forward 

another tool that can help the overall design process 

management: the diary. This is an instrument which use 

is traditionally incentivised along the design program. 

It aims to keep a record of both written ideas, sketches 

and schemes produced by the students. Table 28 gives 

the results on the subjects use of a diary. 

Question 30 - It is usual for you to maintain a diary to 

register all the design process? 

Not as predicted a significant percentage of the subjects 

state not to make use of a diary (84,6%). Although it was 

a bit surprising the high percentage of non use of this 

incentivised tool we tried to understand how subjects 

perceived the usefulness of that instrument. Moreover 

it was thought to go deeper and make an hypotheses 

test relating the use with the design strategies assumed 

by students along the design process. For that purpose 

it was necessary to make use of data collected from the 

Table 28 | Use of a Diary 

147 




experiments (done after the questionnaires) where it 

was possible to characterize each of the subjects in terms 

of their dominant design strategy. After and taking into 

account only those that make use of the tool (question 

31 - If you answered YES to the previous question what 

is the usefulness of a diary? (1 – MINIMAL ;5- MAXIMAL)) 

the test was made. 

148 

Table 29 | Usefulness of a Diary 

vs Design Strategy – descriptive 

statistics (tested by Kruskal Wallis 

Test 

Statistical anaysis of design strategy and design 

elements 

A next step in the analysis is to evaluate if there is any 

relationship between the design strategy students 

choose (problem or solution or co-evolution driven) and 

a number of design related methods and tools they use 

or not. 

Use and usefulness of a diary was in relation with design 

strategy was statistically tested by the Kruskal-Wallis 

test since three groups are compared (according to the 

design strategies with a variable on an ordinal scale, See 

Table 29 for the results.

Although none of the values are statistically significant 

(no statistical significant differences were found with 

p


150 

Table 31 | Descriptive statistics 

– Reasons to Model 3D along 

design process vs Design strategy 

of the Subjects statistic (tested by 

Kruskal Wallis) 

* p ≤ 0,05 ** p ≤ 0,01 

As it can be seen in Table 31 subjects with a co-evolution 

design strategy considered (a) the ‘Brief Imposition’ and 

(b) ‘... a way of selecting among identified technical 

alternatives’ as being more important reasons for using 

modelling compared to the students with other design 

strategies. 

Furthermore it was also our intention to address the 

role design softwares have in design process. Therefore 

the usual softwares used were listed and subjects had 

to score them according to its degree of importance 

(question 35) and after identifying its use in the different 

phases of design process (question 36) Tables 32 and 33 

summarize the outcomes of these two questions. 

Question 35 – Do you use design softwares and others 

along your design process? Identify which giving a 

score between 1 (LESS IMPORTANT) and 5 (THE MOST 

IMPORTANT).

Table 32 presents us the Adobe Illustrator and the 

Photoshop softwares as the ones that have higher means 

in terms of subject’s use. However, it is important to say 

that from the first questionnaire to the second one there 

was found to exist other software that was intensely 

used by students: the Rhinoceros design software that 

was not integrated in the second questionnaire in order 

to make possible comparisons. 

Question 36 - Signalize in which phase(s) of the design 

process you use those softwares. 


– Use of Design softwares and 

others along design process 


– Use of Design softwares and 

others vs design process phases 

151 




152

153 




A synthesized analysis of the results presented in Table 

33 offer us the following conclusions: 

> Design softwares are used in all the phases of design 

process with a special intensity in the technical and 

detail phases; 

> Writing softwares are used mainly in the conceptual 

phase; 

> Softwares of process management are rarely used by 

the subjects (2,6% - 7,7%); 

> Software to support design communication (PowerPoint 

and Flash macromedia) have also low adhesion on the part 

of the subjects (from 2,6% to 17,9 %) 

154 

Besides characterizing the use intensity and its incidence 

according to the different phases of design process it 

was important to explore a few negative and positive 

implications of the use of these programs. Once again the 

construction of the offered options was based upon the 

experience of the researcher as well as in the literature 

revision. Again here we tried to test the hypothesis that 

the different design strategies would associate differently 

with the positive statements about the use of softwares it 

was found one significant statistical difference (Table 34). 

When analysing Figure 34 the first to consider is that the 

aspects related with communication were the ones that 

obtained higher mean on the part of subjects. 

Question 37 – Relatively to the use of softwares classify 

the following POSITIVE statements about it. Score it 

between 1 (DISAGREE) and 5 (AGREE COMPLETELY)

As it can be seen in Table 34 subjects with a problem 

design strategy considered the positive statement 

‘its use allows a faster and clear identification of the 

weaknesses and virtues of the design’ as being more 

important when compared to the students with other 

design strategies. 

Question 38 - Relatively to the use of softwares classify 

the following NEGATIVE statements about it. Score it 

between 1 (DISAGREE) and 5 (AGREE COMPLETELY) 

In terms of the negative statements that subjects 

perceived as being more relevant in the use of 

design softwares they are: the one related with the 

Table 34 | Descriptive statistics – 

Evaluation of positive statements 

about the use of softwares 

** p ≤ 0,10 

Table 35 | Descriptive statistics – 

Evaluation of negative statements 

about the use of softwares 

155 




overvaluation of the aesthetics aspects of the product 

and the one that states the elusion of the necessity of 

trying alternatives through modelling. 

There was not found statistically significant differences 

regarding the way different design strategies are 

associated with these negative statements about the 

use of softwares in design processes. 

One of the issues related with design process and design 

cognition that is extensively studied is the iteration in 

the process. Consequently that was one of the issues 

addressed in the questionnaire (question 39). 

Question 39 - Is it frequent for you to iterate along design 

process? 

156 

Fig.44 | Frequency of Iteration in 

Design Process 

As predicted and aligned with results from literature 

iteration is frequent in design processes. In this case a 

total of 92% of the subjects acknowledge its occurrence. 

From those, 38% recognize that occurs always and 54% 

state that it occurs sometimes. 

Once more in the questionnaire we posed a question 

related with time. The aim was to dissect this issue in the 

most accurate possible way. Question 40 addresses time 

trying to identify if the time available for design process 

is perceived as being adequate or not. From that a more 

deeper analysis was derived relating the perception of 

available time both with modelling activity (question 32) 

and with the use of diary (question 30). The aim was to 

try to understand how these variables relate themselves 

and if they are independent or not. 

Question 40 – Would you say that, in general, the time 

available for the design process is?

When trying to explore possible relationship between the 

use of modelling along design process and the evaluation 

of the available time to be spent in design process it was 

found that the two variables are independent, i.e. they 

are not related since Chi-square (1) = 0,762, p=0,390. For 

that purpose it was also made the crosstabulation of the 

two questions which is presented in Table 37. 

Fig.45 | Evaluation of the time 

available for the design process 

Table 36 | Chi Square test - 

relationship between the use of 

3D modelling and the evaluation 

of time available for design 

process 

157 

Table 37 | P32 * P40 Crosstabulation 




It was also tested if there were significant differences 

between the subjects that considered the time available 

to design process either insufficient or adequate with 

the degree of importance attributed by them to a tool 

such as the diary. It was concluded that the differences 

are not statistically significant because all the values of 

significance resultant from the Mann-Whitney 42 test are 

superior to the reference level of significance (0,05). 

Table 38 | Mann-Whitney Test – 

relationship between available 

time evaluation and the use of a 

Diary 

The information gathering and management was also 

one of the key aspects to be explored through the use of 

the questionnaire. Question 41 to 47, at different levels 

aim to gather information about this subject. 

158 

Question 41- Do you have the habit of building a ‘library’ 

of contents after the information of a finished design 

process? 

Fig.46 | Creation of a Library of 

contents 

42. It was used the test of Mann- 

Whitney since the comparison is 

between two groups where the 

dependent variables are of ordinal 

type. 

Figure 46 synthesizes the answer to question 41 about 

the creation or not of a library on the part of the subjects. 

In fact the 62% are not conclusive since it can still be that 

the subjects simple store the information in a folder. 

One possible way of understanding the necessity of 

creation such a information system is through the 

questioning of if subjects have the habit of consulting 

previous designs (question 42).

Question 42 – It is usual to ‘revisit’ the concluded design 

processes? 

Figure 47 show us that for 59% of the universe of 

respondents have the habit of consulting previous 

designs. Although one can have thought that this 

percentage should be higher the fact is that several 

studies recognized designers to have more tendency 

to explore new information relying less on previous 

collected one. 

For those who gave a positive answer to question 42 

it was important to know which were the reasons that 

made them do it. Figure 48 presents a synthesis of the 

answers given by the subjects. The fact is that this was 

one open question. It was made a content analysis and 

the definition of a few categories that could translate 

the subjects answers in a reduced organized way. The 

answers given by the subjects can be consulted in 

Appendix G. 

Question 43 – If yes , which are the reasons? 

Fig.47 | Revisiting Previous Designs 

Fig.48 | Reasons to Revisit Previous 

Designs 

159 




Besides consulting previous gathered or generated 

information it was also important to collect data related 

with the use of that retrieved information in new designs. 

That was done in question 44 which results are show in 

Figure 49. 

Question 44 - Do you normally make use of elements 

from previous designs to new ones? 

160 

Fig.49 | Posterior use of gathered 

information 

Fig.50 | Gathered information storage 

The interesting aspect on these results is that here there 

is a percentage of 79% of the subjects that have stated 

that they normally use elements of previous designs 

in new ones. However in question 42 that asked if 

subject had the habit to consult previous designs the 

percentage of positive answers was lower (59%) being 

even lower the average of those that stated having the 

habit of building a library of contents (38%). So it seems 

that there is always some retrieved information stored in 

the LTM that is effectively used in spite it is not stored in 

any other form. 

The ways used to treat and store information resultant 

from design processes was also targeted by a specific 

question (number 45). The results are presented in 

Figure 50. 

Question 45 - What do you usually do with the gathered 

information of your design processes?

As predicted the majority of the subjects (66%) store the 

information of the whole design process in electronic 

format. The ones that make a selection and treatment of 

the information in deepest ways are in lesser percentage 

(15%). 

This result is a bit contradictory with the one obtained in 

question 41 and there is no definite reasons to justify it 

since it was not made later assessment with the subjects 

regarding this inconsistency. 

As previously mentioned this was an exploratory 

questionnaire. This aspect justifies the inclusion of 

questions such as question 46 that addresses several 

issues related with design process ranging from 

information management to the nature of the brief and 

its implications. 

Question 46 - Classify the following statements according 

to the scale 1 (COMPLETELY DISAGREE to 5 – AGREE 

COMPLETELY) 

Fig. 51 | Evaluation of statements 

about design processes 

161 

46_01 - To collect information is easy but to treat it is very difficult 

46_02 - To search examples of solutions to similar problems reduces the time of creation 

46_03 - To pursue solutions is much more important then to structure in an adequate way the problem 

46_04 - The process of conception is a constant ‘come and going’ among the definition of the problem, its context, and the possible solutions 

that again send us to new reformulations of the problem 

46_05 - Problem and solution are two mutable and mobile elements in the creative process 

46_06 - The design process must be initiated by the search of existent solutions 

46_07 - The design process must be initiated by the problem framing 

46_08 - When the brief is very accurate, limiting with exactitude the object to be created it is much easier to manage time 

46_09 - When the brief is more free and does not exist a rigorous identification of the constraints, there is a bigger difficulty in time management. 




Regarding question 46 it was also tested the hypothesis 

that subjects with different design strategies would 

have different evaluations of the statements. There was 

found one statistically significant difference as it can be 

seen in Table 39. 

162 

Table 39 | Chi-Square Test – evaluation 

of statements regarding design 

process 

* p ≤ 0,05 

Table 40 | Tukey’s Test – evaluation of 

statements regarding design process 

vs subject’s design strategy 

The subjects categorized as having problem driven 

agree more with the statement: “the process of conception 

is a constant ’come and going’ among the definition of the 

problem, its context and possible solutions that conduct us to 

new reformulations of the problem (m.o..=26,50)” than the 

ones of the other categories.

Finally subjects had to answer to question 47 were a 

few statements regarding the role of the written parts 

should be classified according to a Likert scale ranging 

from completely disagree to agree completely. The 

statement that scored a higher mean on the part of the 

subjects was the one that says being the written parts 

adequate to the defense of the concept. The subjects 

also scored high the idea that the written documents 

are adequate media to communicate materials and 

technical specifications. 

Question 47 – In relation to the written parts of the 

design project please classify the following statements 

giving scores between 1 (COMPLETELY DISAGREE) and 5 

( AGREE COMPLETELY). 

SUMMARY OF SURVEYS 

The results on the surveys showed that information 

management and time management (topics that 

structured the questionnaire content) were critical 

elements of the design process. Also relevant was the 

fact that most of the students describe design process 

phases in similar ways being more detailed (in terms of 

the tasks to be developed) in the initial phases and less 

in the last ones: Detail and pre-production. 

Another result of this survey concerns the use of 

methods/tools to help manage the process. It was 

Table 41| Descriptive Statistics – 

evaluation of statements about the 

written parts 

163 




found that students mainly do checklists that do not 

have an effective influence in time and information 

management. 

Furthermore it was concluded that the conceptual phase 

is the one students get more concentrated on and the 

one richest in terms of ‘events’ i.e. blockage, information 

management; contact with external elements such as 

peers and teachers. 

Finally it was possible to assess to some fundamental 

issues to be studied through experiments such as the 

design strategy used by students (problem, solution or 

co-evolution driven). 

1.1.2 Reflection on each one’s own Design Process 

164 

To understand the way students perceive their own 

design process is important since it allow us to get 

information that is relevant in the later comparison to 

be made with the information gathered from an outside 

assessment of the student’s design process. From 

that comparison (to occur in the chapter dedicated to 

discussion and conclusion) we hope to be able to make 

a good description of design processes in its essential 

elements. 

Being the students perception about their own 

processes so relevant, a design exercise was developed 

in the Design Processes Management course, an optional 

course offered to the students of the 5th grade of the 

Product Design and Graphic Design Under Graduation 

courses (the last year of the old curricula). This exercise 

aimed at getting information on how design students see 

their own processes. By this way a structured personal 

assessment about design processes could be acquired 

complementing the data gathered in the surveys. 

Besides that generic goal other objectives were: 

> To test the consistency of the student’s perceptions 

gathered in the surveys;

To enlarge the information about design process 

perception on the part of the students as their agents; 

> The identification of the elements students elect as 

being structural in design processes; 

> The knowledge of the perceived difficulties students 

had along their design processes; 

> The identification of the degree of awareness students 

have about their own cognitive and design processes. 

165 

Fig.52 | Brief of Design Process 

exercise 




The course with the exercise in it was lectured by the 

researcher. The exercise ran during the first three classes. 

A brief was delivered to the 32 students [Appendix H]. 

It stated that students had to describe their own 

design processes, defining the parameters of their 

analysis. Preferably the analysis should be presented as 

a diagram and could be complemented by text. After 

the deep insight assessment of the process used in 

one of their past design exercises they had to propose 

a way to improve their process modelling it again in a 

diagrammatic way. 

All participant students filled in an informed Consent 

[Appendix I]. 

After the exercise there was a debrief session with the 

students in order to collect their impressions about the 

exercise regarding: a) the difficulties they experienced; 

b) what they have learned with the exercise. 

A short English version of the exercise’s brief is presented 

in Figure 52. 

166 

Working with diagrams 

The analysis of the design processes exercise is important 

especially if we take into account that the students 

should preferably make use of the diagrammatic way 

of representation. This request has to do with the fact 

that diagrams as visual representations, are adequate 

to represent concepts and relations regarding quality, 

quantity, distribution, subdivision modification and 

transformation (Massironi, 1982, p.112). 

The use of a graphic image to model the phenomena 

is assumed to be a good research instrument as well 

as a good vehicle to scientific information. What we 

get from the diagrams of the design processes of each 

student is their understanding of a design process in 

its components, relationship among elements, level 

of dependence among elements, dominance and 

subjugation of elements; emphasis and exclusion of 

elements.

Outcomes of the exercise 

The large majority of the students had obvious difficulties 

to deliver the exercise. According to them it had to do 

with the fact that: a) they are not used to analyse their 

own processes and b) to describe them. Furthermore, 

the expressed preference of presenting the processes in 

a diagrammatic way was for them an additional difficulty. 

They asked for an example of what was expected for 

them to deliver, but they didn’t get one. Only 29 students 

finished the exercise and it is on the basis of their work 

that the results are presented. 

Three approaches were observed on the part of the 

students: 

>A more conservative one, both in formal/ 

communicational aspects and in content structuring, 

where students ruled their own model construction 

according to the familiar phases of the design process, 

and listed the tasks to be developed, time spent; tools 

used; positive points and negative points of each phase. 

This approach was the one who had the preference of 

the majority of the students (69%) [see Appendix J]. Some 

of the diagrams were complemented with a descriptive 

text that contained more details about the issues 

addressed in it. The reasons to support such option were 

questioned to the students in a debrief moment. In fact 

in this debrief the majority of the students confirmed to 

have had a hard time to describe their own processes. 

They got fixated in the process phases determined by 

the brief of the exercise they were analysing. Besides 

that it was hard for them to identify what could be the 

determinant parameters in design processes and their 

role in it. An example of this type of diagram can be seen 

in Figures 53 and 54. 

> A more creative approach (in graphic and content 

aspects) where students, although recognising the 

different phases of design process in the way they are 

used to work it in design studio, made their analysis 

according to parameters they had found to be essential 

in design processes [see Appendix K]. In this case 21% of 

the students presented their own processes with the 

inclusion of non-literally demanded elements such as: 

167 




new parameters of analysis or graphic elements that 

communicated different dimensions of the process. 

Also important in this type of exercises is the use of 

graphic elements to describe almost in ‘visual’ ways 

some key issues of the process. An example of this type 

of approach can be seen in Figures 55 to 59. 

> An approach close to a ‘story telling’ report, very literary 

and supported by the images and other elements of the 

design process in analysis [see Appendix L]. The percentage 

of subjects that adopted this approach was the lowest 

(10%). 

The synthesis of the analysis of the outcomes on this 

exercise was made through the use of two inductive 

content analysis grids that are presented in Tables 42 

and 43. Data categorization occurred taking into account 

the results obtained in the survey as well as the literary 

critics. 

168 

The two inductive grids aims at presenting data in a 

concise and rigorous way trying to reduce the enormous 

amount of information into categories/patterns of 

solutions developed by the students. 

The first grid offers the summary of the exercise in its 

structural elements: phases, descriptors used; identified 

problems; listed methods; proposed reformulations 

with a general analysis of the outcomes in terms of the 

model created (its characteristics) and of the written 

information delivered (see Table42). 

The second grid (Table 43) presents the three approaches 

as a result of the critical and deeper analysis of the 

information presented in Table 42. 

Table 42 and 43 show that the factors that were identified 

by the students as being more critical along design 

process were again information management and time 

management (like it was possible to observe in surveys). 

However, this exercise also revealed that there are other 

key factors that students find determinant in the design 

process: the decision making process is one of these. 

Also relevant to mention is that the possibility of 

representing graphically their own design process 

gave some students the possibility of expressing in

GESTÃO DE PROCESSOS DE DESIGN 

SUBJECT DATA EXERCISE OUTPUT RESEARCHER GENERAL ANALYSIS 

CODE LISTED PHASES USED DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIED PROBLEM S L IS T E D ME T HO DS 

P R O P O S E D R E F O R MUL AT IO NS 

T Y P E O F MO DE L 

WRITTEN ANALYSIS 

light analysis that did not capture the essence of the 

process; short information about the process in 

general 

conventional - 2 diagrams; 

extend the reseach time in order to contribute to 

better decisions; reduce time of choice of the 

concept; model earlier in the process to help 

decision making regarding alternatives; define 

technical drawings; improve communication 

elements of the design 

internet search; books; sketching; teacher 

discussion; production office work; 

softwares: thotoshop, illustrator; indesign; 

sketchup; autocad; V-Ray 

lack of organization and planning; first sketches are hard 

to make; lack of technical ergonomic knowledge; bad 

decisions; renders delayed the process; bad time 

management; lack of motivation; lasyness 

tasks description; 

methods/tools 

S1 

Research; conceptualization; 

development; Final Phase; exam 

short development of the ideal model; ...all to be 

defined according to the situation; definition of time 

and tools 

conventional; 2 diagrams 1- real; 

1 ideal; no relation with the object, 

sequential 

more detailing programming of tasks; 

internet search; books; sketching; teacher 

discussion; production office work; 

softwares: thotoshop, illustrator; indesign; 

autocad; 

bad time management; technical concern blocked the 

process; other discipline's work; lack of software 

knowledge; hard time concentrating; lack of decision 

taking... 

positive/negative aspects; 

tasks; dates; methods/tools 

work plan; research; concept; 

development, presentation, 

promotion,model 

S2 

effort of summarizing the description; attempt to 

identify in a clear manner what are the important 

variables. 

Conventional; well organized ; 

divided in two diagrams 1 - 

synthesis; 1- development (just 

from the description of the real 

situation) 

computer; renders, production office not done 

indecision in the initial choice; research and data 

treatment; few sketches; quick choice of the idea to 

develop; lot os computer work, low use of hand designing ; 

method; output type; 

strenghs and weaknesses 

briefing; object's choice; research 

(product analysisand market and 

technological research); concept study; 

concept formalization; development and 

pre engineering; logotype and packaging; 

final design; prototype 

S3 

report type of description that lacks depth. 

conventional; very simple and 

accompannied with a descriptive 

text 

adoption of a process methodology and a reflection 

upon each design concluded. 

search internet; books and magazines; 

discussion with peers and professors; 

sketches 

tiredeness; organizations; other work; language(foreign ); 

idea blockage; expression difficulty 

tasks description; external 

factors; information 

management; methods 

S4 context analysis; concept definition; 

concept visualization; 

supported by a description of the facts in each 

phase 

conventional; 2 schems : real and 

ideal; no support in design images 

broaden research; adopt a decision/consequence 

attitude in the initial phase; avoid design fixation; 

manage time among phases; predict a time to 

support umpredicted problems 

internet; books; InDesign; sketches; 

illustrator 

lack of material culture; bad selection of the initial m atrix; 

lack of specific knowledge; time management; 

tasks description; postive 

and negative aspects; 

methods 

Analysis; research; concept; 

development; model 

S5 

weak; research; inability of isolate variables that 

interfere ith the process; 

weak conventional diagram ; 

sequential; no use of the design to 

support the analysis; very 

descriptive; 

more extense and detailed research; concept - 

creative process more productive; development of 

a good product defense 

sketches, renders 

creative blockage; weak research; external factor; bad 

time management; 

strenghts and weaknesses 

research; ergonomic studies; 

concept(creation); development; 

justification; final result 

S6 

a context of the exercise is donein descriptive ways 

conventional; reference to the 

design; superficial analysis 

not done 

other porducts search; Illustrator; books; 

Rhinoceros; Autocad; peers and professors 

consultancy; sketchup 

problem assessment; difficulties in the selection among 

alternatives; time management; scarcity of specialized 

information 

calendar; task description; 

negative/positive aspects; 

resources; outcomes of the 

phases 

research; concpet study; formalization of 

the concept; development 

S7 

conventional; sequential; not use 

of the design to support the 

analysis; detailed description 

did not made it 

internet search, teacher consultancy; 

sketching; 3D modeling; photocomposition; 

autocad, Illustrator; 3D studio Max; 

dispersion in the choice of the theme; cultural differen ces; 

monotonie of the technical work; climat influence; 

language differences; communication barriers 

tasks description; 

methods/tools; resources; 

difficulties; enablers 

theme choice; pre-research; goals; preconcepts; 

selection of a theme; research; 

formalization; conclusion; presentation 

S8 

very creative but not explored in depth.I25 

time management; disperse research; lack of link between 

research and the concpetual phase; lack of productivity 

experiment; knowledge; 

pressure (parameters just 

pointed out for the solution) 

research; idea generation; attempt/Error; 

final solution 

S9 

extensive appendix with the design; lack of ability 

producing a deep analysis of the process 

conventional; lack of depth; huge 

additional information about the 

design 

not done 

internet; books; brainstorming

CONVENTIONAL DIAGRAMS (20) 

CREATIVE DIAGRAMS (6) 

DESCRIPTIVE (REPORTS) (3) 

Analysis of the design process 

(based in previous design) 

Proposed design 

Process 




Process 




Process 

structure 

dependent on design brief 

specification of phases; 

structured upon the design 

phases student uses 

not necessarily dependent on 

the design phases of the brief; 

more flexible strcture 

it can assume a high level 

of abstraction 

extensive description of the 

process sometimes close to a 

diary language 

descriptive methodology or 

just a descriptive text that 

advances ways of improving 

the experienced negative 

aspects of the process 

CONTENT 

parameters/ 

descriptors 

level of abstraction 

from the design 

most often used: design 

phases; task definitions; 

chronogram; methods; 

negative/positive aspects 

low - the analysis are made 

based upon the constraints 

and context of the design 

process under study 

identical parameters making 

use of the negative aspects to 

find out solutions to 

overcome the failures 

low to medium - some 

proposal are still dependent 

on the particular problems 

found out in the design 

process that was analyzed 

social interaction; stimuli; 

cognitive aspects; decision 

analysis; constraint analysis; 

facilitators 

medium to high - analysis 

is based upon a process but 

broaden categories are 

created and inductive 

thought occurs 

identical to the analysis of the 

existent design process 

mediem to high - normally 

higher than in the analysis of 

a 'real situation' - the levels of 

abstraction are superior 

hard to isolate in this 'story 

telling' process 

completely dependence on 

images of the design done 

Conventional, In the cases a 

methodology ispresented the 

parameters are the ones 

addressed in the 

conventional mode. 

variable - can be dependent 

or completely independent 

through the proposal of an 

existing methodology 

FORM 

more relevant 

aspects 

representation 

use of images 

more relevant 

aspects 

Regarding content the most relevant aspects are: 1. conventional diagrams convey in a 'literal' way the design process being studied; That apparently constrained the possibility of 

induction in order to create a more critical assessment of the process. 2. This representation made possible to students to get aware of their own process although it was hard for them 

to isolate the categories upon which the analysis would be done: 3. The creative approach was done in two ways: content and form. In what content concerns the creativity occurred by 

the creation of parameters of analysis that were not conventional or found in the existent methodologies; 4. In general it was more succeeded the task of describing an existent process 

than to propose a new one. That was done either by proposing the improvement of negative aspects previously pointed out or in vague terms, supported by existing design 

methodologies. 

sequential scheme; notation of 

boxes; geometric forms 

connected through the use 

of lines, arrows; a color code 

is normally used to enhance 

communication and help to 

isolate and/or group some 

of the elements 

low (sometimes there is the 

use of some images to put in 

context the 'reading' of the 

diagram) 

similar to the representation 

in the case of the analysis of a 

previous design 

non existent 

intense use of fluid forms; of 

analogies translating several 

aspects of the design process 

non existent 

normally it is a natural 

sequence of what was 

developed in the analysis of 

a previous design 

non existent 

the usual use of images done 

in reports; images 

complementing the 

information given in text 

extensive use of images that 

illustrate the descriptive text 

written text only 

non existent 

1. The visual representation of the design process in general benefited the communication of those processes; 2. Even in conventional representations it was possible to convey 

expressively the relationship among parts and the dynamics of the process itself; 3. The creative representations that explored more the form aspects gave some students the possibility 

of going deeper in their analysis; 4. It was also visible that the students that had more creative approach were the ones that had more ability to engage in inductive thought. 

Table 43 | Main characteristics of 

the three types of outcomes (to 

present in A3 format) 

171 



Gestão de Processo de Design – Reflexão Crítica e Sistemática 

“Interface do produto” 

No decorrer da disciplina de projecto, foi-nos proposta a criação de um electrodoméstico que tinha como ponto de partida a escolha de 

um produto já existente que iria servir de base ao nosso produto. Pretendia-se a identificação e interpretação do objecto através das peças que 

constituem a essência do seu funcionamento mecânico e/ou electrónico, atrases da decomposição do mesmo, retirando todos os componentes 

que tenham uma função de cobertura e interface com o utilizador. 

Na fase inicial deparei-me com alguns problemas no que diz respeito á escolha do produto a trabalhar, pois tendo em conta que o 

objectivo seria desmontar todo o aparelho, quis limitar a minha escolha a electrodomésticos velhos que teria em casa. Numa primeira recolha os 

objectos que seleccionei não me agradavam, tendo mais tarde encontrado um que me agradou recomeçando todo o trabalho do zero. 

Devido a esta indecisão quanto ao objecto a trabalhar perdi cerca de uma semana em relação aos meus colegas de turma, e para não 

perder mais tempo e me organizar segui o concelho dos professores, e elaborei de um plano de execução do projecto, que consistia na divisão do 

processo de trabalho em fases, e o tempo que a principio iria demorar em cada fase limitando o tempo a cada uma. 

Ao longo de todo o processo de trabalho o meu calendário sofreu alterações, tendo no fim do projecto um calendário com tempos 

diferentes dos inicialmente estipulados. 

ANÁLISE DO PROCESSO DO PROJECTO DE DESIGN 

CALENDARIO INICIAL 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 F 2 3 4 5 6 7 F 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

análise do produto 

análise do mercado 

pesquisa tecnologia 

estudo de conceito 

formalização de conceito 

desenvolvimento e pré engineering 

lógotipo/packaging 

fase final 

CALENDARIO FINAL 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 F 2 3 4 5 6 7 F 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

análise do produto 

análise do mercado 

pesquisa tecnologia 

estudo de conceito 

formalização de conceito 

desenvolvimento e pré engineering 

lógotipo/ packaging 

fase final 

prótotipo 

desenvolvimento do projecto 

metodo 

entrega 

análise + - 

Briefing Escolha do objecto Pesquisa 

- Lançamento 

do trabalho 

- objecto já 

existente 

- Recolha de objecto 

velho em casa 

- Dificuldade e 

indecição na escolha 

do objecto a 

trabalhar 

Análise do Produto 

- História 

- Público alvo 

- Análise do produto 

- Mercado: marcas 

- Pesquisa na internet 

- Desmantelamento do 

objecto 

Pesquisa de mercado 

Pesquisa de Tecnologica 

- Analogias 

- Mercado: marcas 

- Análise de mercado 

- Análise de materiais 

- Novos conceitos 

- Pesquisa na internet 

- Pesquisa e tratamento de informação da 2ª fase na 

fase de analise do produto, criou alguma repetição nos 

cadernos entregues 

Estudo de conceito 

- Novo conceito 

- “O que o público 

quer” 

- Esboços 

- Ideia final 

- Pesquisana internet 

- Esboços á mão levantada 

Caderno Caderno Cartaz 

- Realização de poucos 

esboços 

- Chegada á ideia final muito 

rápidamente partido logo 

para a fase seguinte 

Formalização de conceito 

- Medidas gerais 

- Aspecto final 

- Estudo de materiais 

- Componentes necessários 

- Esboços realizados no 

computador - 3D 

Caderno 

- Deixei de lado o lápis e 

começei logo a trabalhar 

no computador 

- Desenvolvi a ideia 

directamente no 

computador limitando-me 

por vezes um pouco 

- Vantagem de ter noção das 

medidas reais, logo sei 

com o que posso contar. 

Desenvolvimento e 

Pré engineering 

- Desenhos técnicos 

- 3D e 2D 

- Renders 

- Explodidas 

- Realizado no computador 

Caderno 

- Devido ao desenvolvimento 

directo no computador, 

tinha esta fase já muito 

desenvolvida 

CONCLUSÃO 

Em jeito de conclusão e agora já com algum distanciamento posso dizer que foi um trabalho com o qual não tive grandes problemas, a não ser na fase inicial a quando da escolha do objecto a trabalhar, pois após o ter escolhido 

não surgiram grandes percalços pelo caminho, tendo sido a realização do calendário essencial a isso, visto que me ajudou a organizar, não me permitindo dispersar e me perder nas diversas fases essenciais á realização do projecto. Apesar 

de ter prolongado todos os prazos estipulados inicialmente para cada fase, não considero que seja grave pois futuramente vai ser de grande ajuda para perceber onde é que necessito de mais tempo para a realização de um projecto. 

Logotipo / Packaging 

- Estudo do logotipo 

- Cores 

. Packaging 

- Marketing/ 

folheto promocional 

Caderno 

Final 

Prótotipo 

- Material a usar 

- Prototipo - objecto 

- embalagem 

- Realizado no computador - Realizado no computador - Realizado á mão 

realizado no computador 

- Primeira ideia resultou 

bem tendo sido essa 

e final 

- Se a primeira ideia resultou 

caso tivesse desenvolvido 

mais, poderia ter tido um 

resultado ainda melhor 

- Resumo do trabalho 

efectuado até então 

Cartaz 

- Resumo do resultado final, 

recolhido da informação 

tratada até então 

Maquete 3D 

- Devido a ter conseguido 

entregar tudo a horas tive 

bastante tempo para a 

realização desta fase 

-Como nesta fase estava de 

férias deixei tudo para a 

última hora tendo o 

prototipo do produto ficado 

com algumas imprefeições 

que devido ao tempo que 

tive não deveriam de existir. 

Ana Laranjeiro Serrazina nº 6045 D5A Gestão de Processos de Design Docente: Rita Almendra FA_UTL 2008/2009 

Fig.53 | Design Process 

of Ana Serrazina (subject 

3; Appendix J) 

173 



20 de Dezembro - 20 de janeiro 

Não encontrava material apropriado 

Spray preto demorou imenso tempo a secar 

- Desenhos técnicos 

- comprar material - 12 de Janeiro 

- marcar o material, cortar, colar, lixar, - 15 e 16 de Janeiro 

- Betumar, secar, betumar, secar ... - 17, 18 e 19 de Janeiro 

- Pintar a spray - duas cores em áreas distintas - 19 de Janeiro 

- Acabamentos gráficos - 19 de Janeiro 

MELHORIA 

MODELO FORMAL 

- Corrigir erro do corte 

- Repetir os renders 

- Elaborar a gama de cores do produto 

- Repetir o packaging 

- Elaborar o folheto promocional 

FORMALIZAÇÃO DA MELHORIA 

- Corte - 17 de Janeiro 

- Renders - 19 de Janeiro 

- Packaging e folheto - 17 e 19 de Janeiro 

- Organização e montagem dia 

18 de Dezembro 

Gerir o tempo: betume e spray têm tempo de seca 

Facilidade na executação de modelos formais 

Maquete 

Caderno A3 

Packaging 

Não possuia um objecto com as carcaterísticas necessárias, em Lisboa 

Mãe não me deixava desmontar nenhum 

Falta de conhecimentos técnicos ( sistemas electrónicos ) 

Uma colega escolheu o mesmo objecto 

Falta de conhecimentos Rhinoceros ( modelação 3D ) 

Não havia ferramenta especial para abrir a base do liquidificador. 

31 de Outobro - 12 de novembro 

Ausência de scaner para digitalizar os esboços 

22 de novembro - 28 de novembro 

29 de novembro - 19 de Dezembro 

Cor dos objectos e a forma dificulta a percepção do render 

CONTEXTO 

FORMALIZAÇÃO PESQUISA FINAL 

FASE FINAL 

Definir as directrizes do conceito para o novo objecto 

Encontrar analogias 

Caderno A4 

- Escolha do objecto 

- Concepção de um planeamento 

- Análise do Produto - função e ergonomia 

- Decomposição do produto 

PESQUISA 

- História - evolução do objecto 

- Mercado 

- Mercado: Marcas 

- Analogias: - objectos semelhantes 

- objectos com outras funções 

- Materiais 

- Tenologia 

- Público-alvo 

- Conceito 

FORMALIZAÇÃO PESQUISA 

- Layout da apresentação - 8 de Novembro 

- Organização e montagem da pesquisa - 10 e 11 de Novembro 

Muita pesquisa 

- Internet 

- superfícies comerciais 

- Catálogos, revistas 

Dificuldade em encontrar motor com dimensões e características especificas 

Dificuldade na elaboração formal do conceito devido à incapacidade em abstrair da 

necessidade de um motor. 

Tomar decisões: que conceitos formais seguir 

Procurar analogias 

Completo caderno A4 

Painel A2 

Tomar decisões finais 

Execução de modelos de estudos para desenvolvimento do projecto 

Caderno A4 

Dois painéis A2 

13 de novembro - 21 de novembro 

ESTUDO DE CONCEITO 

- Definição dos componentes do objecto 

objecto portátil: capacidade, funções 

- Aprofundamento da pesquisa 

- analogias 

- objectos semelhantes 

- analogias formais ( outros objectos ) 

- Vincar as directrizes do projecto - definir o 

briefing final 

- Elaboração dos primeiros esboços 

- esboços gerais - esquemas funcionais 

- esboços formais 

- Encontrado um motor com as caracteristicas 

necessárias (17 de Novembro) 

Pesquisa 

Isolamento (desenhar muito) 

Trocar impressões com os colegas 

Descontrair com os amigos 

Ler jornais, revistas 

Oobservar 

- Concretização da pesquisa continua 

- aplicação da recolha no layout durante o processo de pesquisa 

- Painel - 22 de Novembro 

FINALIZAÇÃO DO CONCEITO 

- Desenvolvimento de dois conceitos 

- Executar e explorar modelos formais 

- Aprofundar as propostas dos conceitos 

- definir todos os componentes 

- definir formas finais: botões, tampas, etc. 

- definir funções, medidas e estudo ergonómico 

- definir materiais 

FORMALIZAÇÃO DO CONCEITO 

- Layout de apresentação dos painéis preparado - 26 de Novembro 

- Elaboração de um sub-planeamento para gerir o tempo com as tarefas - 27 de 

Novembro - 

- Selecção dos esboços - 27 de Novembro 

- Elaboração dos desenhos finais de apresentação - 27 de Novembro 

- Layout de apresentação do caderno é aproveitado do da pesquisa 

- organização e montagem - 27 de Novembro 

Pesquisa 

Observar e ver muita coisa 

Pausas para descansar 

- Desenvolvimento de uma linha de produtos em vez de optar por um dos 

conceitos 

- Desenvolvimento e finalização dos conceitos 

-ajuste formal e funcional dos componentes 

- Modelação tridimensional - renders 

- Escolha de um dos objectos para desenvolver na parte técnica 

- Definição de medidas e verificação funcional 

- desenhos técnicos e explodida 

- Definição electrónica 

- corte ilustrativo 

- Definição ergonómica 

- objecto em uso 

- Selecção de materiais, tecnologias e definição de componentes 

FORMALIZAÇÃO 

- Corte e desenhos técnicos - 16 de Dezembro 

- Renders - 17 e 18 de Dezembro 

- Packaging e identidde final do produto - 17 e 18 de Dezembro 

- Layout de apresentação do caderno é aproveitado dos anteriores mas ajustado 

- Elaboração de um sub-planeamento no dia 18 de Dezembro - gerir o tempo 

com as tarefas 

- Organização e montagem - 18 de Dezembro 

Pausas para descansar 

Modelação das superfícies pretendidas 

Estabelecer componentes necessárias a ser representadas 

Adiantamento no projecto permitiu explorar mais os objectos no 3D 

Capacidade de ilustração razoável (em pouco tempo) 

Escolha da marca - A pesquisa de mercado orientada segundo marcas 

Caderno A3 

Painel A2 

Fig.54 | Design Process of 

student Patrícia Couto 

175 



177 

Fig.55 | General Design Process 

model of Mariana Coutinho 

( Subject18; Appendix K) 




178 

Fig.56 | Detailed description of 

the process (Mariana Coutinho 

Subject18; Appendix K)

Fig.57 | Analysis of the process in 

terms of social interaction of Mariana 

Coutinho (Subject 18; Appendix K) 

179 

Fig.58 | Process analysis in terms of 

time spent from Mariana Coutinho( 

Subject18; Appendix K) 




Fig.59 | Process analysis and its 

improvement (David Francisco - 

Subject 9; Appendix K) 

more creative ways the richness and the complexity of 

those processes. Apparently, and according to students 

in their debrief moment, this way of presenting their 

assessments of the process worked for them as a 

facilitator of the reflection process upon not only an 

existent design process but also upon design processes 

in general. Regarding the two analyses to be done (a 

critical assessment of an existent design process and 

a proposal for a design process) the majority of the 

students found it very hard to propose an alterative/ 

improved model. Those who made such a new model 

did it on the basis of proposing improvements of the 

negative aspects enclosed in the design process they 

had to analyse. 

180 

SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCESS EXERCISE 

As a special exercise in the course ‘design process 

management’ students were requested to make an 

analysis of their own design process. They had to do it 

by, preferably, making use of a diagram to represent 

their process. They also had to propose a reformulation 

of their process in order to overcome the weak points 

detected in the existing process. 

The Surveys among students and this exercise proposing 

a visual representation of design process were two 

methods used to access information about the same 

subject: (determinants of the) design process.

It was thought that the use of diagrams or any other visual 

schematic representation would facilitate the delivery of 

information about the design process. That was because 

graphic representations, seen as a way of analysing an 

‘object’ could more easily be adopted by these ‘visual 

experts’ as a rich mean to proceed to its decomposition 

in its structural elements and in the multiple and diverse 

relationship that are established among them. 

However, it was noticeable that these students 

never had thought in depth about their own design 

process. Therefore, it was visible (especially after the 

debrief session with them) that through this (learning) 

experience they became aware of several aspects of the 

process they never reflected upon before. 

Moreover, the results show that the majority of the 

students had difficulties with inductive thinking. Starting 

from the description and analysis of a specific design 

process to ending up with a proposal of a general model 

to frame design processes was hard to accomplish. 

1.2. How industry sees design processes and the 

quality of the outcomes - based upon the survey 

made to Portuguese manufacturing industry 

The De.:SID research project was created having has one 

of the main purposes the one of making a diagnosis of 

the use of Design inside the manufacturing Portuguese 

Industry. The project was born from the necessity, felt 

by the researcher, of having data about the Design 

situation inside portuguese companies since that 

characterization would be essential to develop the 

particular study of design processes. It also allowed us 

to assess the way processes in general are viewed by 

business practitioners. 

The Portuguese Foundation for the Science and 

Technology (FCT) funded the project that started on 

the 3rd of September from 2007 and will end in January 

2011. The research project is coordinated by Professor 

Doutor Luís António dos Santos Romão (FA) and it has 

nine more researchers from the areas of Management, 

Economy, Artificial Intelligence and Design. Moreover it 

181 




182 

43. Labour Ministery. 

has two partners: The CPD (the Portuguese Design Centre) 

and the APD (The portuguese Association of Designers). 

Besides the diagnosis of the use of Design in the 

manufacturing Industry the project will create a 

software (to be used by the industry) which will allow 

each company to make its diagnosis, benchmarking and 

to access to some advise regarding the implementation 

of an adequate use of Design. 

In this thesis we will refer one of the activities of the 

research project where we had an intense participation. 

It is the case of the National Survey to the Portuguese 

Manufacturing Industry that will be analysed in the next 

pages. 

An online survey, addressed to a sample of 1405 

Portuguese manufacturing companies, was developed 

and launched by the De.:SID research project. This online 

survey was preceeded by an online pilot survey (made 

to a sample of 60 firms). 

The survey sample was representative of the Universe 

being studied and it was bought by De.:SID to the 

Ministério do Trabalho (MT) 43 . 

The questionnaire that was created has six sections: 

I) General Characterization of the company; II) 

Perception of the Importance of the Use of Design; 

III) Identification of the drivers and enablers of Design 

used by the company; IV) Attitude and action of 

the company’s management towards design use; V) 

Company’s Evaluation of Design Results; VI) Barriers to 

the Use of Design [Appendix M] 

At the end of the process the number of respondents was 

of 99. The analysis will be presented on this number. 

The author’s contribution to this De.:SID action was done 

at different levels: a) the construction of the questions 

tothe pilot survey; the construction of some of the 

questions of the survey and an active contribution 

to the overall design of the questionnaire [Appendix N 

presents an example of it]; b) an intense participation in the 

development of the rules for the relationship between 

questions and the weight of each one in the definition of 

the degree of design use maturity on companies; [Appendix 

N] c) participation in the analysis of the outcomes;

The descriptive statistics of the online questionnaire 

[Appendix O] are too extensive. Therefore only a summary 

of the outcomes will be presented here. The focus of our 

analysis is on the way companies perceive and evaluate 

design processes and the quality of design. 

In order to understand which variables play a key role 

in the success of the Business area of companies a first 

question was formulated in which respondents could 

rank in order those ‘critical factors’. 

As can be observed in Table 44, ‘Quality’ and the ‘Design 

and Technological Innovation’ are the factors that mostly 

influence business success. That is relevant for this 

research since we have chosen to focus on quality even 

without knowing that it had such representativeness in 

terms of business development. 

Table 44 | Main Success Critical 

Factors of the Business area of the 

companies 

(question 10 De.:SID Quest.) 

183 




Furthermore, besides the ‘critical factors’ that are common 

to all the companies acting in a specific area of business 

it is important to consider the ‘core competences’ which 

refer to what the firm itself knows to do better than its 

competitors. The ideal situation is when we have ‘what 

has to be done well’ (the business critical factors) aligned 

with ‘what we do better’ (the core competences of the 

firm). 

Table 45 | Main Core Competences of 

the Firm (question 11 De.:SID Quest.) 

The analysis of Table 45 confirms ‘Quality’ and ‘Design 

and Technological Innovation’ as the core competences 

assumed by the larger average number of the firms. It 

also shows that that percentages of both (‘Quality’ and 

184

‘Design and Technological Innovation’) are higher than 

the ones presented in the previous table. That is not 

unusual since there are several ‘business critical factors’ 

intervening at the same time and firms do not dominate 

completely all the competences at the same level. The 

combination of all is what might guarantee a good 

performance in the market, meaning a competitive 

advantage. 

With the answers to these two questions we may 

assume that ‘Quality’ and ‘Design’ are central to business 

in general. However, it is important to understand how 

the Industry perceives Design, its presence in firms and 

the role it can play in business. 

A next question was, therefore, what were the associations 

the firm made with Design. Table 46 shows that 

‘Innovation’ as the strongest association. It also shows the 

Table 46 | Factors associated with the 

term Design (question 12 on De.:SID 

Quest). N=94 

185 




close relationship of Design with ‘product development’ 

and ‘functionality’ (a product centered vision of Design). 

Nevertheless ‘Quality’ is also associated in meaningful 

ways with Design and again we have here a reinforcement 

of the need to deepen more our understanding of how 

quality in Design can be worked on. 

Also relevant is to notice how distant (in terms of firm’s 

perception) is Design from ‘research’ from ‘Process’ and 

from ‘Sustainability’. 

In addition to the perception of the firm’s concept of 

Design it was important to understand which were for 

each company the main drivers of Design. Drivers are 

seen as reasons for Design Usage inside the companies. 

186 

The drivers were grouped according to the categories: 

Firm; Competition; Clients; Strategy; Industry and 

Suppliers. These categories were used also in other 

studies like the one promoted by Designium (UIHA 

– Helsinki University) and developed under the 

coordination of Nieminen (2005). On that particular 

case, of Finnish companies, it was found out that: 

“the most important drivers are the maturity and velocity of 

the industry, customer type, and the size of the company. 

The less usual design usage is in the industry, the more 

beneficial it is. Design can be part of solutions that are not 

typically used in the industry. The experience in design usage 

affects the intensity of design utilization but also the results. 

The more experienced design user that the company is, the 

more difficult the implementation is to copy. It seems that 

the most important factor for success in design usage is the 

direct connection between business goals, product strategy 

and design strategy, as well as the link between brand and 

corporate identity and design goals”. (p.77) 

When observing the results in the Portuguese context 

(Table 47) the drivers that play a key role are, in 

sequence: the firm’s image/reputation; the innovation 

capabilities of the competitors; the product itself; the 

strategy of differentiation and the quality of the clients. 

Apparently there is a main difference in the reasons 

that drive Design inside the firms in these two different 

contexts (the Finnish being more mature in terms of the 

Use of Design), showing that in the Portuguese context

the reasons are more restricted to the firm’s sphere 

of influence and less dependent on the Industry as a 

whole. 

187 




188 

Table 47 | Main Drivers of Design 

inside the companies (question 13 

on De.:SID Quest). N=94 

Although the perceptions firms have about Design are 

important to know, they will be influenced by the actual 

use of design, by the type of contact they have with it 

and for how long they have it. Table 48 shows that 30% 

of the firms use Design longer than 10 years and 27% 

use it less than 10 years. 

Table 48 | Number of Years the Firm 

uses Design (question 16, De.:SID 

Quest) 

44. According to DDC “The 

design ladder is a useful 4-step 

model for grouping companies’ 

design maturity on the basis of 

their attitudes towards design. 

The higher a company is up 

the ladder, the greater strategic 

importance design has for the 

Going deeper in the understanding of the type of use 

firm’s make of Design a question was raised that expresses 

different levels of maturity in the use of Design. This level 

of maturity is a concept developed by the Danish Design 

Centre (DDC) in 2003 and is presented in Figure 60 under 

the designation of ‘Design Ladder’ 44 . 

One of the major challenges of De.:SID research project 

was to define the parameters which allow us to classify 

a firm according to this four steps model. Therefore, it

was made a complex study of the relationship between 

the questions being addressed in the questionnaire and 

the levels of maturity established by the Design Ladder 

model. One of the questions that addresses directly that 

issue is question 15 where firms must indicate the type 

of attitude they have towards Design. The options of the 

question are not stated the same way the Design Ladder 

displays it (see Figure 60). The correspondence between 

the two (as discussed among the ten researchers of the 

project after making a literature review) was defined as 

follows: 

> Non-existent activity -> Non Design; 

> Occasional Activity/Activity of Modelling/shaping the 

product -> Design as styling; 

> Design as a competitive factor of business/core 

competence integrating each of the firm’s decision -> 

Design as a process; 

> Design as a catalyser of permanent innovation -> Design 

as innovation. 

Figure 61 show us that 42,4% of the firms indicate to be 

on Step 3 of the Design Ladder; 28,3% are on Step 2 and 

15,2% indicate being on Step 4 of the Ladder. However, 

evidence after data treatment shows that, in general, 

firms indicate a level of maturity that is higher than what 

exists in reality (see De.:SID survey Report to be published 

in the internet address http://desid.fa.utl.pt/). 

Fig.60 | The Design Ladder (Source: 

DDC, 2003) 

company. First step: Non-design 

- Design is a negligible part of 

product development etc., and 

any design activities there are fall 

to professional groups other than 

designers; Second step: Design 

as styling- Design is seen solely as 

relating to the final physical form of 

a product. This can be the work of a 

designer, but is usually created by 

other employees. Third step: Design 

as process - Design is not a result 

but a method that is integrated 

early on in the development 

process. The production outcome 

requires contributions from a range 

of specialists. Fourth step: Design 

as innovation - The designer works 

closely alongside the company’s 

owners/management on a 

complete or major renewal of its 

business concept.” (DDC, 2003) 

189 




Fig.61 | Characterization of Design 

Activity (2005 to 2007) – question 

15, De.:SID Quest. 

190 

Fig.62 | Characterization of Design 

Activity (predicted to 2008 to 2010) 

– question 17. De.:SID Quest.

Additionally it was important to gather information 

about the evolution in the attitude towards Design firms 

expected to go through. Figure 62 shows that firms, in 

general, intend to move up on the Design Ladder. 

Deepening the analysis we come to a question that 

has to do with enabling Design 45 

use inside firms. 

Table 49 presents the results obtained with a question 

addressing the type of involvement Administration and 

Management have in the Design Activity. 

191 

The table shows that in the sample of 81 firms that 

answered the question 47% indicate that administration 

has a median involvement in Design activities while 32% 

say that it has a high involvement in it. 

Related with the question of the level of involvement of 

the Top Management in Design is the question about 

the (evolution in) investment they are willing to do in it. 

Table 50 shows that in a sample of 84 companies 54% 

intend to maintain their current level of Investment in 

Design while 36% say they aim at a slight increasement. 

Regarding the investments made in Design firms were 

asked to characterize its nature and relative weight. 

Table 51 shows that the type of investments are divided 

among the acquisition of tools, other equipments and 

software (39,4%), the support of Marketing Activities 

(31,3%), acquiring external knowledge (30,3%) and 

Education 24,2%). 

Table 49 | Involvement of 

Administration/Management 

with Design Activity (question 19, 

De.:SIDQuest.) 

45. Enablers are issues that 

companies should consider when 

implementing design strategies 

and organizing design usage. 

Enablers can be further categorized 

into three parts: design in vision 

and strategy development, design 

management, and operative design 

usage, corresponding to the three 

level of Design management inside 

the firms: the strategic, the tactic 

and the operational one. 




Table 50 | Predicted evolution of 

the Investment in Design (2008 

to 2010) (question 21, De.:SID 

Quest.) 

192 

Table 51 | Investments in Design 

made during the period from 

2005 to 2007 (question 23, De.:SID 

Quest.) 

46. The fact that there are only 59 

respondents is directly related 

with the circumstance that the 

electronic survey had a mechanism 

of detecting (after a few central 

questions were answered) the 

level of maturity of the firm. As a 

consequence some firms had to 

answer only 15 questions; others 

37 and the remaining the total 

number of questions. 

Another possible enabler of design use inside the 

firms is Leadership. For that reason firms were asked to 

indicate who are the persons/functions responsible for 

the leadership of new projects of R&D Innovation and 

Design. Table 52 summarizes the outcomes. 

Only 59 out of 99 firms answered the question of 

leadership 46 . Taking that number as the total we see 

that projects are lead by a range of functionaries, most 

frequently by Top Managers (29 %) and less frequently 

by marketers (8,5%). However, these numbers were 

found not to reflect exactly what happens in firms. 

The case-studies performed in the same period that 

included visits to the firms and interviews with the CEO 

and other responsible persons from the areas of Design 

and Marketing shows a different reality: leadership, at 

least at the strategic level of Design intervention, is done 

mostly by the Top Management structure.

The openness firms show towards external entities and 

the aptitude they reveal to cooperate with those at the 

level of Design processes is also considered to be a good 

enabler of Design Use inside the companies. 

Table 52 | Leadership of New 

Projects of R&D, Innovation and 

Design (question 24, De.:SID 

Quest.). N=59 

This question is particularly important for this research 

since it focuses directly on the relationship firms establish 

with universities (or research centres). 193 

Table 53 shows that from the 99 firms 36,4% declared to 

have relationship with clients and 29,3% with suppliers, 

which is common in terms of the dynamics of companies 

and its stakeholders. Among these external entities the 

technological centres account for 24,2% followed by the 

Table 53 | External Entities involved 

in the Design Processes (question 

26, De.:SID Quest.)N=99 




universities with 20,2% and the research centres with 

15,2%. The low percentages in general indicate that 

firms rely mostly upon own resources. The rather poor 

involvement of the universities makes us aware that 

much can still be done to strengthen the relationship 

between university education&research and industry. 

The access to the three levels of design intervention inside 

the firms (strategic tactic operational) was reason for the 

researchers of De.:SID to design questions addressing 

specifically each level. One of those is question 31 that 

tried to isolate the factors that, in the firm’s assessment, 

contribute more to create Value in the Product. 

Table 54 | Factors that contribute 

most to Value in Product (question 

31, De.:SID Quest.)N=84 

Table 54 shows that ‘economic factors’ are the most 

important when creating product Value (65%). It is 

194

closely followed by ‘Innovation’ (63%). The aesthetical/ 

communicational aspects are relevant to firms since 

‘attractiveness’ and ‘ability to surprise’ score high (40% 

and 36%). Less influential are aspects related with 

performance, functioning and manufacturing. 

Furthermore the De.:SID questionnaire incorporates 

a question (Q.35) that is equal to the one presented in 

the annual survey to Innovation made by the European 

Community (EC). It is an essential question since it 

allows us to see if innovation is growing in products 

and processes either by creating new or by improving 

existing ones. The question asks if the firm in the years 

of 2005, 2006, 2007 as introduced new products and 

processes and improved products and processes. 

195 

It is possible to recognize a consistent growth in both 

creating and improving products. In what concerns 

processes the growth is not so linear. It is also visible that 

Innovation occurs more in products than in processes 

but it is relevant that the percentages of innovation in 

processes (both as new or improvement) are around 

40% in the year of 2007. 

In the De.:SID questionnaire, ‘Quality’ was also addressed 

in two questions. One of the questions incorporates 

the dimensions of quality of the ‘Total Product Quality’ 

model presented in Chapter II, section 4. 

Table 55 | Innovation Rate – 

New and Improved Products 

and Processes. 

(question 35, De.:SID Quest.) 




196 

Table 56 | Evaluation of some 

aspects of Design Quality. 


*aspects of Quality from Henri 

Stoll (1999) Total Product Quality 

Model that were explained to the 

respondents 

The analysis of Table 56 indicates that to firms ‘Quality’ is 

determinant in the way it can guarantee the establishment 

of a good ‘customer relationship management’ (3,40). It 

is also noticeable that the quality of the ‘concept’, which 

concerns the performance, product features, aesthetic 

and ergonomic issues (aspects that make the product 

desirable to the end consumer), is also valued by the firms 

(2,99). Being so, firms apparently see as fundamental 

aspects of the Quality those that are directly linked with 

consumer/customer related issues. 

The section of the questionnaire dedicated to the 

‘Attitude and action of the company’s management 

towards design use’ starts with a question about the 

existence in the firm of someone responsible for having 

“New Ideas”. 

Table 57 shows that in 28,3% of the firms designers have 

that task, followed by the Top managers with 19,2%. 

When considering the results presented in Table 62 

(about leadership of new projects) we verify that the 

order is reversed but that those are the two professional 

areas that account mostly for the ‘control’ of Idea 

generation and development. 

It is also of interest to know if the firms develop design 

internally or if they make use of external design services 

or both. Table 58 gives us data about that reality and 

shows that on a total of 82 firms 59% use both internal 

and external design services, 31% do Design exclusively

inside the firm and 11% use design services hired 

outside. In principle, if design is a core competence of the 

firm it should be developed internally. However, there 

are some services of Design that can, and sometimes 

should, be outsourced since that has advantages for the 

firm (for example a multimedia design work to support 

a product or a brand is something that you can contract 

outside with consultancies that have the necessary skills 

and experience to do it). 

With this survey De.:SID researchers also tried to shine 

some light on the design place inside the firm. In 

Chapter II of this thesis the organizational diffuseness of 

design was addressed as one of the problems of Design 

strategic use on the part of firms. 

Table 59 synthesizes the outcomes and it is visible that 

the departments that are mostly associated with design 

Table 57 | Who has the Responsibility 

of Having “New Ideas” 


Table 58 | Source of Design 

Activity (question 39, De.:SID 

Quest.) 

197 




Table 59 | Association of Design 

Activity to a specific department 

(question 40, De.:SID Quest.) N=99 

Table 60 | Number and education 

level of persons developing 

design inside the firms 


activity are the R&D department (36,4%) and the one of 

Marketing (34,3%) which is consistent with the literature 

review on the topic. 

Furthermore it is vital to understand what type of 

practitioners develops Design inside the firms. Table 60 

presents the outcomes on that question. 

198

Table 60 shows that people with design domain specific 

schooling are low in number (215) than people coming 

from other areas of knowledge (375). Moreover, from 

those that does not have a Design Education 73% have 

low education level (high school). On the other hand, 

regarding the ones with Design education a percentage 

of 45,6% of graduate students is responsible for the 

work inside firms. 

The level of qualifications is supposed to be one of the 

indicators for the low productivity and competitiveness 

of the Portuguese Economy. Therefore, it is important to 

attend to these numbers. 

Regarding the use of Design it was crucial to understand 

how Design is used along the Value Chain 47 . 

199 

Table 61 shows that 51% of the Design processes in firms 

are initiated in the Conceptual phase while 26% start in 

the Development phase. As we consider the Conceptual 

phase a central phase to the success of products (as 

seen in previous Chapters) it is strange to have so low 

numbers. At least it raises the hypothesis that part of 

the firms do not acknowledge the necessity of an early 

intervention of Design and by doing so they also lose 

the possibility of understanding the impacts of that 

intervention. 

Besides the issues related with implementation of 

Design inside firms De.:SID researchers also wanted to 

get information about the contributions and impact of 

Table 61 | Design Process Phase 

where Design starts to be used 


47. The Value Chain is a concept 

from business management that 

was first described by Michael 

Porter in 1985. The value chain 

categorizes the generic valueadding 

activities of an organization. 

Products pass through all activities 

of the chain, and at each activity 

the product gains some value. 

The chain of activities gives the 

products more added value than 

the sum of added values of all 

activities. 




Table 62 | Nature of the Contribution 

of Design to firm’s Differentiation 


Design in business. Question 48 of the questionnaire 

does ask directly what the nature was of the contribution 

Design has done to a firm’s differentiation. 

Product is the strongest contributor (43%) followed by 

the brand (35%). Patents and Licensing are marginal 

expressions of design contributions to a firm’s 

differentiation. 

200 

The second question in the section of the questionnaire 

dedicated to the firm’s Evaluation of Design Results 

addresses quality. This time the aim was to capture 

possible parameters to measure Design Quality. 

Table 63 shows that as a possible Design quality measure 

firms value mostly the clients/market response and 

acceptance of the products (35%). Sales, a traditional 

measure is indicated by 23% of the firms. All the other 

parameters have low impact. That is not surprising 

since even for researchers and experts dealing with 

these issues there are still some difficulties defining the 

parameters to measure the quality of Design. 

More than exploring possible parameters to measure 

Design quality it was central to capture a firm’s 

assessment of the impacts of their Design Use. 

According to Table 64 the ‘Firm’s Image’ has the 

highest average score as the parameter that is most 

benefiting from Design Use (4,17). The following items 

are the ‘Communication with Client’ and ‘Customer’s 

Satisfaction’. This is consistent with the dimension firms 

value mostly in terms of Quality. Again the aspects of 

relationship with customers are seen as being significant 

and this table shows that according to the respondents 

Design has impact on those aspects.

201 

Table 63 | Possible Indicators to 

measure Design Quality (question 

49, De.:SID Quest.) 




202 

Table 64 | Evaluation of the impact 

of Design Use (2005-2007) (question 

50, De.:SID Quest.) N=76 

The last section of the questionnaire focuses on the 

barriers to the Use of Design. Table 65 lists barriers firms 

assume to be relevant to determine the lack of Use of 

Design.

203 

Table 65 | Global Analysis of the 

Barriers to the Use of Design 





SUMMARY OF DE.:SID SURVEY 

De.:SID survey addressing the Portuguese manufacturing 

Industry was developed by a group of ten researchers 

including the author. This survey allow us to understand 

in broaden terms the way business field evaluates the 

role of Design and designers. 

It is helpful in the way it contributes to the description 

of what ‘strategic adequacy’ is in the firm’s perspective. 

Also gives light to firm’s perception of Design Quality 

and the way it can be measured. 

From a brief analysis of the survey results it is possible 

to acknowledge that Portuguese firms in general still 

underestimate the potential of Design as a strategic 

resource. The use of design in more than 2/3 of the 

respondent firms has a history of less than 19 years. 

Furthermore, designers still operate mostly at the 

operational level having almost no participation in the 

strategic level of design’s intervention. 

204 

The quality of design for these firms is best guaranteed 

by a good customer relationship management. In 

addition the Quality of the Concept (as Stoll, 1999 

defined it) which refers to the performance, product 

features, aesthetics and ergonomic issues, is also highly 

valued by firms. 

This result is meaningful in the context of this research 

since the Concept is by excellence a territory where 

Design intervention is natural and very intense. However, 

the survey also shows that only 51% of the firms use 

Design in the Conceptual phase. 

Furthermore, the low level of Design education affects/ 

denounces the way firms acknowledge Design and its 

potential role in Business. An upgrade in employees’ 

qualifications could be an important step to boost Design 

inside firms as a more efficacious resource similarly to 

what happens in the North European countries (Design 

Council, 2003, 2008; Designium, 2005 studies). 

Finally it is to consider that firms point as the first barrier to 

design Use the ‘resistance to change’ which is consistent 

with the Portuguese cultural trait of ‘avoidance to risk’

that is so clear in Hofstede Cultural dimensions Index 

(2001). Another one of the barriers to the use of design 

mentioned by the firms is the ‘uncertainty regarding 

the outcomes of Design activity’. Curious is the fact that 

firms consider the lack of State/Government support to 

Design as being a barrier to its use. In fact, the ‘Innovation 

cause’ in Portuguese firms was highly supported by the 

State and promoted extensively by State organisms and 

institutions. 

Also relevant is the fact that firms consider design to 

be ‘highly costy’. From the above said is clear that is 

necessary to try to reduce the uncertainty in Design 

Outcomes. This work tries to contribute to that aim. 

205 

2. AN OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT – THE RESEARCHER 

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS OF BOTH STUDENTS 

AND COMPANY DESIGN PROCESSES 

The outside assessment was made both by gathering 

data regarding: (i) the performance of students along 

their design processes and (ii) the way companies relate 

itself with students’ design processes. On the following 

pages a description of the results in both cases will be 

presented. In the first case the study was done mainly 

through Design experiments; In the second one 

experiments were also done in which students and 

companies worked together. 

It is important to acknowledge that it was only after the 

analysis of the first experiment (a verbal protocol analysis 

of an individual design exercise) that Decision making 

was defined as being a central topic in this study. Until 

that moment the study aimed only to analyze design 

processes with a focus on knowledge/information 

management and time management. 


2. AN OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT – THE RESEARCHER OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS OF BOTH STUDENTS AND COMPANY DESIGN PROCESSES


In fact as Rehman and Yan (2007, p.170) observed: 

“A lack of available life-cycle knowledge is the first reason 

that designers find it difficult to know the implications of their 

decisions, made at the conceptual stage, on the product’s lifecycle 

phases, the user of the product and the environment in 

which the product operates. This is exacerbated by a lack of 

understanding of complex causal and effect relationships of 

such knowledge spanning these different life-cycle phases”. 

The observation of Rehman and Yan is consistent 

with what was found in the literature review. Another 

consideration is that the outcomes of the survey done 

with students reinforced the idea that time management 

and knowledge management were central issues in 

Design Processes especially at the conceptual phase. 

A first experiment was developed with design students 

from the 5th year of the Product Design Course. In the 

next section the experiment will be explained in detail. 

206 

2.1 An experiment with design Students 

- Lisbon/Delft Verbal Protocol Analysis – 

Individual Exercise 

The main goal of doing an experiment was to identify 

how the macro and micro structure of student’s design 

methodology is thought and put in action, how are 

decisions taken and which are the critical points of 

the process (the ones that will conduct to relevant 

changes). The experiment was designed similarly to 

the one developed by Christiaans (1992) in his study on 

creativity in design among a group of Delft University 

Design students [Appendix P]. 

The assignment came out from this study (1992, p. 108- 

109), which was later on also used in Dorst’s study on 

the operationalization of Schön and Simon paradigms 

in their study of design processes (1998). Using the 

same assignment in our study was important since we

207 

wanted to compare the results obtained by students 

with different education backgrounds and to observe 

the role different curricula play in the outcomes of 

design processes. The exercise was evaluated by a group 

of six persons including design teachers, engineers, 

representatives of a company similar to the one 

presented as a client in the brief and representative of 

a firm similar to the one presented as a producer in the 

exercise’s brief. 

Fig.63 | Assignment sheet 

of paper. (transcribed) 




208 

Fig.64 | Images of the Experiment 

(protocol L) 

The analysis of the experiment will be done in two 

phases: a first one where information access and use 

was considered the main topic to be studied; a second 

one that takes decision making as the most relevant 

topic to be studied. That is due to the fact that with the 

first approach we come to the conclusion that decision 

making study was crucial. 

Moreover, besides the experiment done with Portuguese 

students there was also the opportunity to compare it 

with the results from the Dutch experiment made by 

Christiaans (1992). The analysis of the data gathered 

with Portuguese students was deep and highly time 

consuming. Therefore, the comparison with the Dutch 

students was made only between the best, the worse 

and a medium outcome. 

Since the experiment was very rich in information we 

decided to also present the analysis of all the Portuguese 

protocols as an autonomous experiment. 

2.1.1 The experiment with Portuguese design 

students (Protocol L) 

Protocol L was conducted in 2007/2008 and its subjects 

account for 13 students from the last year of the Design 

course at Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade 

Técnica de Lisboa.

Method 

The protocol was videotaped and had an assignment 

that proposed the creation of one or more concepts 

of an industrial object – a litter-disposal system in the 

train - that called for the integration of aspects such as 

ergonomics, construction, aesthetics and business. Each 

design student had to perform the task individually 

having an alloted time to the experiment of two hours. 

Each of the students signed an informed consent before 

starting the task. [Appendix Q] 

Being a Verbal Protocol experiment subjects were 

requested to think aloud during the process of solving 

this design problem. Prior to the experiment they made 

a preliminary test [Appendix S] with the thinking-aloud 

method that had the duration of 10 minutes where they 

tried to solve aloud a cryptarithmetic puzzle (Newell 

and Simon, 1972). 

The experiment had an information support system 

[Appendix R] that was only used at subject’s demand. 

Information was separated by topics and presented in 

cards that were handed by an experimenter that was 

present in the room. The information was presented in 

simple and summarized ways (see Table 64). 

After the experiment the students had a debrief moment, 

a short interview, that included four questions: 

1) How do you evaluate your performance?; 2) Which 

were the perceived difficulties of this moment?; 3) The 

information you had at your disposal was enough?; 4) 

The existing information Yhe one that was offered for 

you to use) was enlightening? [Appendix T]. The videotapes 

were transcribed and translated to English [Appendix U]. 

Data was then coded according to the encoding system 

[Appendix V] developed after the first analysis of all the 

protocols. This analysis took into account not only the 

information asked for and used but also the activities 

developed, time spent in each activity, reflections made 

and decisions taken. 

The coding of the protocols was done both by the 

researcher and an independent judge. See Fig. 67 for 

209 




210 

Fig.65 | Excerpt of a transcribed/ 

translated and coded protocol 

an example of double coding. The level of agreement 

was in average of 73%. When there was divergence in 

the encoding a third judge (an experienced researcher) 

established the final coding. 

The evaluation of the quality of the students’ work 

based on the written transcripts was done by the jury 

composed by six members. The protocols were delivered 

to them in an arbitrary order. They had access to the 

transcribed protocols where it was identified the order 

of drawing making [Appendix W]. They also had copies 

of the drawings produced by each student (with the 

sequence numbered) [Appendix X]. Furthermore, they had 

a document where evaluation criteria were defined and 

the scale and weight of criteria could be filled in for each 

of the protocols [Appendix Y]. 

The criteria were: Feasibility; Creativity; Prototypicality; 

Strategic adequacy; Quality of communicative 

interaction; Decision making process (see Glossary). 

Jury members had the possibility of attributing different 

weights to each of the criteria elements.

After the jury assessment on the protocols the results 

were processed. [Appendix Z]. Figure 67 presents the 

evaluation of three protocols by all jury members. 

The scale to be used was 1 to 10. The number in each 

cell represents the score the jury member gave to 

that particular criterion multiplied by the weight that 

criterion has in the whole evaluation system. 

It was also assessed the inter-rater reliability of the 

jury members. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 

(ICC) is a measure of the reliability of measurements or 

ratings. Average measures were used meaning that this 

Intraclass correlation Coefficient (ICC) is an index for the 

reliability of different raters averaged together. 48 

Table 66 shows that the level of agreement between 

the jury members is highest for Prototipicality, Quality 

of communicative interaction and Decision making 

process. Creativity reveals the lowest agreement level, 

an unexpected result because both Amabile (1983) and 

Christiaans (1992) get high agreement on this criterion 

when judging products. The low agreement in our 

Fig.66 | Excerpt of a Protocol – 

example of double coding 

48. McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) 

Forming inferences about some 

intraclass correlation coefficients. 

Psychological Methods, 1:30-46. 

(Correction: 1:390). Shrout PE, Fleiss 

JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: 

uses in assessing rater reliability. 

Psychological Bulletin, 86:420-428 

211 




212 

Fig.67 | Excerpt of the evaluation 

by the 6 judges of three Protocols.

study might be due to the fact that judges come from 

different knowledge domains (from design to business), 

while the fore mentioned authors make use of judges 

with homogenous domain expertise. 

Data analysis 

Because of the exploratory character of the experiment 

the analysis of the protocol data will cover several 

aspects. In a first analysis we will observe: 

> the existing information students ask for during the 

design process; 

> the non-existing information asked for; 

> the type and number of drawings; 

> the locations in the train chosen to place the waste 

system; 

> the time students take before starting to sketch; 

> the time until the first Key Decision if any; 

> some observations about the Solutions; 

> the Jury evaluation. 

In a second analysis the focus on the decision making 

process examines the kind of decisions taken by each 

Table 66 | Intraclass Correlation 

Coefficients as measure for 

interrater reliability 

213 




214 Fig.68 | Decision Nature categories 

(Almendra, 2007) 

subject during the design process. before the analysis 

of the verbal protocols a first decision model was 

developed (see Figure11, Chapter II) based upon the 

following observations: 

> Progress in the process can be made through decision 

making as a conscious and explicit action but also 

through reflection, that can lead to natural selection of 

alternatives and evolution in the process. 

> How persons take decisions, the relation with design 

moves along the process, and the factors influencing 

the decisions and moves are key aspects of this study. 

The critical observation of decision making along 

the exercise suggested that there were different 

kind of decisions and after identifying its particular 

characteristics (along the protocols videos observations) 

we defined it into three categories: 

> Framing Decisions - decisions made during the period 

when a designer mentally ‘frames’ the object/solution; 

> Key Decisions - those made on moments when the 

(preparation of the) product creation occurs;

Enabler Decisions - signify mental object representation 

instants. 

These categories are presented in Figure 68 where a 

correspondence between the design process phases 

and the decision categories is made. 

It is essential to explore a bit further the definition of 

these three categories. 

Framing Decision is a decision that is taken aiming to 

create a mental image of the context and overall framing 

of the problem. 

Key Decision is one that results in a move in terms of 

Design process (the way Goldschmidt defined it in 1996). 

It is a decision that is critical for the progress of the entire 

design and it can refer to the generation of a partial or 

entirely novel solution. Key decisions are the result of the 

synthesis of information that enables the person to have 

a mental “big picture” of the “solution to be constructed”. 

In that way they act as drivers of the process. 

Enabler decision can be understood as routine decision 

in the sense it keeps the process moving in the direction 

key decision points out. These are decisions that facilitate 

the execution of the key decision in its operational 

practical aspects. Enabler decisions are those that occur 

in a context of predicted or controlled results (where the 

designer knows what is expected to happen). 

All types of decisions can be expressed either in verbal 

or graphic terms. 

These Categories were used to define the encoding 

system that is activity based. The code system has a 

first level of tagging that corresponds to the type of 

decision (FD –framing; ED- enabling; KD – key) and a 

second level of coding that has to do with the activity ( a 

– asking information; r – reading information; l – looking 

images; g – getting material; w – writing information; m 

– modelling; s- sketching; re – reflecting). Finally, on a 

third level of encoding numbers are used to identify in 

each of the subcategories the content being addressed 

(client; users; employees; producer; ergonomics; 

technical; constructive; aesthetics; costs; constraints; 

current solution, other solutions etcetera…). 

215 




As mentioned previously all the thirteen protocols were 

transcribed, translated and encoded by two people. All 

of them were also scored by the aforementioned Jury. 

Several analyses were done with the gathered 

information. 

2.1.1.1 First Analysis of the Portuguese 

protocols 

216 

Table 67 summarizes one of the analyses done where 

we took into account: the Jury evaluation; the existing 

demanded Information; the non existent information 

demanded; the type of drawings; the number of 

drawings; the locations chosen; the time students took 

to start sketching; the time until the first Key Decision 

and some observations about the Solutions. 

From the analysis of Table 67 some conclusions can be 

mentioned: 

A - regarding sketch activity time: 

> In five out of thirteen (38%) the first sketch initiates 

the Key Decision moment meaning that the framing 

decision occurred by means of reflection (either speech 

and/or written); 

> The average time lap between the start and the first 

sketch is 12:37 minutes; but this changes to 30 minutes 

if we consider sketching driven by the “mental solution”, 

i.e. the Key decision; 

B - Regarding information seeking behavior 

> All subjects (excluding the one that denied the 

problem) demanded card 1 and 2 - images of exterior 

and interior of the train (including the existent bin with 

general measurements); 

> The less demanded information (38,5 % of subjects 

asked for it) is the one concerned with card 4 (passengers 

opinions) and card 7(company views of the problem and 

possible solutions; 

> From the eight subjects that had access to card 6 (types 

of garbage) 75% developed a solution incorporating the 

concepts of re-use and recycling.

Scores 

Existent Information 

(DEMANDED) 

Non Existent Information (DEMANDED) 

other 

bins 

existent/proposed bin interface drawings detail sketches 

drawings/sketches 

contextual drawings 

(existent and proposed) 

(average 

) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 plant 

lat/front 

plant/ lat 

frontal 

view 

lateral 

view section perspective 

interface/ 

users 

interface 

employees 

technical 

detail 

constructive 

sketch 

integration 

object 

plant/ 

lat/location 

the 

same floor seat 

seat/ 

wall hall 1st 1st kD observations 

material; emptying aid system; images of the 

bin open and interaction; 

dimension(ergonomics) technical drawings 

X 6 X X X X 2 1 9 x 23.24 29.35 

(all general - object included in context) - existent and proposed... 

Subject 1 4,64 x x x x x x of the train; 

Focus on the train - comprehension of the context 

Subject 2 

priviligees the sections and the understanding of how the object will 

7,13 x x x x x x technical drawings of interior; ergonomics 

2 4 1 3 4 4 2 X 5 X 2 X 27 x 14.10 20.03 

work... 

Subject 3 

technical drawings of existent bin/train; 

searching drawings, exploring tecnhical possibilities recycling 

5,34 x x x x x x x ergonomics 

X X 2 X X 8 3 X 4 17 x 33.23 

principle 

Subject 4 


balanced intervention - using all types od drawing... newspaper 

5,84 x x x x x x ergonomics; other objects made by lemmens 

2 3 1 7 0,5 0,5 1 3 2 1 21 x 05.05 10.57 

division 

Subject 5 


stucked to the same form from the beginning- lack of interface 

6,03 x x x x x ergonomics; images of other trains 

1 4 1 4 9 1 6 X X 5 X 2 3 36 x 11.10 25.23 

drawings 

balanced search that lacks the constructive aspects; concern with 

materials; technical information about the 

2 3 2 13 1 2 4 X 3 1 31 x 03.26 36.25 final presentation; 1 concept since the beginning newspaper 

Subject 6 6,75 x x x x x x seats 

division 

Subject 7 

one solution; very systematically folowed, search balanced in terms 

7,01 x x x x interior remodeling 

3 1 5 2 11 2 1 1 7 1 1 35 x 09.20 16.46 

of sketches done; recycling principle 

Subject 8 

2 solutions; 1 preferred from the beginning; complete lack of 

5,8 

X 1 2 11 4 1 1 X 1 X 21 

x x 

x x 05.25 01.04.45 

proportions; 

Subject 9 

2 solutions - both developed; no construction details and scarce 

6,45 

1 1 6 X 15 1 1 2 X 5 X 32 

x x x x x 

x x 13.59 37.28 

technical ones (no sections) newspaper division 

Subject 10 

one solution (recycling) followed since the brginning; no 

6,4 

3 1 2 2 15 X X 1 X 2 3 29 

x x x x x x x x 

x 11.40 11.40 

constructive or technical drawings, no interface design 

Subject 11 

one concept - 2 locations; very superficial no technical or 

5,01 

1 5 2 2 2 11 2 1 1 X 8 3 38 

x x x x 

x 04.20 11.01 

constructive solutions 

denial of the problem - complete rsctructuring of it - a 

0 

communication campaign will teach passengers to be better 

citizens taking care of his garbage and not needing to have a bin 

Subject 12 3,13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

inside the carriage 

2 solutions - recycling principle - one preferrred one more deeply 

2 3 2 X 8 1 X 1 X 3 X 20 x x 02.13 27.52 defended; lack of interface drawings and technical and constructive 

Subject 13 6,06 x x x refused proposal 

solutions 

technical drawings of the seats; Technical 

drawings of the bin; newspaper and 

1 1 4 X 7 X X 1 X 3 X 17 x x 16.53 01.03.18 1 solution - modular 2 locations - recycling principle; no technical 

Subject 14 5,39 x x x x x x x magazines supports; ergonomic studies 

and constructive sketches no interaction ones also 

Sub total average 23,79 12,37 average of time to 1st sketch 

TOTAL 13 13 9 5 7 8 5 9 median 24 7 1 7 1 1 11,1 median of time to the 1st sketch 

average 

(excluding 

12) 25,80 

30 

average of time to 1st sketch towards a solution (KD) 

median 

(excluding 

12) 25,62 27,50 median of time to the 1st sketch towards solution (KD) 

nº 

draw 

locations 

time to sketch 

Table 67 | Analysis of the Protocol 

L (Information; Type of Drawing; 

Time to Sketch; First Key Decision; 

Type of Solution) 

217 



C - Regarding the solutions developed 

> 8 subjects developed one or more solutions for one 

location only: 1 subject made a solution that occupies 

two locations; 3 subjects presented two solutions (on 

two cases one of which was clearly dominant); one 

subject developed an interchangeable solution (works 

both in the seat and on the wall); 

> 8 of the subjects developed a solution that includes 

re-use or recycling concepts; 5 of them went to the 

recycling concept; 3 of them proposed the newspapers 

separation from garbage; 

> In terms of location: 7 subjects adopted the existent 

location; 4 subjects saw the seat as a substitute place; 1 

subject saw the seat as a complementary place to the 

existent one; 2 subjects saw the seat as another solution; 

1 subject adopted the floor space in front of the seats; 1 

subject found the wall of the train’s hall as the solution. 

D - Regarding the Sketching 

> The average number of drawings is 25; The student 

with poor results only made 9 drawings and always 

generalist ones, meaning that the design made are not 

focused on the object itself but in its general shape in 

relation to its context. 

> The perspective of the object (both the existent 

and the proposed) is the more frequently used type of 

drawing done; 

> Drawings of an ‘interface’ either with employees or 

with users are scarce; 

> Sketches focusing on details are more used to specify 

technical details than to explain constructive ones; 

> ‘Contextual drawings’ to illustrate both the integration 

of the object in the space or to study the location of seats 

and paths inside the train were done by the majority of 

the students; 

> 23% of the subjects felt the necessity of drawing other 

types of bins as part of the process of creating a new one 

for a different context. 

> The student that scored high in the exercise made 

intensive use of sections and technical detailed drawings 

to explain her solution. 

219 




Fig.69 | Protocols L2 (Best); L9 

(Medium) and L1 (Worsed) – 

activities and decision making 

general analysis (Framing,Key and 

Enabler Decisions). See in detail 

figures 70 and 71 

2.1.1.2 Second Analysis of the Portuguese 

Protocols 

In the sequence of this first analysis a deeper one was 

made similarly to the ones done in other studies like the 

one of Christiaans (1992) and Dorst (1998). 

This second analysis was activity based and included the 

design of graphics in which time spent in each activity 

was taken into account. The new element introduced in 

these graphics is the inclusion of the decision categories 

we had established (Key, Framing and Enabler). 

As an example of what was done we present Figures 69, 

70 and 71. The first one shows the graphics of the best a 

220

medium and the worse solutions according to the Jury 

of the exercise. Figure 69 and 70 refer to the best one 

and the medium one in detail. 

This type of analysis makes it possible to graphically 

assess the diversity in the design process in terms of time 

spent in each activity as well as the general development 

of the different types of decisions taken by the students. 

However, it still lacks the possibility of showing the 

differences in content of the decisions taken. 

Therefore, we tried to develop a new way of graphically 

exposing the protocol’s design processes. That was done 

Fig.70 | Protocols L2 (Best); – 

Activities and decision making in 

detail during 2 hours. 

221 




222 

Fig.71 | Protocols L9 (Medium); – 

Activities and decision making in 

detail, during 2 hours (the 2 green 

tones correspond to the 2 solutions 

developed) 

for all the Portuguese protocols [Appendix AA]. However, 

since we decide to compare the Portuguese protocols 

with the Dutch ones that analysis will be presented 

further ahead in this thesis. 

Finally it is relevant to say that the debrief moment 

reinforced the impression that students have difficulties 

managing information and taking decisions. Another 

finding from the debriefing was that two students 

experienced difficulties with the Think aloud method. 

That is one of the constraints of using this method taken 

for granted by the researcher since the positive aspects 

of its use overcome the less positive sides.

2.2 Comparing Portuguese (L) with Dutch (D) 

Protocols 

The decision to compare the Portuguese protocol 

study with the Dutch one (conducted by Christiaans in 

1992) had to do with two reasons: 1) to compare and 

somehow validate the outcomes; 2) to understand if 

the differences in design education curricula would be 

strong determinants in the outcomes; 

2.2.1 A short overview of Design Education at 

FA.UTL and FIDE.TUD 

In 2007 the Design programs at the Faculty of 

Architecture of the Technical University Lisbon (FA.UTL) 

in Portugal were restructured according to the Bologna 

declaration. The transformation was radical since the 

Design programs changed from 6 years bachelor (5 +1 

internship) and 2 years master to 3 BSc and 2 years MSc. 

In the previous programs the weight of science and 

social sciences was stronger than in the new programs. 

Nevertheless, they remained divided into the traditional 

design areas of product design, communication 

design and fashion design, each with their own master 

program. 

The experiment in Portugal was done with Portuguese 

students from the ‘old’ program previous to the 

restructuring. 

Design Education at the Faculty of Architecture (FA.UTL), 

is ruled by a ‘proximity culture’ since it accounts for an 

average of 30 students per year in the bachelor course, 

20 students in each master course and a total of 145 PhD 

students. Classes are taught in Portuguese. The students 

are mainly Portuguese but in the last 10 years due to 

the mobility programs such as ERASMUS, there is also 

a presence of foreign students (before in the 4th year 

of the program now in the 1st semester of the 1st year 

of the master course) coming from schools in Europe 

(mostly Italians, Dutch, English, Eastern European) and 

in Brazil. 

223 




224 

The Portuguese students also go abroad within the 

ERASMUS program (15 in total per year; 2 per year with Delft) 

during 6 months (1st semester) and some during 1 year. 

The Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering of Delft 

University of Technology (FIDE.TUD) in the Netherlands 

on the other hand is the largest Design Education 

institution in the world with about 380 freshmen per 

year in the bachelor course and more than 300 students 

per year starting in the masters courses. The number of 

PhD students is around 70. In response to the Bologna 

declaration, the TU Delft introduced the Bachelor- 

Master degree system in 2002. It has a curriculum model 

of a three years bachelor program and a two-years 

master program. The language in the bachelor is Dutch 

while the three master course programs are in English. 

Therefore, in the master course there is a tradition of 

a multicultural student population coming from all 

over the world since the number of foreign students 

has increased to 78 in 2009. Moreover, the number of 

exchange students is increasing, from 30 in 2005 to 55 

in 2009. Since 2005 TU Delft has a stable number of 2 

exchange students per year from FA-UTL. 

TU Delft has joint Master programs with METU, Turkey 

and KAIST, South Korea. 

In Table 68 the content of all different programs is 

translated into averages spent to one of three areas: (1) 

specific for that program (including technology, materials, 

drawing), (2) human/social theory, and (3) business. 

In first glance there are no relevant differences between 

the two programs except for the Masters courses in 

Delft. However, the bachelor at FA.UTL had changed its 

curricula reducing the weight of human/social theory 

courses, reinforcing the domain-specific knowledge 

area as well as the business one. Also to notice that the 

master’s programs are structured differently. At FA.UTL 

they are a ‘natural’ extent of the bachelor course through 

an increment of specialization contents, and do maintain 

a broaden approach to Design while at FIDE.TUD there 

are two specialization masters in design fields that have 

a key importance to the markets/business. 

Research as part of the design education curriculum in 

the two Institutions has quite a different weight. In the

225 

new programs FA.UTL only has an optional course on 

design research (3 hours per week/42 semester) offered 

to the three masters. Furthermore, the first semester of 

the second year of the master courses is dedicated to 

research related disciplines. The PhD program is research 

oriented and the courses support the execution of 

philosophical/theoretical thesis. 

Table 68 | Bachelors, Masters and 

PhD at the two Faculties 




Regarding the attention given to research in the 

Delft education programs, both bachelor and master 

programs have compulsory courses on this topic. Two 

of the MSc courses, Design for Interaction and Strategic 

Product Design have a clear research focus as expressed 

in the number of courses on this area. Delft doesn’t give 

compulsory courses to PhD students; contrary to Lisbon. 

PhD’s can choose their own courses. 

Table 69 gives an overview of numbers, themes and 

nature/focus of both master dissertations and PhD 

theses at FA.UTL and FIDE.TUD measured in the period 

from September 2005 to September 2009. 

Table 69 | Master Dissertations and 

PhD Theses at both Institutions from 

2005 to 2009 

The FA.UTL MSc and PhD students show clearly an 

attraction to theoretical and historical topics. Particularly 

in the PhD projects two lines of research are emerging: 

inclusive design and sustainability design. Taking the 

Portuguese industry’s maturity into account one can 

226

observe that the areas being more intensively studied 

at FA.UTL have a hard time to be immediate accepted 

by companies. The pHd students are clearly more tuned 

to the innovation and management areas. However, it is 

also the goal of research to anticipate the ‘world needs’ 

and to propose ways of better assessing problems and 

actions. 

FIDE.TUD shows another picture. Apart from the huge 

amount of master dissertations (935 in the period 2005- 

2009), the focus on designing objects is outstanding 

(48%). Other important topics such as management 

and sustainability are following at great distance. The 

differences in focus between the three master courses are 

according to what they promise: interaction, cognition 

(emotion, perception) and inclusive design are clearly 

linked to Design for Interaction, while management 

and innovation are typical subjects for Strategic Product 

Design. As we see later on, most of the projects stem 

from industry itself and apparently are the relevant 

topics of that period. For the Delft PhD’s cognition and 

methods are the two topics mostly studied. 

Bridges between Education and Industry/Business 

To address the relationship between design education 

and industry/business is to consider the context of it, 

i.e. the design role at national level, the firm’s degree 

of maturity in design’s use and the country’s design 

policies. The role of design at a national level is crucial to 

the definition and strength of the relationship between 

education and industry. There exists some information 

compiled in rankings, but the 2009 report made by 

Moultrie and Livesey about Indicators of International 

Design Capabilities makes a rigorous assessment of this 

topic by means of collecting and comparing data on key 

indicators of design to define national capabilities. Those 

types of studies, we believe, are essential to support a 

systematic approach to this issue. The analysis includes 

the study of: a) enabling conditions such as national 

policies, strategies, institutions and endowments; 

programs that promote design to both business, 

particularly small and medium sized firms, and the 

227 




general public; b) inputs/ capabilities: the development 

of human capital relating to design, including design 

graduates, designers in the workforce and those 

working in the design sector; c) outputs: intellectual 

capital generated as a result of design activity, including 

design registrations, trademarks and design awards; d) 

outcomes: reflecting the impact of the output on the 

overall economy (2009, p.16). It is interesting to notice 

that although TU Delft is a reference worldwide in 

design education (serving as an example to several 

education programs such as the ones of Designium, 

2003 and of Design Council,2007) the Netherlands 

does not appear in the top of the Design competitive 

level rankings. That has probably to do with the lack of 

a national policy and of a consistent and regular study 

of the relationship between design investment and 

design outcomes in terms of the economy vision. 

228 

TU Delft education’s success in the area of design 

is clearly related with the effective and consistent 

relationship it has with industry and service companies. 

That relationship is part of its distinctiveness and it rules 

the way programs are structured and research units 

establish their lines of research. In Table 70 differences 

between TU.FIDE and FA.UTL regarding internal and 

external factors are presented. 

49. The paper will be presented at 

the 12th International Conference 

on Engineering and product design 

Education (EP&DE 2010) organized 

by the Norwegian University of 

Science and Technology (NTNU) in 

Trondheim, Norway in partnership 

with the Design Education Special 

Interest Group (DESIG) of the 

Design Society and the Institution 

of Engineering Designers (IED). The 

conference will be held on the 2-3 

September, 2010. 

In contrast, FA.UTL has not an established relationship 

with industries. This relationship only happens in an 

episodic way, in the old program in the last two years of 

the 6 years course and with the new programs in the first 

year of the master course. The design studio teacher is the 

person who might establish contact with a firm, either 

with a real design brief or with a fictional one. In those 

cases the company will only appear at the beginning of 

the process and at the end, participate in the evaluation 

of the outcomes. Students also have contact with firms 

in the way that they participate at least in one contest 

per year (in the last years) launched by a firm that is 

integrated in the design studio program. 

Note: This analysis of the two Institutions integrates a paper 

(that has as a co-author Prof. Christiaans). 49

2.2.2 Comparing the two protocols focusing on 

problem structuring and information access in 

the design process 

The aims of the first comparison study was the 

identification and comparison of the manner both 

Portuguese and Dutch students facing the same 

design problem in their design processes: 1) required 

information, 2) the nature of the information; 3) the 

occasion of its request; 4) the moment of use; 5) the 

possible relations between information required and 

decision making, and 6) the possible connections 

between information use and design moves along the 

process. 

The analysis presented here integrated a paper (in coauthorship 

with Christiaans) presented in 2008 at the 

P&D Design08 Conference in São Paulo, Brazil [Appendix 

AB]. 

Information Access and Use in Protocols L and D 

In both protocol studies information about various aspects 

of the brief and solution directions were available only 

at request by the subject. Each ‘bit’ of information was 

offered on a card. For an overview of cards see Table 71. 

Table 70 | Comparison of the two 

education systems and context. 

* The design ladder is a useful 

4-step model for grouping 

companies’ design maturity on 

the basis of their attitudes towards 

design. The higher a company 

is up the ladder, the greater 

strategic importance design has 

for the company. See Chapter IV, 

section 1.2 of this Thesis. 

229 




230 

The nature of the information differs in both cases being 

rather complete and complex in D protocol and highly 

simplified in L protocol. The reason for this reduced 

information in the L protocols was to test the assumption 

that access to less and more simplified information might 

have a significant effect on the results of the experiment 

in terms of quality criteria …. This will be addressed later 

in this study. 

The time allotted to the experiments was 2½ hours for D 

protocol and 2 hours for L protocol. The time reduction 

in L protocol was made taking into account two main 

issues: the focus of the assignment is on designing a 

concept and the amount of information offered has 

been significantly reduced. 

Besides being rather different in number and complexity 

we can observe that the kind of information asked for 

and the sequence during the process differ per student; 

with the exception of the start-up information as we will 

see below. 

Furthermore, in both groups there is a clear division 

between information asked for and used to structure 

the problem, and the one asked for and used to problem 

solving (Restrepo, 2004). 

Information seeking, selection and focus 

There are evident links between information requirement 

and decision-making. Information can open new paths of 

research for the solution but also serves the purpose of 

evaluation and/or confirmation of the existing hypothesis. 

That was visible in the case of information related with 

‘other solutions’. However, it is important to notice that 

not all information available was demanded and from the 

information required some was not used. 

In the available information the one related with the 

images of the interior of the train, and with the current 

bin were the relevant ones, and they were asked for 

by all the subjects in both experiments. This type of 

information in almost all the cases made students to 

explore alternative locations to the object that later 

boosted the generation of ideas, further developed in 

terms of shape and functional/constructive aspects.

As was said before, some information requested showed 

to be ignored or not valued along the process and in the 

development of the solutions. That occurred in both 

D and L groups where information related with the 

producer and the railway company had a low (visible) 

impact on those that consulted it. 

Also important to mention is the role of information 

created, the one that results from reflection either on 

information asked for or from retrieved information 

or even new one. This ‘new information’ becomes 

more visible in the form of new ideas but it is not 

fully used in most cases since some of those ideas get 

lost in the process. However, this effective reflection 

upon information is the one that unblocks solution 

generation. 

In a few cases information created had its origin during 

sketching being the reason why we mention it as one of 

the key factors in design processes’ decision making. 

In general, in both cases “Problem structuring occurs 

mainly in the beginning of the design process, but also 

reoccurs periodically as the design activity progresses.” 

(Christiaans and Restrepo, 2004, p.2). The ‘structuring 

information’ serves the purpose of creating ‘the big 

picture’ that helps defining the space of decision: being 

a kind of mental representation of the solution that 

will be further developed by means of drawing it. The 

‘problem solving information’ is the one of enabling that 

mentally represented solution, and here the information 

is fundamental to verifying and evaluating the ideas/ 

concepts in formal, technical and constructive aspects. 

Table 71 | Information available on 

demand in both protocols. 

Information demanded but 

non existent 

231 




232

233 




234 

Also important to notice is what Christiaans and Restrepo 

(2004, p.2 ) observed “…that there are differences in the 

way designers approach the design assignments, describing 

it sometimes in terms of abstract relations and concepts 

(problem oriented) or descriptions of the possible solutions 

(object or solution oriented). These differences seem to 

influence the information seeking-behavior of designers, 

their tendency to become fixated as well as the output of the 

design process.” 

Information demanded and used to structure the 

problem 

According to Restrepo (2004) information accessed 

during problem structuring refers more to users, the 

company and the environment in which the product 

is used, requiring much more active interpretation and 

manipulation before it can be used than the information 

normally required for problem solving. 

Both in Protocol D and Protocol L after reading the 

assignment (which included some clues about possible 

information to be asked), subjects started with problem 

definition through exploration of the situation. In the 

available information the cards related with the images

of the interior of the train, and with the current bin were 

the relevant ones, and they were asked for by all the 

subjects in both experiments. 

This type of information in almost all the cases concurred 

to explore alternative locations to the object that later 

boosted the generation of ideas, further developed in 

terms of shape and functional/constructive aspects. 

In Protocol L the information related with ‘other solutions’, 

when asked for, served mainly the goals of opening new 

paths of research for the solution, evaluation and/or 

confirmation of the existent hypothesis. 

In both D and L design processes information related 

with the producer and the railway company had a low 

(visible) impact on those that consulted it. 

In the following Figures 72 to 78 a comparison is 

presented of the sketches in subsequent stages of the 


Information asked for and used to solve the 

problem 

The type of information accessed during problem solving 

is according to Restrepo (2004, p.12) more related with 

manufacturing conditions, properties of materials, 

functional characteristics, formal aspects etcetera. In 

fact, ergonomic information as well as the one about 

the bin use and operation gave origin to formal and 

technical, operational and constructive design moves as 

well as an evaluation of the bin location. 

Protocol D (14) Protocol L (3) 

Fig.72 | Exploring possible locations 

of the bin 

235 





Fig.73 | Understanding the space/ 

environment/context 

236 


Fig.74 | Operating the solution – 

passenger and cleaning employee 

The information regarding the type of garbage, 

especially in Protocol L where it was asked for by 62% of 

the subjects, generated in all cases the idea of separating 

the garbage. This separation is a clear determinant of the 

final concepts that are distinguishable from the others 

who were not informed by that data. 

The solution – a new piece of information / the 

transformed information 

The solution or solutions presented are in itself a new 

piece of information that deserved special attention 

on the part of the subjects involved in both protocols.


Fig.75 | Exploring possible opening 

systems for the bin 

237 



Fig.76 | Constructive and functional 

approach 

Fig.77| Searching the form 




Information was presented both in drawings and 

texts that aimed to summarize in a very efficacious, 

appealing way the solution proposed. In fact, almost 

all the subjects along the experiment gave notice of 

their concern about their performance in terms of final 

presentation alluding to their inability to draw, the poor 

communicational capabilities of their sketches and 

of the composition and arrangement they made of it. 

Therefore, it is important to underline that there is a 

very accurate conscience among the design students 

that their solutions in themselves must be very clear and 

consistent pieces of information and that it is suggested 

by the analysis of their verbalization that their efficacy 

depends heavily on representation skills either mentally 

of physically through drawings and modeling. 

238 

Fig.78 | Presenting the concept – 

creation of new information 

Protocol D (2) Protocol L (6)

2.2.3 Comparing the two protocols focusing on 

Decision Making 

As previously said the original focus of both studies was 

on knowledge and information management. However, 

the observation of the protocols made clear that decision 

making was a crucial topic to assess. 

That was the reason to conduct a comparative analysis 

of decision making in both the Portuguese protocols (L) 

and the Dutch ones (D). 

Protocol study D was undertaken in 1992 and included 

both 2nd-year and final-year students from the Faculty 

of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of 

Technology (Christiaans, 1992). For the purpose of this 

study we only compared the work Delft developed by 

the 10 final-year students (3 female and 7 male). They 

were selected out of 75 students on the basis of their 

average marks for the design courses (at least a 7 out 

of 10). Protocol L was conducted in 2007/2008 and 

its subjects were 14 students (11 female and 3 male) 

from the last year of the Design course at Faculdade de 

Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. From 

the class of 17 they volunteered in the project. In this 

thesis due to the complexity and extent of the analysis 

we only present the comparison for the best, a medium 

and the poor results in both cases. 

The analysis presented ahead integrated one paper 

presented at a Design Conference and a Design 

Journal article and had the co-authorship of Prof. Henri 

Christiaans. 50 

The aims of this particular study were the identification 

and comparison of the way senior design students in 

both groups take decisions, the relation with design 

moves along the process, and the factors influencing 

the decisions and moves. 

For that purpose both verbal protocol analysis studies 

(VPA) were analyzed on the basis of activities and 

decision-making moments described in terms of reasons 

behind it and goals intended to be achieved through it. 

By studying the decisions made during the process and 

the factors that influence those decisions we hope to 

50. The paper was presented at 

ICORD 09 [Appendix AC] and was 

published in a book and the article 

was published in the Journal of 

Design Research (2009) [Appendix 

AD]. 

239 




get a more detailed view on the effectiveness of the 

decision making process in terms of quality of the end 

result. The issues addressed by this study regarding the 

decision-making process were: a)the characteristics of 

the decision-making process in design (framing-keyenabling); 

b)the process of decision-making related 

to the generation of ideas and the quality of the final 

result; c)the relationship between decision making and 

‘design moves’; d)the role of different types of decisions; 

e) the relevant factors influencing the decision process 

(knowledge/expertise, external information, sketching). 

240 

Concerning the analyses done in the Delft protocols 

workshop Cross (2006) highlights those that ‘…reinforce 

the importance of a concept as marking a key point in the 

process’ (p. 70). This ‘key point’ is what we refer to as a 

key decision. Furthermore the analysis developed by 

Günter et al. (1996) is also important to mention. Their 

analysis of the design process has three main stages: 

clarifying the task, searching for concepts and fixing the 

concept, the two first ones being covered by our framing 

decisions category and the last one corresponding 

to the enabler decisions. In his analysis of the Delft 

protocols Cross (2006) also recognizes the occurrence of 

a bridging concept between problem and solution that 

‘…synthesizes and resolves a variety of goals and constraints; 

and it occurs during a ‘review period’ after earlier periods of 

more deliberately generating concepts and ideas’ (p. 70). This 

review period in this study corresponds in some cases to 

the end phase of framing decisions or even to a period 

of time where in the protocol graphics framing decisions 

alternate with enabler decisions, mostly of reflecting 

nature ones as it is observable in Figures 79 to 84. 

In addition to this Cross (2006) claims the ‘appositional’ 

nature of design reasoning that is characterized by the 

development of function and form in parallel rather 

than in series, being a neglected aspect in almost all 

design process models. This is clearly observable in both 

protocols that display - as Cross (2006) mentions it - an 

‘…exploration and identification of the complex network of 

sub-problems in practice (that) is often pursue by considering 

possible sub-solutions. In practice, designing seems to proceed

y oscillating between sub-solution and sub-problem areas, 

as well as by decomposing the problem and combining subsolutions’ 

(p.78). 

Within that perspective key decisions, according to 

our encoding system, are taken when bridging occurs 

among partial models of the problem and solution that 

have been constructed side-by-side. In the words of 

Cross (2006) it is a ‘bridge’ that recognizably embodies 

satisfactory relationships between problem and 

solution. ‘… the recognition of a proposed design concept 

as embodying both problem and solution together (…); it is 

neither one nor the other, but a combination which resolves 

both together and allows either to be focused upon’ (pp. 78- 

79). 

For the purpose of this analysis it was created a graphic’s 

layout that allowed to establish the precise moment 

of each decision along the process, its nature (that 

is described in the encoding system) and the way it 

contributes or not to the proposed solution that is 

related with a key decision (orange for the first one; red 

for the second one). Idea generation (purple color) also 

makes part of this graph that allows a visual perception 

of the density of decision type and of the decision flow 

per activity. 

The examples we will show try to enhance the diversity 

and uniqueness it is possible to find in design processes. 

Although the analysis was done for the entire time of 

the exercise we will only present graphics of the first 

hour. The complete analysis integrates Appendix AE. 

Next, when presenting cases with the best and the most 

poor results it was found useful to add two more cases on 

the basis of the following criteria: for the Delft protocols 

we added a female subject with a medium score (while 

the other two Delft subjects were male); from the Lisbon 

protocols the added subject also had a medium score 

and developed two solutions, in an alternate mode. 

241 




242 

2.2.3.1 Analysis of both Portuguese and Dutch 

Poor, Best and one Median Protocols 

‘Poor results’ – Protocols D1 (male, average 

rating=5.7) and L1 (male, average rating= 4.6) 

Protocols D1 and L1 were, according to the jury, the 

ones that had the lowest average and median rating. 

Their similar results have complete different processes 

behind. However, they show a striking similarity by 

not succeeding in processing information and in idea 

generation. 

As we can observe in terms of decision-making (see 

Figure 79) subject D1 has an expressive density in 

columns related with asking and reading information 

that is not sustained by reflection on information. 

This indicates a lack of information processing and 

subsequent application. 

Subject D1 was unable during this period to formulate 

a key decision displaying only framing decisions that 

gave no origin to idea generation. On the other hand 

in Protocol L1, Figure 80, we can observe that not much 

information was asked for (and from the one asked the 

focus was on the train and its interior being the rest 

ignored); less decisions were taken, and there was a 

fixation to an idea that boosted a reasoning in a circular 

way. It is also to be considered the negative reaction 

both subjects had to the brief. 

Subject L1’s immediate reaction was to propose two 

contrasting solutions, one that had serious implications 

for the train structure and layout and another one, 

defended until the end, that consisted of augmenting the 

capacity of the existing bin by stretching it to the floor. 

It was clearly a strategy of opposing extreme solutions 

to benefit the one that was more realistic. At first sight 

subject L1 shows a quick idea generation followed by 

a period of sketching and reflecting activities. However, 

when analyzing the contents of those activities we come 

to the conclusion that the subject is fixated in circular 

reasoning as is clear from the fact that (1) his sketching 

is not meant to search for ideas but sticks to the same 

statements, and 2) the reflections made are a repetition 

of statements in favor of the option he came up with.

243 

Taking a closer look to subject D1’s performance whose 

approach is radically different; he is ‘obsessed’ with 

information gathering in a systematic but not reflective 

way. The information asked for covers all the aspects 

involved in the exercise – it goes from information about 

the train, passing through information regarding the 

interior of it, other solutions, types of garbage, current 

solution in all details, producers information, employees 

complaints, technical issues and mechanisms. His first 

idea is generated after 51:50 minutes but this idea is 

Fig.79 | Protocol D1 – first 60 

minutes 




244 

Fig.80 | Protocol L1 – first 60 


abandoned and not linked with the final solution he 

developed. 

Subject L1 on the contrary has a quick gathering 

information moment, after about 18 minutes where 

he asks information about the train, the interior of it, 

technical issues, other solutions developed, producer’s 

data as well as employees’ complaints; but the only 

information taken into account is the one presented of 

the train itself and the interior of it. In fact, minute 18:00 

is the moment when his third idea is generated and 

where his key solution appears to remain until the last 

moment.

Enabling actions were mere drawing reinforcements of 

his circular speech expressed in only nine sketches made 

during the 2 hours. (While 25 sketches is the average 

of sketches done in all L protocols). Among these nine 

sketches five were dedicated to copying the existing 

solution, both in sections and in one perspective. 

‘Best results’ – Protocols D6 (male, average 

rating=8.5) and L2 (female, average rating=7.1) 

Both high rated protocols display an intensive reflective 

dialogue – subject decides, reflects/evaluates upon 

decision, and decides again. Each activity is developed 

having the reflection mode as the dominant activity. The 

activity itself must apparently have a complementary 

role in this analysis: not the reading by the subject is 

important, but what he is reading, the selection that 

he makes of it (decision) and the way that selection is 

consistently propagated along the process in order to 

contribute to the final solution. 

Also important is the nature of those reflecting decisions 

that have a clear applied goal – most of the decisions 

are related with the idea generation process and its 

materialization in its multiple aspects from technical 

aspects to ergonomic and aesthetic ones. 

Subject D6 has a clearly defined period of brainstorming 

– an idea generation moment to expose a novel possible 

concept (33:50–38:30 min.) that serves not only the 

purpose of finding new paths but also as an evaluation 

moment to previous ideas, some of which partially 

integrated in the final solution. 

On the Lisbon side subject L2 displays a strategy of 

continuous monitoring. Tests of her ideas that occur 

as ‘extensions’ to previous ones through sketching and 

modeling where functional aspects pay a key role. The 

detailed comprehension of the object and its feasibility 

and easiness to use are central in the design. 

Giving a brief description of the subject’s performance 

we observe that D6 spent his first half hour on framing 

decisions but his first Key decision can be traced back to 

minute 11:55 when he generates his first idea. That one 

245 




246 



combined with other ideas later on in the process gives 

birth to the final solution. That idea was generated out 

of framing decisions that related to: 

> Reading the assignment; 

> Reflections made upon information asked for that had 

to do with the current solution, the list of requirements, 

the interior of the train, users’ opinions and the 

employees’ complaints. 

The moment of enabling the solution was born from 

the consolidation of one object that integrated three 

previously generated ideas that were put together.

247 

This phase of enabling is characterized in D6’s case by: 

> Reduction of asking activity (he was concentrated on 

his thoughts, information and sketching) 

> Intensive reflection activity related to generating a 

new system, parts of the system and on analyzing his 

own ideas regarding possible solutions to employees’ 

complaints, company data integration, costs control 

and also ways of presenting the final solution. 

Regarding subject L2, she also took half an hour period 

of framing decisions that, when compared to D6, is 

more diverse in terms of the activities performed. It 






goes from gathering and analyzing information about 

the train, users, employees’ complaints, producers 

and ergonomics to looking at the images, writing her 

reflections and data collected. 

We can trace back her Key decision up to minute 27:45, 

the moment of her third idea generation phase that 

would be further developed. 

In the L2 case the enabling moment was also a very 

intensive and holistic way in that she reflected on the 

new system in general as well as on both its technical 

aspects, constraints evaluation, ergonomics and 

on her own ideas’ potential, types of most effective 

representations and means of presenting the solution. 

However, and when compared to D6 this process was 

deeply linked with sketching as being an action-reflection 

way of design thinking. On the other hand, D6 declared 

in his debriefing that he was used to visually imagining 

situation, objects, context and ideas. Representations 

were made in his head, not so much on paper. 

248 

Also to mention that modeling was important for her in 

the overall process of enabling the solution. 

‘Median results’ – Protocols D9 (female, average 

rating=6.7) and L9 (female, average rating=6.5) 

Both Figures 85 and 86 illustrate protocols that had an 

medium rating in quality terms. 

D9 developed a single solution was Figure 84. During 

the first hour of work her main concern regards the 

issues of the location of a bin and the emptying tool 

for the cleaners. Although we can trace back the final 

solution to decisions made in this first hour, at that time 

she has no solutions for those issues yet. The number 

of decisions made was also reduced due to reflection 

moments either during sketching or as a means to 

evaluate information. 

In subject L9’s protocol (Figure 85) the rhythm of the 

whole process is quite impressive being very dynamic 

and intensive.The subject decides very early in the 

process to develop at least two possible solutions and 

works on both in an alternate mode but continuously

249 

using the comparison between solutions for one concept 

as a refinement tool for the other and vice versa. When 

compared with both low and high rated cases we can 

observe in these two subjects that some information is 

both processed and applied, and that idea generation 

and the follow up of some of the ideas towards a 

solution indeed take place. However, at the end of the 

more than two-hours session both subjects do not meet 

the phase of presenting creative solutions that integrate 

in a balanced way the perspectives of all stakeholders 

involved (client, passengers, cleaner employees). From 






250 



the accurate analysis of the verbal protocol contents we 

found out that the design process itself dominates the 

development of the design solution. 

Worth noticing here is the fact that subjects based their 

work upon a chosen focus (a single perspective) diluting 

the importance of other interrelated factors. In D9’s case 

the cautious approach of the student plays a role in this 

result and in L9’s case the self-imposed commitment 

to present two final solutions caused a kind of ‘running 

against time’ attitude that did not promote deep 

reflection along the process.

2.2.3.2 How is the process of decision-making 

related to the generation of ideas and the 

quality of the final result? 

Reflecting on the foregoing analysis of the decision 

making process and looking for the ‘logic’ behind the 

ideas generated we like to highlight some findings. 

First, we can conclude on the basis of, for example, 

the L2 protocol (see Figure 81) that not only radical 

shifts of perspective characterize the generation and 

materialization of an idea in design processes. By 

means of manipulating the idea, exploring it deeply in 

an attempt to expose its self-potential and relational 

potential one can enter a ‘creative leap’ that in the words 

of Cross (2006) ‘…might be no unexpected dislocation of 

the solution space itself, but merely a shift to a new part of 

the solution space, and the ‘finding’ there of an appropriate 

concept’ (p.65). That is, according to Cross, what 

characterizes creative design as exploration rather than 

search. 

Cross’s idea of ‘…creative design being the apposite proposal 

of a concept which embodies novel features for a new design 

product’ (p.65) presents us the creative cognitive act in 

design similar to ‘…building a bridge between problem 

requirements and solution proposal’ (p.66). 

Subject D6’s protocol, where it is evident that each 

activity is preceded and followed by a reflection 

moment, formulated in operative terms, is a clear 

example of an undergoing creative construction’ 

that involves problem and solution as the dynamic 

and interdependent parts of the ‘engine’ driving the 

process. 

What is observable from the analysis of D6’s exercise is 

that his accurate and critical attitude towards the task 

’under construction’ made it possible for him to question 

problem and solution settings in an evolutionary 

interdependent way, entering a dynamic design 

practice that is recognized by Dorst and Cross (2001) as 

being more ‘…a matter of developing and refining together 

both the formulation of a problem and ideas for a solution, 

with constant iteration of analysis, synthesis and evaluation 

processes between the two notional design ‘spaces’ - problem 

251 




space and solution space. In creative design, the designer is 

seeking to generate a matching problem-solution pair, through 

a ‘co-evolution’ of the problem and the solution’ (p. 434). 

Relationship with design moves 

The study conducted by Goldschmidt (1996, pp. 75-76) 

identifies what she calls ‘critical moves’ i.e. ‘…one which 

has a relatively high number of links to other statements that 

succeed it’. In spite of the fact that she does not identify 

the key decision moments her linkograph work clearly 

shows that there exists some statements that have a 

high number of ‘fore-links’ i.e. subsequent statements 

that build onto, or refer back to, those statements. 

This path of related statements is also identified in our 

figures where decisions that contribute to the final 

solutions are marked; either they are technical enabler 

decisions or reflecting enabler decision that reinforces 

or confirms a path or marks an inflection of direction. 

252 

In both D and L protocols the most significant moves 

have do to with the decision to change the location of the 

litter disposal system. The new placement of the object 

determines the re-arrangement of all the constraints 

and variables of the problem and also defines a change 

of paradigm that corresponds to a key decision. The 

pieces of information that contributed most to the need 

of finding a new place for the object were: images of the 

interior of the train that shows the actual location of the 

bin and that makes problems of capacity/dimensions 

evident to the designers, reach and interference with 

passengers’ space/commodity and information about 

types of garbage – that especially in Protocol L lead to 

the idea of separating the garbage and thus finding a 

place that can support that feature. 

SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENT WITH DESIGN 

STUDENTS – INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE 

This individual exercise allowed us to make an active 

study of the way students: a) access and use information 

along the conceptual phase of the design process; 2) 

develop their own decision-making processes in that 

conceptual phase of design.

The assignment in the Lisbon protocol was the same as 

the one used in studies by Christiaans (1992) and Dorst 

(1997). Because of this we had the chance to compare the 

Delft protocols with the Lisbon protocols and to analyze 

similarities and differences along design processes. 

The method used was the Verbal Protocol Analysis (VPA) 

that implied the videotaping of all subjects that had to 

think aloud while developing their design processes. 

The protocols were then transcribed, translated to 

English and encoded according to a code system based 

upon decision making categories developed by the 

researcher. These categories have their origin in the 

literature review as well as in the critical observation of 

the protocols. The coding system relates to the nature 

of decisions with the activities being undertaken by the 

students. 

To assess the quality of the outcomes a Jury was 

created. It was composed by design teachers, engineers, 

and business representatives. They had made their 

judgments based in the transcribed protocols and the 

drawings made by the students. They score each protocol 

according to defined criteria and using a sale from 0 to 

10. The weigh of each criterion was to be established by 

each jury member. 

The students also had a debrief moment were they 

could express their opinion about the method used, the 

difficulties they experienced along the exercise and the 

adequacy of the information given as a support to the 


In comparing the Delft and Lisbon protocols is is 

important to notice that these two different group of 

students have distinct education backgrounds since 

the Dutch curriculum has a substantial presence of 

technical disciplines while the Portuguese ones have a 

less technical and more humanistic curriculum. For that 

reason the information at their disposal was significantly 

different in terms of complexity and quantity, with the 

amount of information offered in the Delft Protocol 

being more complete and complex in technical and 

technological terms and that in the Lisbon Protocol 

much simpler and generalistic. 

253 




Regarding the first study on information access and 

use one of the findings we can address is that in both 

cases the gathering of information by itself does not 

guarantee the best results in terms of solution. The best 

solutions occurred when reflection upon information 

was made in such a way that it gave occasion to the 

generation of significant design moves. Another finding 

is that results of both groups are very similar in terms 

of the type of concepts generated and quality criteria. 

It suggests that in the conceptual phase it is possible to 

formulate consistent concepts without having access to 

very sophisticated information. 

In our second part of the study on decision making we 

found out that the analyses provided by graphics based 

upon decision-making provides a better understanding 

of the dialogue between problem and solution, 

envisioning the complexity of the process compared 

to conventional graphics illustrating activity-based 

approaches. 

254 

Another finding was that design decisions related to 

product form and manufacturing processes are evidently 

more often listed in a conscious way than development 

decisions that control the progress of design process. 

Considering now the protocols studied in a more strict 

view there is a kind of primary ‘Pattern logic’ approach 

to the problem that goes as follows: more passengers 

imply more garbage that implies a bigger bin or smaller 

ones in more quantity (capacity prevails as a criterion). 

This implied in almost all the cases the ‘reduction’ of 

the solution to a bin instead of a completely different 

system; a system that should also be influenced by the 

evaluation of existent solutions as well as by information 

that integrated the specific company’s information 

available. 

The analysis of both protocol studies allows us to 

conclude that decisions that ‘made a difference’ i.e. 

that implied key decisions and design moves, were 

almost always linked with: a) location –that is linked 

with garbage volume (the most common subject’s 

‘control constraint’), b) passengers’ use of garbage and 

movements inside the train; b) types of garbage – that

influence dimensions and therefore location. Especially 

in L protocols there was a prevalence of the recycle 

concept even when ergonomics, usability, interface with 

users and employees and costs were affected giving 

strength to the idea that ‘the principle overcomes the 

constraints’. 

2.3 - The CLIMAR Experiment - a Group Design 

Process linking Design Education with Business 

This particular study is a descriptive approach to design 

processes as decision-making ones. To support the 

experiment to be done a decision support tool (DMTool) 

was created based upon: a) the information access and 

use; the idea generation; the constraints identification 

and propagation; the process analysis and evaluation 

[Appendix AF]. Furthermore, a Decision Making Model was 

developed based upon the experiments and activities 

performed previously (see Figure 85). 

This experiment, similarly to the previous one, gave origin 

to a paper that has as co-author Prof. Henri Christiaans, 

which was presented at the Conference IASDR 09, Seoul, 

18 – 22 October, South Korea. [Appendix AG]. 

The experiment was done with the thirty two design 

students (teams of 5/6 each) from the 5th year of both 

Product Design Program and Communication Design 

Program that also have made the exercise about design 

processes reported on 1.1.2 of this chapter. 

The students had to solve a design problem suggested 

by a Portuguese Light Company, CLIMAR, Sistemas de 

Iluminação, S.A. [Appendix AH]. 

Decision making in design processes is on our point 

of view dependent on three substantive elements: a) 

knowledge access and management; b) thinking and 

communication skills, and c) use of a strategy or plan to 

solve problems and provide solutions. 

The overall aims of this study was to understand: a) if 

a descriptive framework would allow us to describe, 

understand and better implement decision making 

along design processes; b) to assess if the creation of 

a decision making supporting tool to designers would 

facilitate decision making in the design process. 

255 




2.3.1 The Decision Making Descriptive Model 

The descriptive model of decision making is presented in 

Figure 85. It equates decision making at three different 

levels that are highly dependent on information/ 

Knowledge management and Idea generation. They 

are: 

a) a macro level - as depending on: 

256 

> (1) Design Strategy that as Christiaans and Restrepo 

(2004) mentioned can assume two different orientations 

in terms of the way assignments are approached by 

designers: problem oriented when there are descriptions 

made in terms of abstract relations and concepts; and 

solution oriented when from the beginning there are 

descriptions of the possible solutions. On the base 

of these authors’ findings and after the analysis of the 

previous experiments and actions we decided to include 

a third category, the integration oriented one that has to 

do with a design strategy that alternates from problem 

to solution in the way the concept of co-evolution is 

proposed by Dorst and Cross (2001). Moreover, we have 

changed the denomination from being ‘oriented’ to 

being ‘driven’ since it seems more appropriate to use this 

term. 

> (2) Creative Cognitive Processes where two modes are 

identified: exploratory that has to do with operations 

such as contextual shifting, functional inference and 

hypothesis testing; and generative that is related with 

analogical transfer, association, retrieval and synthesis. 

b) an intermediate level , including Decision Nature, that 

was defined according to three types: Framing decisions, 

decisions made during the period when a designer 

mentally ‘frames’ the object; Key Decisions, those made 

on moments when the (preparation of the) product 

creation occurs and Enabler Decisions, that signify mental 

object representation instants. 

c) a micro level – where decision making is defined 

according to the following descriptors: 

> (1) Decision Strategy, where we can find three distinct 

strategies: a non-compensatory rule based strategy

meaning that, as defined by Rothrock and Yin (2008), 

under such a strategy designers generally do not make 

use of all available information and trade-offs are often 

ignored; a compensatory rule based strategy where 

information is processed exhaustively and trade-offs 

need to be made between attribute cues; and finally the 

negotiated strategy where designers use both previous 

ones trying to balance their decision constrained 

by several aspects such as time, expertise, level of 

information etcetera. 

> (2) Mode of Decision that has to do with the dynamics 

of groups in terms of decision making including three 

types: Co-operation, that implies negotiation where 

the facilitator does it WITH people, seeks integration 

of people’s ideas, leader prompts and enables people 

to decide; Autocracy, a type of direction where the 

facilitator does it FOR people; it can be either autocratic or 

it can get a consultative direction mode; and Autonomy 

that implies delegation where the facilitator gives it 

TO people; it can be a structured delegation where a 

procedure or a more broad approach must be followed. 

Deciding individually is different from group decisions, 

and it influences the outcomes of design processes. Also 

important is the role of the leader of each process since 

it will be the one who formally has the responsibility of 

organizing the work and of planning tasks and work 

to be done. Leader and members should also have the 

ability to manage conflict and to overcome situations of 

blockage or of low motivation. According to Huitt (1992) 

individual differences in problem solving and decision 

making must be taken into account to adequately 

understand the dynamics of these processes. Personal 

characteristics of the group members clearly influence 

these processes in the way that they make use of specific 

techniques in problem solving. 

As an outcome of this mindset and its operationalization 

we have twenty seven types of possible solutions that 

are resultant from the different conjugation of the 

model’s identified descriptors. 

257 




258 

Fig.85 | Decision Making Descriptive 

Model II – From Mindset to Solutions 

(Almendra, 2009) 

2.3.2 The DMTool 

DMTool is a folder created in Excel (meant to be 

developed as an autonomous software) that has four 

main areas: a) information access and use, where the 

phase of the process, the type of information, degree 

of importance and use, source of information and 

application are addressed; b) idea generation that needs 

to be explored in terms of phase of the process, nature 

of idea, degree of innovation, degree of applicability, 

positive points and negative points, source, application 

and use, c) process that allows designers to register 

the stages of process, the tasks to be performed, dates, 

responsible persons, the control of the process state, the 

iterations; the reasons behind iterations, tools to be used,

occasion of use, expected benefits and real benefits; and 

d) evaluation with two types of reflections to be made: 

upon the produced outcome and about the outcome 

improvement regarding aspects such as positive and 

negative points of the solution, degree of innovation, 

degree of feasibility and degree of business adequacy; 

added value and proposed changes and tools to be 

used in change (See Figure 86). 

The first three issues are operational drivers to support 

decision making since hypothetically knowledge and 

idea generation monitoring and control help decision 

making accuracy, efficiency and coherence. 

The process assessment, on the other hand, helps 

decision makers controlling the plan and to have an 

overview of their moves along time – a macro perspective 

of the approach in progress that was intended to 

promote communication among members. 

Finally, the evaluation review will allow decision makers 

to have a critical reflective consideration of both the 

Fig.86 | DMTool layout: information, 

idea generation, process, 

evaluation 

259 




produced outcome and its possible improvement 

making explicit what usually design students never do: 

´what it could be if..´ This “reflection-after-results” aims 

to develop in students a critical consciousness of their 

own processes as well as the ability to define corrective 

procedures in order to improve their own design 

performance. 

2.3.3 The experiment 

260 

All groups received the same assignment from the 

Portuguese Light manufacturer named CLIMAR, Sistemas 

de Iluminação SA. The Challenge was named by the 

company as ‘Concept Hall 09’. The assignment proposed 

the creation of a product/Chandelier to a niche market 

(the high standard lobbies either from hotels or from 

emblematic buildings such as parliaments; government 

buildings etcetera. The proposal to be developed at 

the conceptual level should integrate both product and 

communication design. [Appendix AH]. The groups had 

to develop the work during five weeks having the real 

possibility of working two times a week during at least 

two hours. Previous to the sessions the students went 

to the Company, visited all the facilities and the factory 

and had the opportunity to have a presentation of the 

Brief made by the CEO of the company, the managers 

of Design Department, the Marketing manager and 

a Designer. The program of that visit to the company 

(sponsored by the company) can be seen in [Appendix AI]. 

2.3.3.1 Method 

As previously said the experiment was done with thirty 

two (32) final year students from the 5th year of the 

Product Design Program and of Communication Design 

Program at the Faculty of Architecture of the Technical 

University of Lisbon. Two Erasmus students from Italy 

participated in the experiment (one with a fashion 

design background and the other one with an interior 

design background). The total group took part in a 

Master course on Design Processes Management optional 

course. The work for the experiment overlapped with 

these classes.

Six groups were composed, four groups of five students 

and two groups of six students. Three groups – 2x5 and 

1x6 students – were appointed as experimental groups 

and three as control groups– 2x5 and 1x6 students –. 

The experimental groups worked with the DMTool while 

the control groups did not. 

The selection of the groups has been based on both 

matching and randomization. First, the six teams were 

matched on the basis of their domain area: an equal 

number of product design and communication design 

students. Next, people of both design domain areas 

were at random placed in one of the six teams. Finally, 

the two Erasmus students were at random appointed to 

two groups. 

Out of the three experimental (E) and the three control 

groups (C) two groups per condition (E1 and E2, C1 

and C2) were selected and were meticulously followed 

regarding both process and the use of the DMTool. 

Videotaping took place for two groups while for the 

other two groups the more unobtrusive audiotaping was 

used. The remaining experimental (E3) and control (C3) 

group were observed by an assistant (a PhD student) that 

monitored them along the sessions making a register 

of the sessions making use of the created DMTool too. 

[Appendix AJ]. 

During the session and also in between them the groups 

had the chance to contact a person of the company 

that would answer their doubts. They also received 

information about the company, its products, producing 

methods and tools materials and costs. 

A pre-and post-test was also part of the study. The pre 

test was the survey made to the students; the post test 

was an audio recorded short interview [Appendix AK] 

made with all groups regarding the experiment and the 

use of the tools (for those who had used it). 

The group solutions were evaluated by a jury of 

eight persons composed of two design teachers, one 

architect, two representatives of CLIMAR, one light 

engineer expert and two light magazine directors that 

used criteria established by the researcher along with 

the company representatives [Appendix AL]. 

261 




2.3.3.2 Procedure 

Five Sessions of two hours for each group – Experimental 

group at Tuesday from 14.00 to 16.00; control group 

on Thursday at the same hour an in the same room 

(although all the groups worked also in the other 2 

hours time available during week being responsible for 

the register of activity developed). The sessions were 

implemented during the classes of the Design processes 

management optional course that had the researcher as 

a lecturer. 

262 

All teams had to elect a leader that was shortly briefed 

about his/her role namely about the use of the tool 

and the register of information developed outside the 

sessions. In order to get insight in what the teams do 

two instruments were introduced: An electronic diary 

register of all sketches, images and written documents 

produced along the process and a screen record book to 

keep record of those moments that the groups worked 

outside the studio hours (this device only records the 

work developed in computer) [Appendix AM]. 

Regarding the evaluation two sessions were made (one 

in Lisbon one in Aveiro). In it the Jury member had the 

opportunity to view and score the group proposals (see 

Appendix AN). The detailed evaluation can be seen in 

[Appendix AO]. After the evaluation each Jury member also 

made a qualitative evaluation of each of the six designs 

[Appendix AP]. 

A brief analysis of Table 72 shows that the evaluation 

made by the jury was not consensual assuming high 

score divergences for the some design depending on the 

jury member voting. Also to notice that the difference 

among the first three groups was minimum since the 

winner had a final score of 124, 01, the second of 123,87, 

the third of 121,81, the fourth of 110,17, the fifth of 

108,16 and the sixth of 98,49. The maximum possible 

score was 200.

2.3.4 Experiment analysis and findings 

2.3.4.1 In terms of the DMTool use 

Teams that had to work with DMtool used it at the 

end of the sessions and never as a facilitator along the 

process. Two of the groups did it electronically [Appendix 

AQ] and one did it manually (printed the excel sheets in 

a large format and fill it in during the sessins). However, 

the awareness of the issues addressed and the analysis 

to be made with the tool determined a more systematic 

approach to information, the concern with the register 

of it, the clear statement and a deeper scrutiny of the 

generated ideas (their potential and limitations). This 

gave team members a step by step awareness of the 

entire process. 

In fact being the tool structured in well-defined topics 

that must be dissected in depth the researcher has 

recommended its use at the end of each session since 

otherwise it could hamper the natural fluidity of the 

teams´ reasoning and creative process. 

Table 72 | CLIMAR Experiment - 

Synthesis of Jury Evaluation 

263 




264 

Fig.87 | Using the DMTool (source: 

author) 

The DMTool facilitated especially the reflection upon: 

a) information: its usefulness and consistency in the 

whole process; b) idea generation in terms of its novelty, 

consistency with the solution framework, d) the causeeffect 

process of decision making and the degree of 

dependency between variables. It also gave light to 

some “missing parts” in students´ reasoning helping 

them to recover information or to search for and define 

more information in order to proceed in a coherent 

manner. However, there was no clear evidence that the 

use of DMTool has improved in an unquestionable way 

the results of the groups, although the groups placed in 

first and third in the prize ranking had used it. 

It became also evident that even while the tool was a 

more dynamic software in order to operate as a guidance 

tool of the whole design process, it would be necessary 

during a relative long period of time to train students to 

operate with it. The lack of habit in using a structured 

methodology on the part of these students made this 

fact more apparent but gave us also the chance to 

observe the potential advantages in terms of the design 

quality improvements if a methodology is used based 

upon knowledge management and decision making. 

2.3.4.2 In terms of Decision Making Descriptive 

Model analysis 

The use of the Decision Making Model to assess the 

experiment and its outcomes was done to perform the 

analysis of the information gathered along the design 

process.

C2 - 23 April 2009 

blue - process; pink - 

problem/context; 

purple - 

product/solution 

time speach REFLECTIONS DECISIONS 

0:05:30 0:04:37 

0:03:17 

0:02:04 

0:01:01 

FR - framing; K - 

Key EN - 

enabler 

nature 

decision 

H - hierarchy 

CO - 

cooperation; A - 

autonomy 

mode 


A - non 

compensatory; 

B - 

compensatory 


strategy 


behaviour 

see document 


evaluation 

s1 first let us plan, let us do here... Design planning... to make a plan FR 

s1 first we have to establish goals... establish goals FR 

s2 

how come, goals?, this is a project but it is not as our design 

studio project...it has much more components... 

complexity of the 

exercise 

FR 

s1 

yes but it has the same phases... Research information, study the 

context, sketches.... 

similar phases with 

previous design projects establishing phases FR 

s3 until we have a concept... FR 

s1 and we should also do also a calendar? to make a calendar FR 

so let us first see what is demanded... It is a lamp for an hotel or a 

s3 representative building.... focus on brief FR company/client 

s2 we have to do it in 4 sessions.... 

time available to the 

exercise 

FR 

s1 we should go and visit hotels... 

but we can do it no?... We can go for different types of 

s3 hotels...no... 

variety of possible 

places/contexts 

explore context in 

loco 

s1 

yes they have different publics... We can go and visit some to 

have the feeling of the ambiance... 

explore different hotel 

contexts (in situ) FR 

first we should go to the bars and restaurants because normaly we other 

s2 can have access freely to that.... 

spaces/restaurants/bar 

FR 

s3 and if they see has staring at the hall and someone comes? FR 

s2 well we are looking no problem no? FR 

it can be for what spaces... We have to define that... To specify 

s1 it.... 

FR 

s3 there is the possibility to work for other spaces, like ccb... 

necessity to define 

context 

FR 

B 

s1 let us list here the hypothesis of spaces... museum context 

enlarge the context 

study 

FR 

there is that gorgeous hotel downtown....the design hotel... Kind of 

art nouveaux style...it is I think in Rua da Prata, in a corner, and it 

s2 is in purple and rose... So nice... FR personal context reference 

but we should choose other places so we have more freedom to 

s1 create.... enlarge contexts of use FR 

FR 

FR 

E - Exploratory - 

(contextual shifting; 

functional inference; 

hypotesis testing); 

G - Generative 

(analogical transfer; 

association;retrieval; 

synthesis) 

supporting 

INFORMATION IDEAS creative process 

modern/design 

space 

adequacy 

s2 

with ccb that was the idea... One space less luxurious, more 

related with modernity and innovation... 

different context: diferent 

product attributes 

FR 

luxurious space 

vs 

modern/innovat 

ive one 

modern hotel...in Belém there is one hotel that has instead of 

normal blinds, a system of pannels like walls, beautiful, ... It is 

near the area of restaurants...it is truly new... There are some 

modern/design 

space 

s1 parts not yet finished... FR personal context reference adequacy 

s2 

near the marginal there is one... A kind of SPA hotel...which is a 

bit different...it has to induce relaxation.... FR personal context reference 

clean/relaxation 

space 

s3 and what about to think of the muslim church of lisbon? 

in that case people that go there are not going probably to rhink 

s1 that much about lamps... Or on bying lamps... 

s2 

context of churchs/other 

cultures/ monumental 

spaces 

impact that could have on 

climar sales 

just to think of doing a lamp that it is not traditional, a kinfd of lamp context of other cultures 

we are not used to think of... 

could be inspirational 

FR 

FR 

FR 

cooperation -used to define the approach to the problem - issues are negotiated and the facilitator does it WITH people; 2. some 

degree of autonomy might occur in next sessions since tasks are being delegated to all members. 

the group decision behaviour clearly displayed 2 behaviours: a)pursuit of better information which necessarily meant postponed 

operational work -a kind of complete imersion in images of all kind seen very quickly being adressed without a deep analysis; b) 

necessity to compromise with a plan to the work to be developed.... 

monumental/ot 

her culture 

space 

Images(only 

video) 

Table 73 | CLIMAR Experiment – 

Excerpt of Verbal Protocol Analysis 

of Group C2 

265 



267 

That analysis included also the critical assessment of all 

the videotapes, audiotapes, the DMTool records as well 

as the diaries and the screen record books. The amount of 

information was huge. First we tried to make the Verbal 

protocol Analysis of all the group sessions (see Table 73; 

Appendix AR). Because it was too time consuming to make 

the transcription and translation of all the dialogues we 

decided to make a synthesis based upon ‘critical incident 

analysis’ 51 of the process of each group in an excel file 

using as parameters the descriptors that integrate de 

Decision Making Model. (see Table 74; Appendix AS). 

Furthermore it was made an attempt to translate in 

visual terms the ongoing work developed by each 

team. To do it there were several parameters analyzed 

such as: a) creativity (based upon the judgment made 

by the jury members and the analysis of the protocols); 

b) Knowledge management; decision making in a 

global overview resulting from the focused analysis of 

decision coherence, decision efficacy, decision timing; 

decision rational correctness and decision participation 

Fig.88 | The six Design Products 

resultant from the CLIMAR 

Experiment 

51. A critical incident is often an 

event which made you stop and 

think, or one that raised questions 

for you (it has a parallel with the 

reflection in action defined by 

Schön. It may have made you 

question an aspect of your beliefs, 

values, attitude or behaviour. In 

the university setting, a critical 

incident might include as defended 

by Fook (2000) it can be : a) an 

aspect of a project or group work 

that went particularly well; b) an 

aspect of aproject or group work 

that proved difficult; c) a piece of 

work that was found particularly 

demanding; d) a piece of work 

which increased the awareness, or 

challenged our understanding; or 

e) an incident involving conflict, 

hostility, aggression or criticism. 




268 

Fig.89 | E3 group Decision Making 


(in terms of the team elements). These parameters arise 

from literary critics ( Mann, Harmoni and Power, 1989; 

Ross, 1981). To note that these parameters are not to 

be measured in quantitative terms but rather serve 

a comparative qualitative analysis based upon our 

interpretation of data. 

When we use the Decision making Model (Figure 85) to 

assess each of the cases we find out that they correspond 

to six different types of outcomes that are the result of 

distinct combinations of the five areas of the model. The 

synthesis of the assessment resulted in the information 

presented in Figures 89 to 94. 

> E3, the winner of the contest is a ADEHK type as it is 

possible to see in Figure 89.

Fig.90 | C1 group Decision 

Making Model analysis 

269 

Fig.91 | E2 group Decision 





270 

Fig.92 | E1 group Decision 


Fig.93 | C2 group Decision 

Making Model analysis

C1, is a CDEHJ as it can be seen in Figure 90. 

> E2 group assumed a BDEHJ profile as it can be seen in 

the synthesized analysis presented in Figure 91. 

> E1 on the other hand is a ADGEK as show in Figure 92. 

> C2 displayed an ADEGI profile that is briefly reported 

in Figure 93. 

> C3 , as it can be seen in Figure 94 was a group with an 

CDEHK Profile according to the Decision Making Model. 

A second analysis was also done that is synthesized in 

Figure 95. This second analysis is a visual translation of 

the ongoing work of the teams in terms of creativity 

(the criteria more important to the jury members), 

Knowledge management and decision making. 

Furthermore decision making (that was approached in 

the last graphic on the right side of the figure, as a whole 

integrating criteria) is dissected and considered in terms 

of its coherence, efficacy, timing, rational correctness 

and participation of group members (in the left side of 

the graphic). 

Fig.94 | C3 group Decision Making 


271 




272 

Fig.95 | Analysis of the overall 

behaviour of the design teams in 

terms of Creativity, knowledge 

management and Decision 

Making 

A deeper analysis of the graphics presented in Figure 

95 allows us to recognize for instance that apparently 

a high level of creativity and a good knowledge 

management on the part of a group (such as E1) 

when it is not consistent along the time can result 

in a performance below the expected quality level. 

In the particular case of this group the presence of a 

charismatic leader lead to a kind of “blind reliance” of all 

the other team members that trusted him the success of 

the outcome. In the third session the drop in enthusiasm 

of almost all members regarding the solution proposed 

(both the product designers and communication ones) 

was observable. And while the leader had to give his 

attention to another project there were two severe 

consequences: communication among members was 

impoverished, motivation lowered its level, the ability to 

exert a judgment over the tasks to be performed and 

encountered solutions got numbed. Besides this lack of 

communication designers felt a bit subordinated along 

the process. 

On the other hand if we observe the course of, for 

example, C1 group when compared to E1 it started 

with lower inputs in terms of creativity and knowledge 

management and having found a solution around

273 

session two they had experienced several problems in 

terms of its technical and constructive aspects. In the face 

of that the group had a hard time deciding to abandon 

that alternative that was keeping everyone unsatisfied. 

However, between session four and five and based upon 

the work developed in terms of communication design a 

new product solution was found. This new idea boosted 

an expressive energy among all members that in a very 

mature and efficacious way developed the solution that 

although having a medium level of creativity (in strict 

terms of the object) was highly creative and competitive 

as a strategic product to the firm in terms of its markets, 

its production resources and brand consolidation. Again 

here it was crucial the way decision making was done 

by the group members. Here the leadership was shared 

by all, autonomy and delegation occurred extensively 

and there was an accurate exploitation of the personal 

characteristics and skills of each of the members that 

resulted in an optimized solution. 

Fig.96 | Climar Experiment - Images 

of the sessions (source: the author) 




274 

Fig.97 | Climar Experiment - Images 

of the sessions (source: the author) 

Fig.98 | Images of the CLIMAR Prize 

ceremony (source: CLIMAR)

SUMMARY OF THE CLIMAR EXPERIMENT - 

DESIGN STUDENTS GROUP EXERCISE 

The CLIMAR experiment aimed to engage both design 

students (32 in groups of 5/6 elements) and a company in 

solving a Design problem. A brief was developed by the 

company which was presented by a team of the company 

that integrated the CEO, the marketing manager; the 

design manager and a designer during an one day visit 

to the firm’s facilities and factory. The group of students 

developed their solutions during the Design Process’s 

management course and along five sessions of two 

hours each. From the six groups two were videotaped, 

two audiotaped and 2 were followed by an assistant that 

made the register of th sessions using a tool developed 

by the researcher. That tool, named DMTool aimed to 

support 3 teams (Experimental) in their decision making 

process. Furthermore, a descriptive Decision making 

Model was created by the researcher and tested in the 

analysis of the experiment. Some findings are to be 

mentioned. 

Regarding the DMTool 

The use of a Decision making support tool was hard for 

the students since it has a “non natural” modus operandi in 

the context of a design process that is fluid and complex 

in terms of information processing and exploratory and 

generative processes of creation. However, it was clear 

in this study that decision making can be improved 

and in fact is improved already by the awareness and 

compulsory need of evaluation of the factors that clearly 

influence the quality of results. That is the case of the 

role of information use and knowledge management, 

the idea generation process; the level of thinking and 

communication skills and the use of a strategy or plan to 

achieve to the desired outcomes. Also the importance of 

group dynamics in decision making and the impressive 

level of influence personal characteristics interaction 

has in the decision making process are some of the 

outcomes of this study. The decision mode of the team 

is decisive for a consistent, growing creative process as 

well as for a good level of communication an adequate 

275 




level of thinking and a good implementation of a strategy 

to pursue the best solution. Finally, it is important to 

mention that in a real and natural situation like the 

design course that was chosen to do the experiment 

there are so many variables that influence the process 

and the result of the group, that it is hardly possible to 

isolate the effect of one variable: the use of the DMTool. 

A more controlled experiment would ruin the validity of 

a realistic project. 

Regarding the outcomes of the experiment 

We could observe two clear approaches to the brief; one 

that assumed the possible solution in a very literal way 

having has an outcome a design that we can assume 

as a “unique piece” and another one that developed 

solutions that matched a strategy of expansion of firm’s 

market. 

276 

It is important to consider the fact that the winning 

design was very controversial among the jury members 

being considered the best by half of them and being 

placed in the fourth of fifth position by the other half. 

This fact is related with the judgment made upon the 

uniqueness of the object and the direct link of this 

attribute with brand identity and representativeness. 

The designs scored in second and third places were the 

result of an interpretation of the problem that was not 

literal but included a deep analysis of the markets the 

firm operated (like hotel projects) having assumed since 

the beginning the versatile, modular and multi-use 

characteristics in the object. 

Furthermore it is noticeable the fact that the winning 

group was one of continuous conflict among two parts, 

the graphic designers and the product designers, being 

the outcome achieved late in the process. It was the 

result of decisions made by the product designers and 

the graphic designers just used the design after (the last 

session) to develop the graphic elements needed for the 

contest. This fact is relevant since it shows that although 

the design was not properly developed due to the lack 

of time the idea was evaluated as being good, promising 

and tuned with the firm’s ambitions.

Finally, we must refer that the use of a descriptive model 

allows us to understand better design processes and in 

this particular case the way decisions are made but it 

is not meant to conclude nothing regarding the better 

strategy to pursue. 

2.4 An experiment with Portuguese and Dutch 

Design students inside a company (CIMP) 

After the CLIMAR experiment (where students in their 

class environment and during class period of time 

developed a brief presented by a company having the 

chance of accessing to its staff along the process) the 

challenge was to place design students working inside 

a company. 

The central aim of this last experiment was to observe 

the students’ performance while developing a design 

process in a real context. 

Also the fact of having two distinct group of students 

with different design education backgrounds, eight 

Portuguese and eight Dutch (now in a team approach to 

design processes) was considered to be important since 

we wanted to see if changes in Education would result in 

different process approaches and different outcomes. 

Fig.99 | Images of the CIMP 

Experiment – Group 3 Dutch 

Students (Source: the researcher) 

277 




2.4.1 The Method 

The experiment was done with sixteen (16) final year 

Portuguese and Dutch students. The Portuguese 

students were from the 5th year of the Product Design 

Program (4 – 2 males and 2 females) and from the first 

year of the Product design Master course (4 – 3 males 

and one female). The Dutch students (5 males and 3 

females) were from the three Delft Master Courses 

(Integration Product Design; Design for Interaction; 

Strategic product design). 

The duration of the experiment was one week (from 

Monday to Friday) being the last day the moment of 

presentation of the proposal presentation and also of 

the Prize ceremony. 

Four groups of four students were settled. The 

elements of the groups volunteered to participate in 

the experiment and organized themselves as teams 

according to their assessment of their own skills. 

278 

Videotaping took place for two groups (Group 3 – Dutch; 

Group 4 – Portuguese) while for the other two groups 

the more unobtrusive audiotaping was used (Group 1 – 

Dutch and Group 2 – Portuguese). 

Each group had to make a diary of their activities to 

deliver at the end of the week. On that diary they had to 

describe briefly what they had done during the session 

and how they evaluate the team performance. 

Although having the chance to contact freely every 

person on the firm a person was indicated by the 

company’s CEO as being the responsible for the activity: 

The Design Director – Carla Portugal. She was responsible 

to enable the development of the exercise in what 

concerns to firm such as, information delivery, booking 

meetings with staff, authorizing production of models 

etcetera. 

The author also had an assistant (a PhD candidate) that 

remained the entire week in the firm. Her task was to 

facilitate the contact of the students with the company 

and also to take care of technical support to the video 

and audio taping.

Both the researcher and the co-supervisor Prof. Henri 

Christiaans visited the firm and accompanied the 

experiment in a daily basis. 

Each group had a specific work area integrated in the 

floor where the Creative/Design Department was 

installed. All the elements could circulate freely inside 

the company. 

Groups received information about the company, its 

products, producing methods and tools, materials and 

costs. They also received plants of the interior areas to 

be reformulated (the reception), the portfolio of the 

company and the Manual of the Brand [Appendix AT]. 

The site of the firm was also a source to be used since it 

had videos of the firm, the products and production. 

Groups also made a guided visit to the company 

(morning of the first day) and had opportunity to have 

an individual meeting with the CEO (on the third day of 

the experiment). 

The group solutions were evaluated by a jury of four 

persons designated by the CEO of the company. [Appendix 

AU] 

2.4.2 The Experiment 

The experiment was planned to be developed during 

one week as it can be seen in Table 74. 

Table 74 | Schedule of the CIMP 

experiment 

279 




2.4.2.1 The Company - CIMP 

As it can be seen in Appendix AT, CIMP is a medium size 

company (70 employees) operating in the Promotion 

and Merchandising markets. It has two offices in 

international markets: Spain and Brazil. 

The choice of this company complies with several factors 

important to the research: 

> The company integrates an important work market for 

Portuguese designers; 

> The size of the company and its level of Integration in 

terms of activities being internalized is adequate since 

it allows students to follow the entire process, from 

concept to production; 

> The physical access to firm was easy; 

280 

> The firm accepted to receive a large number of 

students 16 and compromised with lodging them in 

separate spaces giving full support to them during the 

experiment; 

> The Company’s products/services allowed us to 

develop together with them a brief that would go 

beyond product design, i.e. a brief that aimed to make 

more visible the strategic adequacy of design. 

2.4.2.2 The Brief 

Appendix AV presents the complete brief delivered 

to the four groups of students (2 Portuguese with 4 

elements each; 2 Dutch with 4 elements each). 

The type of problem presented to the students was 

chosen by the researcher (and developed by the firm 

with the researcher full collaboration) and aimed to 

address some key issues. They are: 

> The problem posed should allow us to see how 

students relate themselves with a Company Vision and 

its Business Strategy and how they, through design 

process, ‘translate’ it into products (graphic, interior 

design or product design).

The assignment to be delivered should be adequate 

to a conceptual development of a Design that called 

for different specific skills: graphic, product and Interior 

Design; 

> The assignment should correspond to a real problem 

developed in a real context and having a time to develop 

similar to the one firm gives to its employees. 

> The level of information available for the students 

should be equal to the one firm gives to their designers 

in a real situation; 

The brief proposes the reformulation of the Corporate 

Design that should be materialized in the following 

Items: 

1. Communication Design elements: The Logo, the Brand 

Manual; Signage system 

2. Interior Design Elements: Redesign of the reception 

area; 

3. Product Design Elements: the counter of the reception; 

displays to place in the corridors and hall of each building 

floor. 

The integration of all these elements should allow the 

company to transmit its DNA. 

The work should be developed at the conceptual level. 

2.4.2.3 The jury Evaluation 

Jury members belonged to the Company and were 

chosen by its CEO. The criteria to judge the proposals 

were suggested by the researcher to the firm that 

accepted it [see Appendix AW]. The criteria were: Creativity, 

Quality of Communicative interaction; Strategic 

adequacy and overall quality. These concepts where 

defined as presented in the Glossary [Appendix A]. 

The evaluation was done in the last day of the 

experiment. Groups made a presentation to the firm. 

Each group had 15/20 minutes to present his proposal. 

After the presentations Jury members could question 

281 




Table 75 | Synthesis of the Evaluation 

of CIMP Jury members 

them about their work. After this presentation session 

the Jury evaluated each proposal using a scale from 0 to 

20. The overall results of the evaluation are presented in 

Table 75. 

282 

After the session the researcher had the chance to talk 

with the Jury members in an informal conversation about 

their appreciation of the proposals. Their comments are 

consistent with what is observable in the individual 

scoring of each criterion for each group (see Appendix 

AU). 

In fact it is observable that with the exception of one Jury 

member all weight ‘creativity’ and Strategic adequacy’ 

with 30% while the remaining two criteria have 20% each. 

The one jury member that has a different weighting of 

criteria finds ‘creativity’ to weigh 20%, ‘strategic adequacy’ 

and the ‘quality of the Communicative interaction’ to 

weight 25% and the ‘overall quality to weight 30%. 

Moreover, when looking more closely to evaluation we 

find out that two Jury members place the Dutch teams 

in second and third place classifying all criteria either 

higher of equally to the Portuguese group number 4 

that in the end stayed in second place. However, due 

to the fact that the other two Jury members attributed 

very low scores to Dutch groups, at the end, the ranking 

order was the two Portuguese groups followed by the 

two Dutch groups.

2.4.2.4 Experiment Data Treatment and 

Analysis 

The Data was collected as previously said both in 

videotape and audiotape. In addition, the sketches done 

along the process and the written documents as well as 

the presentations that were prepared by all the groups 

were also delivered to the researcher at the end of the 

experiment. 

Tapes were analysed using the method of Critical 

Incident Analysis. The entire process of each group was 

described in a Table making use of broaden descriptors: 

Time; Data (the information being used at the moment) 

Process (issues related with process development; 

methods, tools); Problem (partial; Whole) and Solution 

(partial; whole). Figure 100 presents an excerpt of one of 

the tables that are fully accessible in [Appendix AX]. 

This analysis was translated in graphics (see Figures 101- 

106) where besides the information about groups being 

dedicated to problem, to solution or process activities it 

was made a synthesis of the Decision making supported 

by the framework created in this thesis (Figure 86).In the 

next pages we will only present the graphics of one of 

the Dutch groups . Nevertheless in terms of results all 

the four groups will be analysed. 

The graphics also present a brief assessment of 

the parameters that integrate the Decision making 

framework as well as some reflection about Idea 

Generation and Knowledge management. 

Similarly to what was done in the CLIMAR experiment 

(Figure 95) several graphics comparing all the groups 

in terms of Creativity, knowledge management and 

Decision Making were also made (see Figure 107). 

Figure 102 presents the design process of groups 3 and 

4 during the first day of their performance. It is visible 

that they developed a quite different approach to 

design problem. Group 3 of Dutch students engaged 

in a process of reflection about the firm and its strategy 

having generated an exhaustive amount of lists of their 

analysis of the firm characteristics, of questions to ask to 

the company representatives etcetera. They generated 

283 




284 

Fig.100 | Excerpt of the analysis of 

Group 3 (Dutch) Design Process

GROUP 3 - DUTCH (PROBLEM ORIENTED) - 1st DAY - 29 JUNE 

GROUP 3 - DUTCH (PROBLEM ORIENTED) - 2nd DAY - 30 JUNE 

GROUP 3 - DUTCH (PROBLEM ORIENTED) - 3rd DAY - 1 JULY 

GROUP 3 - DUTCH (PROBLEM ORIENTED) - 4th DAY - 2 JULY 

GROUP 3 - DUTCH (PROBLEM ORIENTED) - 4/5th DAY - 2/3 JULY 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

AFTERNOON/ NIGHT 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 300m 330m 360m 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 300m 330m 360m 

390m 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 300m 330m 360m 390m 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 300m 330m 360m 390m 420m 

450m 


SOLUTION 

PROBLEM 

PROCESS 

partial whole 

partial whole 

PAUSE - blockage moment; going to the firm 

creative department; moving to the TERRACE 

CEO 

CIMP designers opinion 

GROUP 4 - PORTUGUESE (SOLUTION ORIENTED) - 1st DAY 

GROUP 4 - PORTUGUESE (SOLUTION ORIENTED) - 2nd DAY 

GROUP 4 - PORTUGUESE (SOLUTION ORIENTED) - 3rd DAY - 1 JULY 

GROUP 4 - PORTUGUESE (SOLUTION ORIENTED) - 4th DAY - 2 JULY 

GROUP 4 - PORTUGUESE (INTEGRATION ORIENTED) - 4/5th DAY - 2/3 JULY 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

AFTERNOON/ NIGHT 

MORNING 

AFTERNOON 

AFTERNOON 

NIGHT 

NIGHT/ MORNING 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 

300m 330m 360m 390m 420m 450m 480m 510m 540m 570m 

30m 

60m 90m 120m 150m 180m 210m 240m 270m 

300m 330m 360m 390m 420m 450m 480m 510m 540m 570m 


SOLUTION 

PROBLEM 

partial whole 

partial whole 

GROUP WAS OUTSIDE THE FIRM, IN THE FACULTY , IN THE DESIGN STUDIO 

FINAL EXAMINATION; WHILE THERE THEY DEVELOPED THE LOGO, THE MANUAL 

OF GRAPHIC NORMS, THE BASIS FOR RECEPTION AND SIGNAGE 

(BASIC DRAWINGS) 

PROCESS 

CEO 

talk 

Production 

man 

285 

Fig.101 | Analysis of the Design 

Process of Groups 3 and 4 (5 

days), see details in Figs 102-106 



a large amount of information that had found hard 

to synthesize and that they exposed to be consulted 

during the process. Since the beginning they assumed 

that they would departure from the Vision of the firm to 

the development of solutions starting with the LOGO. 

Curiously they did not sketch that much in this first day 

but the LOGO presented as a final solution was designed 

during this first session. 

On the other hand and regarding group 4, a Portuguese 

team, time dedicated to problem interpretation was 

shorter. The process was more in control of the leader that 

during the first day tried to stimulate the other elements 

as well as to make a close control of the generated ideas 

presenting a synthesis of the achievements from time 

to time. The group defined early that the generated 

solution was dependent on the LOGO design that works 

as a symbol of the whole company. Team assumed 

that LOGO definition should be done in this first day 

having defined a draft of the work plan for the entire 

week. Sketching of LOGO dominated the session being 

2 the concepts that were developed by all in multiple 

variations. At a certain point of the process (when LOGO 

was near its final definition) tasks were divided and one 

element started to insert the plant of RECEPTION in the 

modelling software and another element also started 

working the LOGO in computer. The MANUAL of Graphic 

norms also started to be worked on at the end of the 

session. 

The analysis of this first day according to the Decision 

Making framework presents us two distinct behaviors. 

Concerning Design strategy, group 3 was clearly problem 

driven and group 4 was solution driven. The Dutch 

group engaged in a creative process where exploratory 

activities dominated while in the Portuguese group 

the creative process alternated intensely between 

exploratory and generative activities. In respect to the 

decision nature in group 3 framing decisions were more 

frequent, a key decision regarding the LOGO occurred 

and few enabler decisions were undertaken. Group 4 

had a different profile as to decision nature. The enabler 

decisions were prevalent and the key decision of LOGO 

design appeared in this session. 

287 




288 

Fig.102 | Analysis of the 

Design Process of Groups 3 

and 4 – 1ST Day

The mode of Decision was in both groups a cooperative 

one but due to the differences of leadership that 

cooperation occurred in different ways. In group 3 the 

leader had a frenetic activity of reflecting aloud about 

everything and pushed other elements to intervene. He 

produced extended written documents with ideas and 

at a certain point in the process some of the elements 

got a bit worried about the time being spent in this task. 

Somehow the other elements adopted silence as a way 

to stop that process of endless discussion of an issue in 

order to find time and space to make what they found 

to be more logical or needed. The leadership on group 4 

was a calmer one. Several moments occurred of making 

point of situations; the leader stimulated all the members 

to present their ideas and at the end tried to synthesize 

what was said. He also had prepared information to 

support the process and was in control of the information 

to still be asked or created. Finally, about the decision 

strategy both groups display the use of a negotiated 

non compensatory/ compensatory rule based one. That 

is to say that when having a compensatory strategy 

some poor evaluations they made of one attribute was 

compensated by a positive one on another attribute (for 

example they can sacrifice usability issues in some objects 

designed for an increase in the visual shape attributes 

of them. On the other hand the non compensatory 

rules were trade-offs among attributes are not allowed 

were suitable when commensurability was absent (e.g. 

absence of the representation of the three core business 

areas is Logo is an impossible choice). 

Similarly to what happens in other experiments (Hong 

and Chan, 2004) in this case both groups preferred the 

non compensatory rules in situations of overload of 

information (group 3 is a clear example of that) or when 

the value of a certain aspect in the overall solution was 

not clear for them (sometimes it was observable in both 

groups the absence of a clear difficulties to rank the 

choices among them and to utilise choice rules). 

The second day in company is presented in Figure 103. 

This second day was a peculiar one since elements from 

both of the Portuguese teams had to go to Faculty to 

present their design studio final project. Therefore the 

289 




290 



and 4 – 2ND Day

Portuguese teams were out of the company being their 

work being accessed not by video or audio but taking 

into account their reports and the work they brought to 

company on the third day. 

Nevertheless it is possible to characterize the Dutch 

second day that as the Portuguese one was dedicated 

to enable solutions. In the case of the Dutch group 

they were concentrated on LOGO and experienced 

a blockage moment that tried to solve by changing 

the place of work from the office to the terrace of the 

company. Finally at the end of the day they could make 

a choice of the LOGO to develop and some sub solutions 

regarding RECEPTION and DISPLAY started to appear. 

In terms of group dynamics this was a critical day where 

team members displayed a lack of motivation and 

difficulties overcoming it. They also displayed behaviour 

of a certain resistance to leader’s ideas and way of ruling 

the process. 

In what concerns the Portuguese achievements and the 

way they saw the process of this particular day again 

they had a balanced dynamic of group and they made 

it possible to define entirely the LOGO and the MANUAL 

having also worked in the basic drawings (technical) 

to support the construction of 3D modelling of the 

RECEPTION and DISPLAY. 

The third day in company for both teams revealed two 

distinct team beahviors and design development. Group 

3 was clearly solution driven trying to overcome the 

blockage they had in the previous day. They dedicate 

themselves especially to LOGO and the RECEPTION 

although they started to think in the DISPLAY. At this 

moment the LOGO was not yet stabilized and the 

RECEPTION alternatives were done in sketches that 

evolved in a slow rhythm. Furthermore the lack of 

cohesion in the group and the lack of motivation 

contributed for the surprising reaction they had when 

CEO come to answer their questions. First they were not 

ready, after they made the option to go and watch the 

interview CEO was having with the other Dutch team. 

This means that the huge amount of lists and analysis 

done in the first day regarding the company and the 

291 




292

questions to ask to their representatives were set apart. 

Group 4 approach this third day with all members highly 

motivated and feeling confident. Their design strategy 

along this period was integration driven meaning that 

they alternated between problem and solution in a 

very interactive process that helped them to structure 

the entire solution and its parts. The group profited 

immensely of the meeting with the CEO. They had a 

structured and profitable talk with the CEO and at the 

end of the conversation they made a point of situation 

evaluating their path against the perceived solution 

they built based on the CEO speech. The LOGO and 

The MANUAL were fully defined, the RECEPTION was 

being worked and was assumed as being the design 

piece that would synthesize the entire design proposal 

of Rebranding and the DISPLAY, after the talk with the 

CEO was definitely defined as the object that would be 

prototypized. Moreover the team approved the leader 

suggestion of having a proposal phased in time. For 

the short term the change would have protagonists the 

DISPLAY and the SIGNAGE system; in the Medium term 

LOGO would be the main actor and in the long term the 

execution of the RECEPTION. 



and 4 – 3RD Day 

293 




294 


Design Process of Group 3 – 

4TH Day

Regarding the Creative Process both groups engaged 

in the loop exploratory/generative activities although 

group 4 showed a more accelerated rhythm and a 

dynamic that was absent from group3. 

In terms of the nature of decision undertaken group 3 

had a clear dominance of Enabler decisions while group 

4 displayed and intense ‘ping-pong’ from framing to 

enabler decisions. 

The Mode of Decision was autonomic for both groups 

but leadership performed differently in the two teams 

and the dynamics of the groups were deeply diverse. 

Leadership of group 3 was tense and experiencing 

long silence moments on the part of team members 

that isolate themselves in their own tasks. In group 

4 the opposite occurred, there were long periods of 

exchange of ideas and an intense dialogue about details 

and the whole solution. The ‘pattern’ was discussion of 

the situation in hands with contribution of all, intense 

working on the situation, discussion of the new 

alternatives and achievements. Leader articulated the 

work developed by each member and incentivised them 

to pursue their work. 

Finally the decision strategies also differed in the two 

groups. Group 3 displayed a non compensatory rule 

based strategy and group 4 a negotiated one equating 

the different attributes of the Brand reformulation 

having into account the vision of the CEO. 

The fourth day (and the final one in terms of work 

sessions) was a day of intense enabling for both groups. 

The sessions for the Portuguese and Dutch team were 

product oriented but the team attitude was dissimilar. 

Dutch were concentrated in recovering the ‘time lost’ 

and to materialize final drawings and Portuguese being 

highly motivated were trying to improve the already 

defined designs and to explore its multiple virtues 

through a good communication strategy. 

Being so the creative process for both groups was 

dominated by generative activities and the mode of 

decision was cooperative. 

The Portuguese team was highly committed to have a 

good proposal and decided to invest part of their time 

295 




296

in the prototype. To do so they had a meeting with the 

responsible of the firm’s production. 


Design Process of Group 3 – 

5TH Day 

Concerning the decision strategy the two groups 

diverge. Group 3 maintained his non compensatory rule 

based behaviour and group 4 a negotiated strategy. 

Since it was the last work session day of the experiment 

both teams stayed longer in the firm. Dutch team stayed 

until the middle of the night and the Portuguese one 

until early morning. Figure 106 shows both teams’ 

process. 

This period of late afternoon and night was for both 

groups one to be dedicated to finish the proposal. 

The Dutch group was working with two computers 

making the final renders of RECEPTION and of DISPLAY; 

at the same time two elements were dedicated to the 

execution of a scale model of the counter. In the morning 

they had the model ready and also the A3 posters to 

support the presentation. It was evident for all the team 

members that they had manage deficiently the time 

dedicated to the tasks and the overall process. They 

also had conscience that they had a bad performance 

managing information, especially the one they 

created and the one to be gathered with the company 

members. 

297 




The Portuguese group had 4 computers to work since 

the beginning that they used in an alternate mode with 

intense periods of sketching. During this period they 

worked in finishing the SIGNAGE system, making renders 

and photo simulations of the different spaces and of 

the RECEPTION, printing the LOGO elements and the 

MANUAL and designing the PowerPoint presentation 

template and the sequence of the elements in it. 

The team attitude was a confident one since they felt 

that had managed the overall process’s time well. 

298 

Fig.107 | Analysis of the overall 

behaviour of the design teams 

in terms of Creativity, knowledge 

management and Decision 

Making 

2.4.2.5 Results 

The results of this experiment are analysed taking 

into account the jury evaluation as well as the critical 

incident analysis made of each group’s performance. It 

is important to refer that the audiotapes of both group 1 

and 2 did not allow us to have such rich information than 

the one collected with the videotapes. 

Nevertheless it was possible to make a global analysis of 

the four group’s design processes. The analysis done is

similar to the one made in the Climar experiment. Figure 

107 synthesizes the main aspects analyzed: creativity 

process; knowledge management and the decision 

making process as a whole and also in detailed way. 

In addition to the assessment shown in Figure 107 it 

was also made a table where further information on the 

design processes of the four groups is presented in a 

Fig.108 | Synthesis of Groups 

performance in CIMP Experiment 

299 




way that it is possible to quickly identify some structural 

differences among them. The elements focused on 

that table are the classification of each team, its design 

strategy along the process, the overall group’s dynamics 

a short overview of the process and the list of the 

produced outcomes. 

The more relevant aspects to underline in the analysis 

of the four groups design processes are the ones related 

with the decision making framework’s parameters. 

However, it is important to state that in this particular 

exercise the knowledge of specific domain skills in 

the area of communication design clearly determined 

the outcomes. Dutch students of both groups lack 

that specific knowledge and got unstructured in their 

approach since they got stucked in several aspects of the 

graphic design field of action. That make them spend too 

much time with the more graphical elements that made 

them not to explore their capabilities in the industrial 

design, interaction design and strategic product fields. 

300 

This aspect is directly linked with the curricula of the 

two faculties since although the Portuguese students 

formation was in product design the curricula of this 

program includes communication design as well as 

design management. 

Another central issue that contributed to the results 

was the use groups made of methods and the resources 

they made available to the process. The Dutch groups 

made use of several methods both for information 

management and creativity stimulation while 

Portuguese were more modest in these aspects. On the 

other end Dutch groups only used two computers and 

the Portuguese ones had four computers available to 

work. This aspect was important along the process since 

Dutch groups discovered late that more computers 

would be a precious resource to reach a more efficacious 

presentation of their proposals. Inclusively, one of the 

groups (group 1) used computers from the company to 

overcome that situation. It is relevant to say that the use 

of computers did not signify in terms of the Portuguese 

groups that sketching was put aside. In fact the designing 

activity by hand was intense especially in group 4.

Concerning Information and knowledge management 

Portuguese groups were the ones that had made a 

more accurate and ‘in control’ management of it. They 

had prepared information to bring to the firm and while 

there they made synthesis of what they received, asked 

for what they found needed, gathered in internet and 

other sources complementary information and make 

intense use of retrieved information from previous 

design situations. On the other hand the Dutch groups 

appeared to be more ‘lost’ in the information and 

knowledge management. Either they entered in an 

endless exploitation of information both received or 

created through the interpretation they made of the 

company or they simply ignored information available 

(at demand) and assumed it dedicating themselves to 

other activities. 

Crucial was also the moments of contact with firm’s 

representatives and the way groups managed their 

interaction and integration with and in the company. 

Dutch groups had an intense contact with the elements 

of the Creative/ design Department. This interaction 

was made along the five days where teams asked for 

the opinion on their designs to different elements of the 

department. Teams also had the opportunity to see the 

work CIMP’ creative people was developing and at all 

time they were available to answers to their doubts and 

inclusively to help them with materials and equipment. 

The same occurred with the production department 

of the company. On the other hand when CEO visit the 

groups to answer their questions only one of the Dutch 

groups was prepared to do it and even though they did 

it in a not organized and structured way. 

The Portuguese teams also had a good integration 

process in the firm but contrary to the Dutch ones they 

did not share the work they were doing to the different 

company persons. The exception was the production 

team since they had to have access to what was to be 

produced. The meeting with the CEO was in both cases 

an incentive to their work and a moment that clearly 

interfered with the decision making process and with 

the final proposals. 

301 




Fig.109 | Images of the Proposal of 

Dutch Group 1 – CIMP Experiment 

302 

Fig.110 | Images of the Proposal of 

Dutch Group 3 – CIMP Experiment

Fig.111 | Images of the Proposal 

of Portuguese Group 2 – CIMP 

Experiment 

303 

Fig.112 | Images of the Proposal 

of Portuguese Group 4 – CIMP 

Experiment 




304 

Fig.113 | Images of the Public 

Presentation and Prize Ceremony 

(Source: researcher)

Finally it was determinant to the overall process and 

to the final outcomes the group dynamics and the 

way team members interacted with each other as well 

as the motivation and attitude they had towards this 

challenge. 

It was visible that Portuguese teams were more solid 

as groups, all team members were highly motivated 

and had a very positive and competitive attitude. 

Cooperation and responsibility were dominant in group 

dynamics that had a clear concern with organization, 

collaboration and convergence of singular contributions 

to a common goal. Individual competitive behaviors 

never arise in these two groups. 

In Dutch groups the interaction among members was 

more difficult. Leadership had tense moments and 

conflict arised in some situations. The individual design 

approaches of some of the team members seemed to 

prevail over the group integrated approach. This fact had 

influence in the process development that had moments 

of clear blockage, of difficulties in decision making 

regarding the choice of alternatives, the enabling of 

technical and constructive details, the defense of ideas 

and its presentation. 

SUMMARY OF THE CIMP EXPERIMENT - 

DESIGN STUDENTS GROUP EXERCISE INSIDE A 

COMPANY 

The CIMP experiment aimed to made possible to study 

the design process of teams of students integrated in a 

company. Four teams of 4 students each, two Portuguese 

and two Dutch developed a brief proposed by the 

company during 1 week. The brief was developed by 

the company with the participation of the researcher 

and was not a simulated situation but instead a real 

one compatible with the firm’s aptitudes and skills. It 

305 




was a broaden assignement that called for different 

design skills ranging from industrial/product design, to 

communication Design and Interior Design. From the 

four groups two were videotaped and two audiotaped. 

The teams had an individual workspace and free access 

to all the departments inside the firm. A contact person 

was assigned by the CEO to facilitate their moves inside 

the company. Moreover the researcher had an assistant 

(a PhD candidate) that was there all the time to facilitate 

the communication and access to information and 

resources to all teams involved. 

We could observe with clearness that the Dutch teams 

experienced difficulties addressing the communication 

design tasks involved in the design problem. On the 

other hand the more generalist education Product 

Design program of the Portuguese students allowed 

them to think the whole problem in its multiple factes in 

a more holistic and integrated way. 

306 

The winning design was consensual among the jury 

members (all from the firm) being considered the best 

in all the criteria aspects. Being the firm CIMP one that 

operates in the communication, brand activation, 

marketing and promotion areas the presentation of 

proposals was a key issue. On that respect Portuguese 

teams prepared more consistent, complete and 

appealing presentations. 

Furthermore it is noticeable that Portuguese teams 

dedicated much more time (about 40% more) to the 

work. They also made a more diverse use of computer 

drawing softwares according to the specificity of the 

type of design work to present (some softwares were 

used specifically to graphic design, other to technical 

and constructive details of industrial and interior 

design, others to the modeling to industrial design and 

other to the presentation of the proposal. On the other 

hand Dutch teams made use of a more diverse group 

of methods and tools to enable creativity and idea 

generation (brainstorming, sketchstorming, scenarios, 

simulations/drama acting; moodboards). 

In terms of group dynamics the Portuguese teams 

showed to be more integrated and organized being the

ole of the leaders one of coordination and incentivation. 

In the Dutch groups interaction happen to be in several 

moments conflictuous or even absent and that meant 

that sometimes designers of the teams were developing 

tasks on their own. 

The integration of both the Portuguese and Dutch 

groups in the firm was easily done and groups had the 

opportunity to have direct contact with the creative 

department and the production one. They also could 

talk with the CEO and with staff members of the areas 

they found necessary to accomplish their work. 

The opinions of the practitioners from creative 

department were asked by the Dutch groups in several 

moments and influenced their decisions in key moments 

of the process. The Portuguese teams do not asked the 

opinion of creative CIMP team but questioned them 

about several aspects of their work and procedures. 

The CEO conversation with teams was determinant for 

all the groups but more effective to the Portuguese ones 

since these have made more structured interviews with 

the CEO and obtained more rich information about the 

vision and strategy of the company. That was particularly 

visible in group 4 that after the talk with the CEO 

decided to a more strategic approach to the problem 

that included a plan to the correct implementation of 

the Brand redesign. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES OF CHAPTER IV 




information access in design. Journal of Design Research, 4 (2). 


Design Council. 2007. Lessons from Europe - Visit to The Netherlands, 

Denmark and Finland, pp. 1-16. 

DORST, C., CROSS, N. 2001. Creativity in the design process: coevolution 

of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22 (5), pp.425-437. 

307 




308 

DORST, K. 1997. Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms, Delft, 

The Netherlands, Delft University of Technology. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1996. The Designer as a team of one. In: CROSS, 

N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New 

York: Wiley. 

GUNTER, J., FRANKENBERGER, E.; AUER, P. 1996. Investigation of 

Individual and team design processes. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, 

H.,DORST, K. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: John Wiley & 

Sons. 

HOFSTEDE, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, 

institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.), Thousand 

Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications. 

HONG, J-l, CHANG, N-K. 2004. Analysis of Korean High School 

Student’s Decision-making processes in solving a problem involving 

biological knowledge, Research in Science Education, 34, pp97-111 

HUITT, W. 1992. Problem solving and decision making: Consideration 

of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 

Journal of Psychological Type, 24, pp. 33-44. 

HYTÖNEN, J. 2003. Quality and Content of International Design 

Education. DESIGNIUM, University of Art and Design Helsinki,. 

Available:http://www.uiah.fi/designium. [Accessed 12-10-2007]. 

MASSIRONI, M. 1982. Ver pelo Desenho, aspectos técnicos, cognitivos, 

comunicativos., Lisboa, Edições 70. 

MOULTRIE, J., LIVESEY, F. 2009. International Design Scoreboard: 

Initial indicators of international design capabilities. University of 

Cambridge, Design Council. Available:http://www.ifm.eng.cam. 

ac.uk/dmg/documents/090406int_design_scoreboard.pdf. 

NEWELL, A., SIMON, A. 1972. Human Problem Solving, New York, 

Prentice-Hall. 

NIEMINEN, T., LAUTAMAKI, S., SALIMAKI, M. 2005. Modelling the 

Strategic Impacts of Design in Businesses. UIAH/ Designium. 

REHMAN, F., YAN, X. 2007. Supporting early design decision-making 

using design context knowledge. Journal of Design Research, 6 (1-2), 

pp.169-189. 

RESTREPO, J. 2004. Information Processing in Conceptual Design. 

Design Science Planning, Delft, The Netherlands, Delft University 

Press. 

ROTHROCK, L., YIN, J. 2008. Integrating Compensatory and 

Noncompensatory Decision-Making Strategies in Dynamic Task 

Environments. In: KUGLER, T., SMITH, J., CONNOLY, T., SON, Y-J. 

(eds.) Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain 

Environments. New York: Springer, Part II, pp. 125-141.

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION – CROSS FINDINGS 

OF ALL THE ACTIONS TAKEN 

In the foregoing research we have made a distinction 

between the inner and the outside assessment. The inner 

assessment had to do with the perceptions both students 

and companies have about their own design processes. 

The outside assessment regarded the observations the 

researcher/author made of those design processes. 

In this chapter the results of both assessments will 

consecutively be discussed. Next, both assessments will 

be compared in order to draw conclusions. 

To make a discussion of the way all the information 

gathered through the use of different methods converges 

or not to some conclusions we first made the discussion 

of the information gathered in the Inner assessment; 

after the information gathered in the outside assessment 

and finally we cross both assessments. 

1. About the Inner Assessment – the perception 

of both students and companies about their own 

design processes 

The results obtained with the survey made among 

students and the ones obtained with the design process 

exercise are complementary in creating a description 

of how design students perceive their own processes. 

In the two sets of results it was visible that information 

gathering and knowledge management lead to 

difficulties in time management, both being crucial 

elements to the success of the process outcomes. The 

reference of time management as being a central issue 

is present in the results of both activities. However, when 

making a deep analysis we find time management to 

be pointed out as a reason that somehow ‘covers’ other 

critical aspects of the design process such as information 

management, the absence of a methodology, and 

deficiencies in decision making. 

In addition, the survey and the design process exercise 

allowed us to confirm the existence of three different 

design strategies: problem, solution and integration 

driven strategies. The last category was added to the 

ones found out by Christiaans and Restrepo (2004) and 

309 

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION – CROSS FINDINGS OF ALL THE ACTIONS TAKEN | 

1. About the Inner Assessment – the perception of both students and companies about their own design processes


describes a behavior of alternating between problem 

and solution in what Cross and Dorst (2001) called the 

co-evolution problem solution. These strategies are not 

put forward by students in a conscious way. 

Regarding the methods used by students in addressing 

design problems, it was clear that the survey alone could 

not capture the same richness of information regarding 

students’ perception of their own processes that as 

was attainable through the design process exercise. 

Nevertheless, it was also hard for students to describe 

their own process even using a visual description 

(diagrams) of such process. This lack of practice in 

monitoring and reflecting upon their own processes is 

also related with the absence of a consistent use of a 

methodology or even methods to structure the design 

process. 

310 

According to the students’ perception, decision making 

appears to be a key issue of the design process. The 

ability or inability of making decisions is mostly linked 

by students to personality characteristics, to the quality 

of information gathered, and to the existence of domain 

or specific knowledge. 

Concerning the impact of each phase of the design 

process, the conceptual phase was the one identified in 

the survey as the most important in terms of time spent 

perceived by the students, having the highest average 

in this regard among all the phases. The main reasons 

students mentioned for spending more time in this 

phase were: a) decisions made in this phase concern 

creativity which are hard to be made (20%); b) this 

phase determines the whole process (20%); c) having 

an innovative idea is crucial and difficult to generate 

(20%). In the design exercise the conceptual phase was 

the one that deserved special attention on the behalf 

of students. It is the phase that students identified as 

the in which they worked on more activities –- either 

related with information treatment, creativity, selection 

of alternatives, and decision making in general. 

On the topic of the companies’ perception of design 

processes the assessment made was a general one. It 

gave us insight into the way business evaluates the 

role of design and designers. In that way it helped us to

etter understand what ‘strategic adequacy’ means to 

firms giving also some clues about the firm’s perception 

of ‘design quality’ and the way it can be measured. 

2. About the Outside Assessment – the observation 

of Design Processes 

The outside assessment was made through the 

observation of several activities that are synthesized in 

Table 76. 

The Verbal Protocol analysis of the Individual experiment 

made us turn the focus of our research from information 

and knowledge management to decision making 

in design processes. The fact was that the findings 

concerning information access and use were consistent 

with studies made by other researchers (Restrepo and 

Christiaans, 2004; Cross, 2001, 2006); and decision 

making being a constant along the design process was 

found to be not as well documented in existing Design 

field studies. 

2.1 – Knowledge Management and Decision 

Making in individual and Team actions 

When comparing the decision making process in 

an individual exercise with that in teams we tend to 

disagree both with the vision defended by Goldschmidt 

where the ‘designer alone behaves like a team of one’ 

(1996, pp. 65-91) and the one by Lewis et al (1975) and 

Table 76 | Experiments - Design 

Processes with individual and teams 

of students 

311 


2. About the Outside Assessment – the observation of Design Processes


Erev et al (1993) who respectively found out that: 1) 

group problem solving processes are not necessarily 

superior to individual ones, and 2) the motivation of 

team members tend to decrease as much as 30% when 

there is no personal penalty for slacking or no reward for 

successful performance. In our case, on the contrary, we 

observed that the performance of teams had a higher 

quality of outcomes. The fact that compensation (award 

winning competition) was present in both group cases 

might have influenced the performance of the teams 

and their outcomes. 

Furthermore, our observations show that team dynamics 

have different impacts on decision making behavior that 

are not visible in individual performance. Sometimes 

the team interaction called for more conscious decision 

making since the scrutiny of decisions is made by several 

individuals that have their own view of the problem; 

sometimes the decision making process got diffused 

by the velocity and continuous interpellation of team 

members instead of gaining a structured coherent path. 

312 

On the basis of our analysis we can state that decision 

making in teams is more complex than in individual 

designing. This complexity can either enrich the 

decision making outcomes (example: E3 group in Climar 

experiment) or constrain the whole design process and 

compromise the results (example: the Dutch group 1 in 

Cimp experiment). 

2.2 – Knowledge Management and Decision 

Making for Portuguese and Dutch Design 

Students 

Regarding knowledge management we observed in 

all experiments that Portuguese and Dutch students 

showed similar behaviors. Some students and groups 

tend to collect an enormous amount of information 

while making use of only a small part of it (that was the 

cases of, for example, group 3 in the CIMP experiment 

and Portuguese subject 1 in the individual experiment). 

The structuring of the gathered information was critical 

for both the Portuguese and Dutch students (this was 

especially observed in the individual experiment and in

the CLIMAR one). Dutch students make use of a wider 

number of techniques and tools to treat, assess and 

evaluate information than Portuguese ones. 

The lack of domain knowledge in the area of 

communication design negatively affected the results 

of Dutch students in CIMP experiment. However, in the 

individual experiment where the brief asked essentially 

for product design skills, the overall results of the Dutch 

students were higher. 

Portuguese students, because of their more broad design 

education showed better performance when they were 

facing a more holistic design problem calling for skills in 

specific design areas that integrated their curricula. 

In the Individual experiment with the design of a 

garbage system in the train, the piece of information 

regarding the type of the garbage (that stated different 

types of possible garbage to be found in train bins and 

the percentages of it) gave origin to 8 in 12 proposals 

that considered the recycling/separation of garbage. 

Such ecological concerns were absent from the Dutch 

protocols but that might have to do with the fact that 15 

years separate the execution of both experiments. It also 

might have to do with the fact that the ecological green 

approach to design is an important issue in the design 

agenda of FA.UTL. 

Similarly to what happened with the information 

and knowledge management approach in terms of 

creative process management there was an obvious 

difference between Portuguese and Dutch students 

behavior. Portuguese students make poor use of tools 

and methods to enable or enhance creative processes 

in their design process. On the contrary, Dutch students 

make an intense use of different tools and methods to 

boost their creative process and to make easier choice 

among design alternatives. This was particularly visible 

in the CIMP experiment. 

Looking at the decision making process both Portuguese 

and Dutch students made use of different decision 

making approaches according to our decision making 

framework. 

313 


2. About the Outside Assessment – the observation of Design Processes


3. Crossing the Inner and the outside assessments 

It is important to determine if the perceptions of both the 

students and the companies regarding design processes 

in general and decision making in particular coincide or 

diverge. 

Starting with the analogous visions, the difficulties 

students have with information and knowledge 

management are also mentioned by the firms when 

they state they hardly have specific information about 

the markets and the competitors. The way information 

and knowledge management occurs along the design 

process is similar for outside and the inner assessment 

made by students and firms. In fact it becomes evident 

that there are innumerous problems that arise along the 

design process that interfere with the final outcomes: they 

are connected with the inefficiency of the information 

and knowledge management. 

314 

Moreover, students also mentioned decision making 

as being a critical issue in the design process. The 

experiments conducted by the researcher also detected 

that decision making is closely related with design 

moves that clearly influences the results of the design 

process. The decision making process is rarely assumed 

by students as being a conscious process and most of the 

key decisions taken along the process are not reflected 

by the decision maker (not even at an a posteriori 

moment). 

The group dynamics are not referred to by the students 

since their reflection was made upon their own design 

process. However, the experiments make clear the 

importance of the role of the leader for decision making 

and also of the decision system that arises from the 

articulation of the different elements of a team. 

The dominant decision strategies were the noncompensatory 

rule based and the negotiated noncompensatory/compensatory 

rule based ones. The 

compensatory rule based strategy occurred less and 

was mostly limited to the initial phase of the group’s 

approach to a design problem. 

With respect to the quality of the outcomes the two 

assessments show that:

The quality of design (for firms that had answered the 

De.:SID questionnaire) is best guaranteed by a good 

customer relationship management. In addition, the 

‘quality of the concept’ (as defined by Stoll, 1999) which 

refers to the performance, product features, aesthetics 

and ergonomic issues, is also highly valued by firms. This 

result is important in the context of this research since 

the concept is by excellence a territory where design 

intervention is natural and very intense. However, the 

survey also shows that only 51% of the firms use design 

in the conceptual phase. 

> When considering the way students define the quality 

of design in the survey the definitions with the higher 

averages were: a) the one “that presents sustainable 

and ethically responsible solutions as an outcome” 52 

and b) the one that associates quality of the design with 

the optimization of the human, material and financial 

resources. 

In short, it seems that quality assessment in the two 

fields is centered on different issues. Students associate 

quality of the outcomes with design principles ruled by 

sustainable concerns as well as with a firm’s strategic 

use of resources, while firms see the quality of outcomes 

clearly linked to the perception customers have of it and 

the way it is possible to build a consistent relationship 

between firm and customer. 

Moreover the quality is also a criterion that integrates all 

the evaluations of the different experiments. In fact there 

were two criteria addressing quality in the evaluations: 

‘quality of the communicative interaction’ and ‘overall 

quality’. 

52. It is important to notice that 

this concern with sustainability 

and ethics in design practice were 

also relevant and verifiable in the 

experiments done within this 

research. 

315 


3. Crossing the Inner and the outside assessments


Part Four: Conclusions and recommendations 

CHAPTER VI – CONCLUSIONS 

Design processes are complex and dynamic processes 

and their outcomes depend upon multiple variables. 

When accessing the way students perceive their 

own processes time management and Knowledge/ 

information management are a unanimously conscious 

problem. 

It was also clear in all the experiments that information 

and knowledge management are central in Design 

processes. There was also evidence that a relevant 

amount of information was lost, ignored along the 

process and this was true for both for Portuguese and 

Dutch students. 

316 

Moreover, the student’s evaluation of design process 

made it clear the importance of the conceptual phase in 

particular. This is consistent with what we found in the 

literature review. 

In terms of outside assessment the creation of a Decision 

making framework resulted from the analysis of the 

designer’s behavior in Design Process while doing the 

individual experiment. It was then created a descriptive 

model aiming to create awareness both in the Education 

and the Business fields. 

From that model we believe to be possible to build in 

the future some tools that might help the design process 

development. DMTool was an attempt to create such a 

supporting tool (see Chapter IV, 2.3.2). However, it was 

apparent that those tools should not be prescriptive 

ones but rather used as a reflection tool that would 

help the divergence/convergence process, the analysis/ 

synthesis moments without being too intrusive in terms 

of operational process flow. 

The Decision making framework made also possible for 

us to observe several dimensions in Design Processes: 

the Design Strategy; the creative cognitive processes 

involved; the Nature of the Decisions; and the group 

dynamics, i.e. the decision mode and the decision 

strategy.

Regarding Design Strategy, that can be either Problem 

or Solution driven or even Integration Driven, in all 

experiments all the three strategies were observed but 

they were not conclusive regarding whether any of these 

strategies is more likely to conduce to a more strategic 

process leading to higher quality outcomes. However, 

in all the experiments the groups that presented 

an Integration driven design strategy had always 

consolidated, coherent decision making processes and 

well ranked results on the behalf of the juries involved 

in the experiments. 

In terms of the creative cognitive process it was 

observable that idea generation may occur along the 

entire design process and in many different ways. It 

can be a partial or a whole idea and it can derive from 

the association or synthesis of information or even 

occur following an information retrieval moment. 

Consistent with the literature survey we could observe 

that the generation of a great amount of ideas does not 

necessarily result in a better solution. Still, the processes 

in the experiments that obtained the best results were 

those that had generated several ideas. 

317 

In terms of group dynamics and the mode of Decision 

it was observable that leadership influences the Design 

process. It can be a facilitator of the development of 

a solution of high quality. When leadership was not 

consistent it was possible to observe two different types 

of behavior: either the whole team loses dynamics and 

stimuli and the process gets very unstructured and, as a 

result, the outcomes display less quality or, some of the 

team members react and try to work autonomously. In 

this case, they react in individual terms to the ‘failure’ in 

performance of the group. 

Concerning decision strategy, although in some cases 

the groups and individuals display a compensatory 

rule based strategy, the fact is that the more common 

strategies are the non-compensatory rule or the 

negotiated ones. On the other hand, it is noticeable 

that the compensatory strategy, when used, occurs in 

most cases in the early phases of the design process to 

support framing activities. 

CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSIONS


318 

The dominance of the non compensatory and negotiated 

decision strategies appears to be directly related with 

the role that intuition assumes in the development of 

the Design processes. Also of importance is to consider 

the findings of Kuhn (2001) referred to by Hong and 

Chang (2004, 108) that indicate: 

“that exercise of strategies at the performance level feeds 

back and enhances the metalevel understanding which will 

guide subsequent strategy selection and hence, performance. 

This can be considered in decision-making problems. That 

is, teaching strategies encouraging meta-decision making 

are needed. Specially, criteria for selection are important 

components to solve decision-making problems. Since the 

ability to resolve conflicts between choices during decisionmaking 

is limited by individual information-load, if the degree 

of conflict is high because too many things are obscure or 

must be considered, then the decision-making is performed 

by intuition. In each of the phases, students did not solve the 

conflictive context effectively because they were confused in 

selecting criteria and not familiar with needed skills. At this 

time, value clarification skill enables students to adopt which 

selective criterion among many alternative criteria for choice. 

The selected criteria will function as clues to resolve the 

conflictive contexts by reducing individual information-load. 

It is important that students accept the scientific values such 

as objectiveness of scientific method, accuracy, reliability and 

validity of data in their value systems, and utilise them to solve 

problems”. 

GAP BETWEEN THE INNER ASSESSMENT AND THE 

OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT? 

This work showed that Design students ignore the 

structure and detailed nature of their difficulties along 

design processes and when asked about it cannot 

propose clear ways to overcome those problems. 

Group versus individual perceptions of own design 

process are similar. The possibility of sharing 

responsibilities was seen as being either occasion of 

good performance or, on the contrary a barrier to the 

achievement of good outcomes.

In general terms, all the actions developed in the 

Education field and while putting together Education 

and companies reinforced our awareness of the 

inadequacy of the existing methodologies. In fact, the 

general methodologies used in Design Education are 

mainly based on a logical kind of reasoning that differs 

from the abductive one in the way Peirce, referred to 

by Hartshorne and Weiss, (1958) defined it a century 

ago. This type of reasoning supports an activity similar 

to ‘reverse engineering’ i.e. ‘working backwards’ as 

proposed by Polya (1957) that is defended by Peirce as 

being the only logical operation that introduces new 

ideas. 

In reality both in the student’s perceptions assessment 

and in the outside assessment made through the 

experiments it is visible that methodologies could help 

designers to deal, in a more conscious or even controlled 

way, with knowledge management and decision making 

during the Design processes. 

Education and Industry 

Education and Industry are and always will be two 

distinct worlds of design practice. That has to do 

with the fact that although both pursue the goal of 

having the best practitioners, they do it in different 

contexts, and with different methods and resources. 

The rhythm of learning in the education area is vaster 

and its environment is a controlled one, in the sense it 

does not have consequences in markets. On the other 

hand, in the ‘real world’ the practice of Design has 

direct implications in business results and the time to 

act is more reduced since velocity to markets in a key 

issue to the competitiveness of firms. However, it is a 

reality that both fields are intimately related since one 

prepares the practitioners that the other will employ. 

Therefore it is crucial that both fields are aligned in 

respect to what they consider to be the discipline 

of Design, its limits and potential of intervention. 

Nowadays, in the Portuguese context the gap between 

the two fields still exists (see Chapter I). The possibility 

319 



of reducing it relies on several factors at different levels 

of intervention. 

In firms, it depends heavily on the consolidation 

of design as a strategic resource in business; that 

consolidation will confirm design has a valuable 

resource of the firms being the designers and their 

work a crucial element in the business strategy. 

It is also important to promote the openness of firms to 

Academia in general; the development of a cooperative 

attitude is something that needs to be implemented in 

consistent and continuous ways. That will enable both 

parts to work in more efficient and effective manners. 

Strategic Adequacy 

320 

The criterion of ‘strategic adequacy’ (see Glossary- 

Appendix A) was used in all the experiments and the 

concept was also present in the surveys. In the student’s 

questionnaire, it appears in question 21 related with the 

definition of ‘design quality’ and in the questionnaire to 

firms there are several questions that try to establish the 

level of strategic adequacy of design in terms of firm’s 

usage. 

The strategic adequacy of the processes depends 

upon the clear communication of the firm’s strategy to 

Designers that will try to make the Vision of the company 

operative. The Brief, as the document that explains to 

the designer the problem, its context and the expected 

results, is a piece of information that assumes the most 

relevant role in the design process in general and in the 

communication of the strategic adequacy concept in 

particular. In addition, there are all the other sources of 

information about the firm that, being consistent in its 

‘speech’ allowed designers to understand what the firm 

is, how it is positioned in the market, and where it wants 

to be in the future. 

When analyzing the way the different jury of the 

three experiments evaluated the ‘strategic adequacy’ 

of the proposed design solutions, we conclude that

jury members of the individual experiment and of the 

Climar one diverge in the evaluation of the outcomes 

and also in the weight they attribute to this operational 

concept in the overall evaluation, although using the 

same definition of the concept. In the Cimp experiment 

‘strategic adequacy is positively related with other 

criteria and it has the same weight for the majority of 

the jury members. 

It also is noteworthy to mention that the strategic 

adequacy of the outcomes from design process is 

expected to be better guaranteed when the relationship 

between Education and Industry gets more consistent 

and a more dialoguing one. 

Quality 

Concerning the quality in the way we defined it in Chapter 

III, Section 4 it was observable that all the winning Design 

proposals resulting from the group experiments had the 

ability to communicate clearly and in a harmonic way all 

the facets of the project. There was a balance between 

the graphic and product design that was reinforced 

by the written information that complemented it in a 

pertinent way. The technical and constructive elements 

were presented with proficiency. 

321 

Assuming the model proposed in Chapter III, Section 

4, it is possible to say that there were common traits 

among all the design proposals that were chosen as the 

best one, especially in the ones of in CLIMAR and CIMP’s 

experiments. These traits were the following: 

> They revealed high level of communicative interaction; 

meaning that had the ability to trigger interaction with 

the persons involved in the design process and in those 

evaluating it. This ability was expressed by the existence 

of a dialogue on each of the presented drawings and 

design pieces. 

> They displayed quality of communication that has 

to do with the coherence of the whole and the parts 

that integrate it. The proposals balanced well the six 

communicative functions proposed by Jakobson and 



referred by Clive Ashwin (1989, pp. 203-209): 1) the 

referential objective one; 2) the emotive that tries to 

trigger emotional responses; 3) the conative that is 

a persuasive type of communication that impels the 

receiver to act or respond in a specific way;4) the poetic 

that communicates in a way that is self justifying 5) 

the phatic that allows the starting maintenance and 

conclusion of the communication process and the 

5) the meta linguistic that creates the possibility of 

explaining all the signs that are presented along the 

design proposals. 

> They exposed operational quality in the sense that it 

was easy and clear to verbally and visually dismantle the 

design. This type of quality also characterizes the ability 

of transforming complex and entropic information 

in simpler one through the use of multiples ways of 

presenting information, its links and importance. 

322 

In what concerns the quality of the process of design it is 

possible to say that in terms of the external component 

of quality the proposals revealed: 

1. Ample quality of communication that, similarly to the 

one in the design as a final product, refers to the designer’s 

communication capacity in verbal and visual terms but 

that in here it also has to do with the mechanisms that 

are developed so that the information and knowledge is 

managed between the different agents effectively and 

throughout the process. 

2. Adequate strategic quality meaning that they revealed 

a balanced management of the different knowledge 

areas involved in the design process bearing in mind 

the company’s planning, formulation and strategic 

implementation. 

As said in the Discussion chapter (V) the criteria ‘overall 

quality’ and ‘quality of communicative interaction’ 

integrated all the evaluations of the different 

experiments. 

Both criteria were positively related with the final score 

of the different design outcomes of the experiments.

CHAPTER VII – RECOMMENDATIONS 

New Methodologies’ framework 

This research was initiated with the belief that new 

design methodologies wee required and so one of 

its goals was to develop such a methodology. As the 

research unfolded such an aim was abandoned due to 

several factors but at the end of the study it is still our 

conviction that new design methodologies are needed. 

New methodologies to be developed should ensure that 

designers will be able to engage in design processes 

having a real improved time, strategic adequacy and 

total quality management of it. 

Design in the context of the construction of such 

methodologies must be seen as a process that develops 

a synthesis pattern in which solutions are actively 

constructed by designers who can make use of different 

strategies while designing. 

It is also important to be conscious that, as Rittel and 

Webber (1984:135-144) observed, the design problems 

are usually ‘wicked problems’ meaning that they are 

not problems for which all the necessary information 

is available being, therefore, not susceptible to an 

exhaustive analysis. Thus we have no guarantee that 

the ‘correct’ solutions may be found. In this context a 

strategy focused on the solution could seem preferable 

to a problem-focused one. It is always possible to analyze 

the ‘problem’ but the designer’s task is to produce ‘a 

solution’. Being so, it is only in terms of a conjectured 

solution that the problem can be contained within 

‘manageable bounds’ as advanced by Hillier & Lieman 

(1974:4-11). What designers tend to do is search or 

impose what Darke (1979:36-44) named as a ‘primary 

generator’ that both defines the limits of the problem 

and points out to its possible solution. 

Another aspect to take into account in the construction of 

a new methodology derives from Foucault’s (1971) idea 

that of our knowledge is nothing more than the result 

of a process including a) the experience (conscious or 

unconscious) of stimuli in a ‘specific sequence up to the 

323 

CHAPTER VII - RECOMMENDATIONS


given moment’ through our senses and, concurrently, 

b) the continual processing of these stimuli ‘in the same 

specific sequence’ within the ‘dynamic’ framework of 

memory (conscious or unconscious). Two important 

issues elapse from this. First of all, because knowledge 

is depending on senses and memory, it cannot exist 

without a body. Secondly, because knowledge is 

dynamic and inter-processed it may take different forms 

depending on the ‘sequence of stimuli’, e.g. if stimuli 

X comes before stimuli Y (and Y is processed with the 

experience of X) knowledge may be different than if 

stimuli Y comes before stimuli X (and X is processed with 

the experience of Y). This implies that what we know is 

highly dependent on where we have been, meaning not 

only physical places, but also ‘place’ as a position where 

physical aspects, institutions, discourses, languages and 

so on come together. For us to successfully communicate 

what we know is also highly dependent on where we 

have been and where the person we are communicating 

with has been. 

324 

It is also structural for the construction of a new 

methodology the recognition of Dorst and Cross (2001) 

findings that ‘design problem’ and ‘design solution’ have 

a co-evolution and cannot be seen as separate moments. 

Especially in what concerns ‘ill-defined’ or ‘wicked’ 

problems it is a matter of developing and refining both 

the formulation of the problem and ideas for a solution, 

in a constant iteration that includes analysis, synthesis, 

evaluation and decision processes. 

Taking into account the issues listed above, it is 

recommended to explore, as way of framing time, 

strategic adequacy and quality management in the 

design processes, the use of two general structuring 

aspects: a) ‘case-based design’ (based upon experience/ 

memory that is used to facilitate retrieval and use) 

and b) ‘constraints and decisions posting’ (a method 

of formulating and propagating values, constraints 

decisions and structure). 

In terms of time management, which was persistently 

pointed at by students as being a key issue in their own 

design processes, similar principles to those contained

and structured in the Critical Chain Project Management 

Method (CCPM) should be researched and tested. 

As Zultner (2003: 10-18) defines it CCPM (a method 

developed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt in 1997) as a method 

of planning and managing projects that considers all 

tasks in a project as a system and puts more emphasis 

on the resources required to execute project tasks, 

especially time. It also puts accent on the identification 

and minimization of the impact of constraints, a subject 

that is strongly connected with the structure of the new 

methodology. 

Decision Making Process 

In future work it should be taken into account that 

designers conceive their activity as a problem-solving 

one which inhibits them to consciously think of it in 

terms of a decision-making one. This standpoint, in 

our opinion, would bridge in a meaningful way design 

education and design practice in organizations. In fact, 

during most of the time in the experiments, subjects 

were not aware that they were taking decisions. If they 

would realize that the competing objectives, when 

formulated in a conscious manner, would probably steer 

the decision-making process towards the development 

of a balanced and effective solution. 

325 

We should never forget that we are evaluating risks and 

making decisions all the time. It should be possible to 

make this process more conscious. That is also valid in 

design processed where the amount of decision making 

is high and its velocity is significant. 

Therefore, it would be important to understand the 

nature and structure of decision making process in a 

better and deeper way. 

To do so, it would be essential to monitor decision 

making in freshman design students and in experienced 

designers to see if the corresponding processes are 

different, how different they are, where they diverge, 

and so on. 



Also relevant would be the introduction of Decision 

making as a topic in the Design program. It should be 

addressed in a transversal way – making it an explicit and 

formalized topic, at least, in design studio courses, design 

management courses, and product engineering course. 

That could be done, departing from the framework 

created,(the decision making model) by organizing 

design exercises to work each of the components that 

integrate the decision-making process. This work should 

be done integrating both Education and Business. 

In addition, the role of Decision making as the result of 

group dynamics should be better assessed. It has to do 

with the development of Design Program contents such 

as negotiation, communication, and team management 

in general. 

326 

Moreover, the research of how idea generation in the 

design process relates with decision making is another 

topic that deserver further commitment on the part of 

researchers. Similarly, the role of intuition in Decision 

making and in Design Process in general remains to be 

inspected. 

Finally, the study of the impact of cultural differences in 

design Process and Decision making was not addressed 

in this thesis but the possibility of working with both 

Portuguese and Dutch students made us aware that 

this issue might be significant in the design process’s 

development and outcome. 

Design Process in general 

A few recommendations regarding design process in 

general seem justifiable. For instance, the study of how 

design Cognition should be explored by education in 

order to promote a more effective relationship among 

research-education and industry is a topic that emerged 

from the present work as being essential. 

In operational terms and in what concerns design 

practice in school there should be the possibility of 

working not only with diverse design problems but 

also with distinct approaches to design problems. The

structuring of the approach to the problem can be 

stimulated in a way that designers can get stronger 

in group dynamics management, idea generation, 

information management, and decision making. 

Finally, it is crucial to make a consistent and systematic 

use of the knowledge created, disseminating it and 

establishing a net where the exchange of information 

will allow a consistent enlargement of Design Thinking. 

327 



328


AHMED, S., BRACEWELL, R. KIM, S. 2005. Engineering 

Knowledge Management. A Symposium in Honour of Ken 

Wallace. Cambridge, UK. 

ALEXANDER, E. 1982. Design in the decision-making process. 

Policy Sciences, 14. 

ALMENDRA, R. 2008. Reflection on the quality of design: from 

the product to the project. Journal of Design Principles and 

Practices: an international Journal., 2 (1). 

AMABILE, T. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a 

componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and 

Social Psychology, 45(2). 

ARCHER, B. 1979. The three R’s. Design Studies. 

ASHWIN, C. 1989. Drawing Design Semiotics. In: MARGOLIN, 

V. (ed.) Design Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago 

Press. 

BEHESHTI, R. 1993. Design decisions and uncertainty. Design 

Studies, 14(1). 

BILDA, Z., GERO, J., PURCELL, T. 2006. To sketch or not to sketch? 

That is the question. Design Studies, 27(5). 

BORJA DE MOZOTA, B. 1985. Essai sur la fonction du design et 

son rôle dans la stratégie marketing de l’entreprise, Université de 

Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne. 

BORJA DE MOZOTA, B. 2003. Design Management. Using 

Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation, New 

York, Allworth Press. 

BRERETON M., C., D., MABOGUNJE, A., LEIFER, L. 1996. 

Collaboration in design teams: how social interaction shapes 

the product. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H.,DORST, K. (ed.) 

Analysing Design Activity. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

CE 2004. Manufuture: a Vision for 2020. Assuring the future 

of manufacturing in Europe. Report of the High Level Group. 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European 

Communities. 

Centro Português de Design. 2003. Cadernos de Design. 

Anuário. Ano Seis, 17/18. 

CHOI, Y., RASMUSSEN, E. 2002. Users’ relevance criteria in 

image retrieval in American history. Information Processing and 

Management, 38. 

CHRISTENSEN, B., SCHUNN, C. 2009. Putting Blinkers on a Blind 

Man. Providing Cognitive Support for Creative Processes with 

Environmental Cues. In: MARKMAN, A. (ed.) Tools for Innovation. 

Oxford University Press. 

329 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES


330 



CHRISTIAANS, H., RESTREPO, J. 2001. Information Processing 

in Design: a theoretical and empirical perspective. In: 

ACHTEN, H., DE VRIES, B., HENNESSEY, J. (ed.) Design Research 

in the Netherlands 2000. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of 

Technology. 


information access in design. Journal of Design Research, 4(2). 

CHUA, R., IYENGAR, S. 2008. Effects of experience, instruction, 

and choice on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(3). 

COX, V. Year. An Application of Cognitive Science to Understand 

Problem Solving Activity for Well Structure Problems: 

Cognition, Algorithms, Metacognition and Heuristics. In: 

Proceedings of Frontiers in Educational Annual Conference, 

1987. 

COYNE, R. 1995. Designing information technology in the 

postmodern age, Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. 

COYNE, R., SNODGRASS, A. 1991. Is designing mysterious? 

Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies, 12(3). 

CROSS, N. 2006. Designerly ways of knowing, London, 

Springer. 

CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (EDS) 1996. Analysing 

Design Activity, Chichester, Wiley. 

CROSS, N., CROSS, A. 1996. Observations of teamwork and 

social processes in design. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, 

H.,DORST, K. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons. 

DARKE, J. 1979. The primary generator and the design process. 

Design Studies, 1(1). 

DELBECQ, A., VAN DE VEN, A., GUSTAFSON, D. (ed.) 1975. Group 

Techniques for Program Planning: a Guide to Nominal Group and 

Delphi Processes, Glenview, Illinois.: Scott Foresman. 

DEMING, W. 1986. Out of the Crisis, MIT Press. 

DEMING, W. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government, 

Education., Cambridge, MA, MIT Centre for Advanced 

Engineering Study. 

Design Council. 2004. The impact of Design on Stock Market 

Performance: An Analysis of UK Quoted Companies 1994- 

2003. [Accessed 19 April 2007]. 

Design Council. 2005. The Business of Design: Design Industry 

Research 2005. Available:http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ 

Design-Council/3/Publications/?PageNum=2 [Accessed 19 

April 2007].

Design Council. 2007. Lessons from Europe - Visit to The 

Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. 

DO, E., GROSS, M., NEIMAN, B., ZIMRING, C. 2000. Intentions in 

and relations among design drawings. Design Studies, 21(5). 

DORST, C. 2003. Understanding Design, Amsterdam, BIS 

Publishers. 

DORST, C., CROSS, N. 2001. Creativity in the design process: 

co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5). 

DORST, K. 1997. Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms, 

Delft, The Netherlands, Delft University of Technology. 

DORST, K. 2004. On the problem of design problems - problem 

solving and design expertise. Journal of Design Research, 4(2). 

DOUGHERTY, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful 

product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2). 

DOWNING, F. 2000. Remembrance and the Design of Place, 

College Station, Texas, A&M University Press 

DUBBERLY, H. (ed.) 2004. How do You Design?, San Francisco: 

Dubberly Design Office. 

DUMAINE, B. 1990. Who needs a boss? Fortune. Time Inc’s 

Fortune/Money Group. 

DUMAS, A., WHITEFIELD, A. 1989b. Why design is difficult to 

manage: A survey of attitudes and practices in British industry 

European Management Journal, 7(1). 

EASTMAN, C. 2001. New Directions in Design Cognition: Studies 

on Representation and Recall. In: C.M. EASTMAN, W. M., MC 

CRACKEN, W.C. NEWSTETTER (EDS) (ed.) Design Knowing and 

Learning: Cognition in Design Education. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

ENDSLEY, M., HOFFMAN, R., KABER, D., ROTH, E. 2007. Cognitive 

engineering and decision making: an overview and future 

course. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 

1(1). 

ERICSSON, K. 2005. Recent advances in expertise research: a 

commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Applied 

Cognitive Psychology, 19. 


performance: evidence on maximal adaptations on task 

constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47. 

ERICSSON, K., SIMON,H. 1984. Protocol Analysis. Verbal Reports 

as Data, Cambridge, MIT Press. 

European Community. 2006. MEMO/06/190. http://europa. 

eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/19 

0&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr 

(Accessed in May 2007). 


331


332 

Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. 

Relatório de Avaliação Interna. 2005. 

FAUST, W. 2000. Building and fostering long-term client 

relationships. Design Management Review, 11(2). 

FIDEL, R., GREEN, M. 2004. The many faces of accessibility. 

Journal of Information Processing and Management, 40(3). 

FINKE, R., WARD, T., SMITH, S. 1992. Creative Cognition: Theory, 

Research and Applications., Cambridge, MIT Press. 

GADAMER, H.-G. 1975. Truth and Method, London, Sheed and 

Ward. 

GADAMER, H.-G. 1986. The relevance of the beautiful and other 

essays, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

GERO, J. S., KANNENGIESSER, U. 2006. A Function-Behaviour- 

Structure ontology of processes. In: GERO, J. (ed.) A Function- 

Behaviour-Structure ontology of processes. New York: Springer. 

GREENE, J., CARACELLI, V., GRAHAM, W. 1989. Toward a 

conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3). 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1991. The dialects of sketching. Creativity 

Research Journal, 4(2). 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1996. The Designer as a team of one. In: 

CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (ed.) Analysing Design 

Activity. New York: Wiley. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 2005. How good are good ideas? Correlates 

of design creativity. Design Studies, 26. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G., SMOLKOV, M. 2006. Variances in the impact 

of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. 

Design Studies, 27. 

GORB, P. 1990. Design Management, London, Architecture 

Design and Technology Press. 

GORB, P., DUMAS, A. 1987. Silent Design. 8(3). 

GORDON, W. 1961. Synectics: the Development of Creative 

Capacity., New York, Harper and Row. 

GUINDON, R. 1990. Designing the design process: exploiting 

opportunistic thoughts. Human Computer Interaction, 5(2). 

GUNTER, J., FRANKENBERGER, E.; AUER, P. 1996. Investigation 

of Individual and team design processes. In: CROSS, N., 

CHRISTIAANS, H.,DORST, K. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New 

York: John Wiley & Sons. 

HAMMOND, J., KEENEY, J., RAIFFA, H. 1999. Smart Choices: A 

Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions, Boston, MA, Harvard 

Business School Press.

HAQUE, B., BELECHEANU, R., BARSON, R., PAWAR, K. 2000. 

Towards the application of case based reasoning to decisionmaking 

in concurrent product development (concurrent 

engineering). Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(2/3). 

HERRMANN, J. 2004. Decomposition in Product Development 

- Technical Report 2004-6. College Park: Institute for Systems 

Research, University of Maryland. 

HERRMANN, J., SCHMIDT, L. 2002. Viewing product development 

as a decision production system. In: Proceedings of DETC 

2002, ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences 

and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 

September, 29 - October, 2, Montreal, Canada. 

HERTENSTEIN, J., PLATT, M., BROWN, D. 2001. Valuing 

Design: enhancing corporate performance through design 

effectiveness. Design Management Journal, 12(3). 

HOWARD, T., CULLEY, S., DEKONINCK, E. 2008. Describing the 

creative design process by the integration of engineering 

design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 

29. 

HUITT, W. 1992. Problem solving and decision making: 

Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs 

Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24. 

HYTÖNEN, J. 2003. Quality and Content of International 

Design Education. DESIGNIUM, University of Art and Design 

Helsinki,.Available:http://www.uiah.fi/designium. [Accessed 

12-10-2007]. 

ISHIKAWA, K. 1982. Introduction to Quality Control, Tokyo, JUSE 

Press Ltd. 

ISHIKAWA, K. 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese 

Way., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall. 

JEVNAKER, B. 2000. Championing design: perspectives on 

design capabilities. Design Management Journal; Academic 

Review,1. 

JEVNAKER, B. 2000b. How design becomes strategic. Design 

Management Journal, 11(1). 

JIN, Y., CHUSILP, P. 2005. Study of mental iteration in different 

design situations. Design Studies, 27(1). 

JOHNSON, R., ONWUEGBUZIE, A. 2004. Mixed methods 

research: a research paradigm whose time has come. 

Educational Researcher, 33(7). 

JOHNSON, R., TURNER, L. 2003. Data collection strategies in 

mixed methods research. In: TASHAKKORI, A., TEDDLIE, C. (ed.) 

Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 


333


334 

JONES, J. 1992 Design Methods, New York, John Wiley & Sons 

Inc. 

JONSON, B. 2005. Design Ideation: the conceptual sketch in 

the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6). 

JURAN, J. 1951. Quality Control Handbook, New York, McGraw 

Hill. 

KIM, M., KIM, Y. 2007. Perceived Creativity and Design Team 

interaction. IASDR07. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. 

KATZENBACH, J., SMITH, D. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating 

the High-Performance Organization, Boston, Harvard Business 

School Press. 

KLEIN, G. 1989. Recognition-primed decisions. In: ROUSE, W. 

(ed.) Advances in man-machine systems research. Greenwich: JAI 

Press. 

KLEIN, G. 1993. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) 

model of rapid decision making. In: KLEIN, G., ORASANU, 

J., CALDERWOOD, R., ZSAMBOK, C. (ed.) Decision making in 

action: Models and methods Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.138-147. 

KLEIN, G., CALDERWOOD, R., CLINTON-CIROCCO, A. Year. 

Rapid decision making on the fire ground. In: Proceedings 

of the Human Factors Society, 1986 CA. Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society. 

KLEIN, G., ROSS, K., MOON, B., KLEIN, D., HOLLNAGEL, E. 2003. 

Macrocognition. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(3). 

KLEINSMANN, M., VALKENBURG, R. 2008. Barriers and enablers 

for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. 

Design Studies, 29, pp.369-386. 

KOTLER, P., RATH, G. 1984. Design: a powerful but neglected 

strategic tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2). 

KRABUANRAT, K., PHELPS, R. 1998. Heuristics and rationality 

in strategic decision making: an exploratory study. Journal of 

Business Research, 41, pp.83-93. 

KREITNER, R., KINICKI, A. 2004. Organizational Behavior, New 

York, McGraw-Hill. 

KRISTENSEN, T. 1998. The Contribution of Design to Business: 

A competence-based perspective. In: BRUCE, M., JEVNAKER, 

B. (EDS) (ed.) Management of Design Alliance. Sustaining 

Competitive Advantage. Chichester: Wiley 

KUUSELA, H., PAUL, P. 2002. A comparison of concurrent and 

retrospective verbal protocol analysis. The American Journal of 

Psychology, University of Illinois Press, 113(3). 

LAWSON, B. 1979. Cognitive strategies in architectural design. 

Ergonomics, 22(1).

LAWSON, B. 1990. How designers think: the design process 

demystified London, Butterworth. 

LAWSON, B. 1994. Design in mind, Oxford, Architectural Press. 

LLOYD, P., SCOTT, P. 1994. Discovering the design problem. 

Design Studies, 15(2). 

LONGUEVILLE, B., LE CARDINAL, J., BOCQUET, J., DANEAU, P. 

2003. Towards a project memory for innovative product design: 

a decision-making process model. International Conference on 

Engineering Design (ICED03). Stockholm. 

LOVE, T. 2005. A unified basis for design research and theory. 

International Design Congress - IASDR 2005: New Design 

Paradigms. Douliou, Taiwan: International Association of 

Societies of Design Research, Taiwan. 

MACKEY, A., GASS,S. 2005. Second Language Research: 

Methodology and Design, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates, Inc. 

MALAGA, R. 2000. The effect of stimulus modes and associative 

distance in individual creativity support systems Design 

Support Systems, 29. 

MASSIRONI, M. 1989. Ver pelo Desenho, aspectos técnicos, 

cognitivos, comunicativos., Lisboa, Edições 70. 

MICHEL, L. 2007. Understanding decision making in 

organizations to focus its practices where it matters. Measuring 

Business Excellence, 11(1). 

MOODY, S. 1984. The Role of Industrial Design in the 

Development of New Science based Products. In: LANGDON, 

R. (ed.) Design and Industry. London: The Design Council 

MORROW, D., MILLER, L., RIDOLFO,. H., KELLY, R., FISHER, U., 

STINE-MORROW, E. 2003. The influence of pilot expertise 

on comprehension and decision making. 12th International 

Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Dayton. 

MOULTRIE, J., LIVESEY, F. 2009. International Design Scoreboard: 

Initial indicators of international design capabilities. University 

of Cambridge, Design Council. Available:http://www.ifm.eng. 

cam.ac.uk/dmg/documents/090406int_design_scoreboard. 

pdf. 

NEVADO, P., BARATA, J., ALMENDRA, R., ROMÃO, L. 2008. The 

“Igloo Model”: A proposal for an analysis of the contribution 

of design to the competitiveness of companies. ICAM - 15th 

Annual International Conference on Advances in Management. 

Hyatt Harborside Hotel,Boston. 

NEWELL, A., SIMON, A. 1972. Human Problem Solving, New 

York, Prentice-Hall. 

NICHOLLS, K. 1990. Engineering changes under control. 

Journal of Engineering Design, 1(1). 


335


336 

NIEMINEN, T., LAUTAMAKI, S., SALIMAKI, M. 2005. Modelling the 

Strategic Impacts of Design in Businesses. UIAH/ Designium. 

ONWUEGBUZIE, A., LEECH, N. 2004. Enhancing the 

interpretation of significant findings: The role of mixed 

methods research. Annual meeting of the Eastern Educational 

Research Association. Clearwater. 

ONWUEGBUZIE, A., TEDDLIE, C. 2003. A Framework for 

Analysing Data in Mixed Methods Research. In: (EDS), C. T. (ed.) 

Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

OWENS, D. 2000. Structure and status in design teams: 

implications for design management. Design Management 

Journal, Academic Review, 1(1). 

PAHL, G., BEITZ, W. 1984. Engineering Design, London, The 

Design Council. 

POLANYI, M. 1983 (1st ed. 1966). The Tacit Dimension, 

Gloucester Peter Smith, Mass. 

POTTER, S., ROY, R., CAPON, C., BRUCE, M., WALSH, V., LEWIS, 

J. 1991. The Benefits and Costs of Investment in design: using 

professional design expertise in product, engineering and 

graphics projects. Design Innovation Group, Milton Keynes: 

The Open University and UMIST. 

PRESS, M., COOPER, R. 2003. The Design Experience – the Role of 

Design and Designers in the Twenty-first Century, UK, Ashgate. 

QIU, Y.-F., CHUI, Y-P., HELANDER, M. 2007. A cognitive approach 

to understanding knowledge-based virtual team decision 

making in product design. International Journal of Intelligent 

Enterprise, 1(1). 

REHMAN, F., YAN, X. 2007. Supporting early design decisionmaking 

using design context knowledge. Journal of Design 

Research, 6(1-2). 

RESTREPO, J. 2004. Information Processing in Conceptual 

Design. Design Science Planning, Delft, The Netherlands, Delft 

University Press. 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003a. Design Requirements: 

Conditioners or Conditioned? ICED03 - International Conference 

on Engineering Design. Stockholm. 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003b. Problem Structuring and 

Information Access in Design. Paper accepted for the Design 

Thinking Research Symposium 6: ‘Expertise in design’. Australia. 

RHEA, D. 1992. A new perspective on design: focusing on 

customer experience. Design Management Journal, 9(4), 

pp.10-16. 

RICKARDS, T. 1987. “Closing Down”: a classification of creative 

decision making aids. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2(3).

RIEDEL, J., ROY, R., POTTER, S. 1996. Market Demands that 

Reward Investment in Design. 8th International Forum on 

Design Management Research and Education. Barcelona. 

RITCHEY, T. 2007. Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes 

with Morphological Analysis. Swedish Morphological Society 

[Online]. 

Available:http://www.swemorph.com/wp.html [Accessed 24 

November 2007]. 

RITTEL, H., WEBBER, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of 

planning. Policy Science, 4. 

ROOZENBURG, N., CROSS, N. Year. Models of the design 

process - integrating across the disciplines. In: HUBKA, V., ed. 

Proceedings of ICED 91, 1991 Zürich. Heurista. 

ROOZENBURG, N., EEKELS, J. 1995. Product Design: 

Fundamentals and Methods, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc. 

ROY, R., POTTER, S. 1993. The commercial impact of investment 

in design. Design Studies, 14(2), pp.171-193. 

ROY, R., RIEDEL, J., POTTER, S. 1998. Market Demands that 

Reward Investment in Design (MADRID): Final Report 

submitted to the Design Council. Design Innovation Group, 

Milton Keynes: The Open University. 

ROY, R., SALAMAN, G., WALSH, V. 1986. Research Grant Final 

Report, Design-based Innovation in manufacturing Industry. 

Principles and Practices for Successful Design and Production. 

Milton Keynes: Design Innovation Group, Open University. 

SARMA, V. 1994. Decision Making in Complex Systems. Systems 

Practice, 7(4). 

SCHÖN, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals 

Think in Action, New York, Basic Books. 

SCHÖN, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San 

Francisco, Jossey-Bass – A Wiley Imprint. 

SENTENCE, A., CLARKE, J. 1997. The Contribution of Design 

to the UK Economy. In: COUNCIL, D. (ed.). London: Centre for 

Economic Forecasting, London Business School. 

SIMON, H. 1973. The ill structure of ill-structured problems. 

Artificial Intelligence, 4, pp.181-204. 

SIMON, H. 1996. Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, The MIT 

Press. 

SIMON, H., DANTZIG, G., HOGARTH, R., PIOTT,C., RAIFFA, H., 

SCHELLING, T., SHEPSLE, K., THAIER, R., TVERSKY, A., WINTER, 

S. 1986. Report on the Research Briefing Panel on Decision 

Making and Problem Solving. Washington DC: National 

Academy of Sciences. 


337


338 


Architectural Theory Review, Journal of the Department of 

Architecture, 2(1). 

SOLOVYOVA, I. 2003. Conjecture and Emotion: An Investigation 

of the Relationship Between Design Thinking and Emotional 

Content. DTRS6 - Design Thinking Research Symposium 6 , 

Creativity and Cognition Studios. Sidney, Australia: University 

of Technology. 

SONG, S., DONG, E., AGOGINO, A. 2002. Modeling information 

needs in engineering databases using tacit knowledge. Journal 

of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 2. 

STOLL, H. 1999. Product Design Methods and Practices, New 

York, Marcel Dekker, Inc. 

SVENGREN, L. Year. Industrial Design as a Strategic Resource. In: 

The European Academy of Design, 11-13 April 1995 University 

of Salford. 

SUWA, M., GERO, J., PURCELL, T. 2000. Unexpected discoveries 

and S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles 

for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6). 

SUWA, M., TVERSKY, B. 1997. What do architects and students 

perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design 

Studies, 18(4). 

TEIXEIRA, J. 2007. Applying Design Knowledge to Create 

Innovative Business Opportunities. Available: trex.id.iit.edu/ 

papers/design_knowledge.pdf [Accessed February 2009]. 

THOMAS, J., CARROLL, J. 1979. The psychological study of 

design. Design Studies, 1(1). 

TOVEY, M., PORTER, S., NEWMAN, R. 2003. Sketching, concept 

development and automotive design Design Studies, 24(2). 

TURNER, R., TOPALIAN, A. 2002. Core Responsabilities of 

Design Leaders in Commercially Demanding Environments. 

Design Leadership Forum (Inaugural session). London: Alto 

Design Management. 

ULLMAN, D., DIETTRICH, T., STAUFFER, L. 1988. A model of the 

mechanical engineering process based on empirical data. AI 

EDAM, 2(1). 

VAN DER LUGT, R. 2001. Sketching in design idea generation 

meetings. TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering. 

VARELA, F., THOMPSON, E., ROSCH, E. 1991. The Embodied 

Mind, Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. 

VINCENTI, W. 1990. What Engineers Know and How They Know 

It?, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press. 

VISSER, W. 2009. Design: one, but in different forms. Design 

Studies, 30(3), pp.187-223.

WALSH, V. 1995. The evaluation of design. International Journal 

of Technology Management, 10(4/5/6). 

WALSH, V. 2000. Design, Innovation and the Boundaries of the 

Firm. Design Management Journal, Academic Review. 

WALTON, M. 2003. Building a case for added value though 

design. Report to Industry New Zealand. Wellington: NZ Institute 

of Economic Research (Inc.). 

WANG, K. R., L., TONG, S., EYNARD, B., MATTA, N. 2008. Design 

Knowledge for Decision-Making Process in a DFX Product 

Design Approach. In: YAN, X., ION, W., EYNARD, B. (ed.) Global 

Design to Gain Competitive Edge: an Holistic and Collaborative 

Approach Based on Computational Tools. London: Springer. 

YATES, J., VEINOTT, E., PATALAN, A. 2002. Hard Decisions, 

Bad Decisions: on Decision Quality and Decision Aiding. In: 

SCHNEIDER, S., SHANTEAU, J. (EDS.) (ed.) Emerging Perspectives 

on Judgment and Decision Research. Boston, MA: Cambridge 

University Press. 

YIN, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied 

Social Research Methods, SAGE Inc. 

ZHANG, Y. 1998. Computer-Based Modelling and Management 

for Current Working Knowledge Evolution Support. PhD Thesis, 

Strathclyde University. 

339 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES


340

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Guide to the Preparation of Specifications. 1998. London: 

British Standards Institution. 

ADAMS, R., TURNS, J., ATMAN, C. 2003. Educating 

effective engineering designers: the role of reflective 

practice. Design Studies, 24(3), pp. 175-294. 

AKIN, Ö. 1979. Exploration of the Design Process, Design 

Methods and Theories, 13(3), pp. 115-119. 

AKIN, Ö., LIN, C. 1996. Design Protocol data and novel 

design decisions. In: CROSS, N. CHRISTIAANS, H.; DORST, 

K. (eds.) Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: John Wiley 

& Sons, pp. 36-62. 

ALBERT, D., STEINER, C. 2005. Representing Domain 

Knowledge by Concept Maps: How to Validate Them? In: 

OKAMOTO, T., ALBERT, D., HONDA, T.,HESSE, F. (eds.) The 

2nd Joint Workshop of Cognition and Learning through 

Media-Communication for Advanced e-Learning, 28-30 

September 2005, Tokyo. Sophia University, pp. 169-174. 

ALEXANDER, C. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of form, 

Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. 

ALMENDRA, R. 2007. 2º Relatório de Progresso da 

Dissertação de Doutoramento, Área Científica de Design. 

Lisboa: FA.UTL. 

ALMENDRA, R. 2007. The enhancement of the time, 

quality and strategic adequacy dimensions of product 

design processes: a doctoral study in its first stage. In: 

Conference of Defsa International Design Education,3-5 

October 2007, Cape Town. 

ALMENDRA, R. 2008. Reflection on the quality of design: 

from the product to the project. Journal of Design 

Principles and Practices: an international Journal. 2 (1), pp. 

1-6. 

ALMENDRA, R., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2009. Decision-making 

in Design: a comparative study. In: CHAKRABARTI, A. 

(ed.) Research into Design: Supporting multiple facets of 

product development. Singapore: Research Publishing, 

pp. 508-519. 

ALMENDRA, R., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2009. Decision-making 

in the conceptual design phases: a comparative study. 

Journal of Design Research, 8(1), pp. 1-20. 

AMABILE, T. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a 

componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality 

and Social Psychology, 45(2), pp. 357-376. 

AMABILE, T. 1990. Within you, without you. The social 

psychology of creativity and beyond. In: RUNCO, M., 

ALBERT, R. (ed.) Theories of Creativity. Newbury Park, CA.: 

Sage 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

341


342 

ANON. 2004. Manufuture: a Vision for 2020. Assuring the 

future of manufacturing in Europe. Report of the High 

Level Group. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications 

of the European Communities. 

ARCHER, B. 1979. The three R’s. Design Studies, 1, pp. 17-20. 

ARCHER, L. 1969. The Structure of the Design Process. In: 

BROADBENT, G. W. A. (ed.) Design Methods of Architecture. 

New York Witteborn 

ASHWIN, C. 1989. Drawing Design Semiotics. In: 

MARGOLIN, V. (ed.) Design Discourse. Chicago: The 

University of Chicago Press. 

ATMAN, C., CHIMKA, J., BURSIC, K., NACHTMANN, H. 

1999. A Comparison of freshman and senior engineering 

design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), pp. 131-152. 

BADKE-SCHAUB, P. 2007. Decision making processes 

and leadership in product development. In: MOSIER, K., 

FISCHER, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International 

NDM Conference, 2007 s.l., pp. 1-5. 

BAJOR, P., HORVÁTH, A. 2008. The role of decision-making 

parameters in constructing and re-engineering of 

distribution networks. In: KÓCZY, L. Á. (ed.), FIKUSZ 2008 

Business Sciences - Symposium for Young Researchers., 

2008 Budapest Tech, Keleti Faculty of Economics, pp. 55-63. 

BANHAM, R. 1974. The Aspen Papers: Twenty Years of 

Design Theory from The Design Conference in Aspen, New 

York, Praeger. 

BARDIN, L. 1979. Análise de Conteúdo, Lisboa, Edições 70. 

BAUDRILLARD, J. 1973. O Sistema dos Objectos, São Paulo, 

Editora Perspectiva. 

BAXTER, M. 1995. Product Design, London Chapman and 

Hall. 

BEITZ, W. 1994. Design science – the need for a scientific 

basis for engineering design methodology. Journal of 

Engineering Design, 5(2), pp. 129-133. 

BEYER, H., HOLTZBLATT, K 1998. Contextual Design: 

Defining Customer-Centered Systems. In: CARD, S., 

GRUDIN, J., LINTON, M., NIELSEN, J., SKELLY, T. (ed.). San 

Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 

BEZERRA, C., OWEN, C. L. 1999. Managing Complexity 

in Design: the role of computer-supported methods. In: 

Proceedings of The 15th International Conference on 

Computer-Aided Production Engineering, University of 

Durham, UK, pp. 3-8. 

BILDA, Z., GERO, J., PURCELL, T. 2006. To sketch or not to 

sketch? That is the question. Design Studies, 27(5), pp. 

587-613.

BODEN, M. A. 1990. The Creative mind: Myths and 

Mechanisms, London, George Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 

BONOLLO, E., LEWIS, B. 1996. The industrial design 

profession and models of the design process. Design 

and Education, 6(2). 

BONSIEPE, G. 1992 (1st ed. Ital. 1975). Teoria e Prática 

do Design Industrial. Elementos para um Manual Crítico, 

Lisboa, Centro Português de Design. 

BORG, J., YAN, X. Year. Design decision consequences: 

key to ‘design for multi-X’ support’. In: 2nd International 

Symposium Tools and Methods for Concurrent 

Engineering, 1988 Manchester, UK, pp. 169-184. 

BORJA DE MOZOTA, B. 1985. Essai sur la fonction du design 

et son rôle dans la stratégie marketing de l’entreprise., 

Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne. 

BRERETON M., C., D., MABOGUNJE, A., LEIFER, L. 1996. 

Collaboration in design teams: how social interaction 

shapes the product. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, 

H.,DORST, K. (ed.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons, pp. 319-340. 

BUCHANAN, R., MARGOLIN, V. 1995. Discovering Design 

– Explorations in Design Studies, Chicago, The University 

Chicago Press. 

BÜRDEK, B. E. 1992 (1st ed. 1991). Design, Storia, Teoria e 

Prassi del Disegno Industriale, Milano, Arnoldo Mondadori 

Editore. 

CAI, Y. 2001. Design strategies for global products. Design 

Management Journal, 12(4), pp. 59-64. 

CAGAN, J., VOGEL, C. 2002. Creating Breakthrough 

products - innovation from product planning to program 

approval, FT Press. 

CAREY, H., VOGEL, C., CAGAN, J., WEINGART, L. 2002. 

Integrating Design Thinking into the strategic planning 

phase of product development. In: IDSA (ed.) National 

Education Conference. San Jose, California: IDSA: Dulles. 

CASAKIN, H., KREITLER, S. 2006. Evaluating creativity in 

design problem solving. Design Research International 

Conference. IADE, Lisbon: Wonderground, Lisbon. 

CHOI, Y., RASMUSSEN, E. 2002. Users’ relevance criteria 

in image retrieval in American history. Information 

Processing and Management, 38695-726. 

CHRISTENSEN, T., YASAR, S. 2007. Paradigms and Protocols 

in the Study of Creative Collaboration: Implications for 

Research of Design Team Process and Product. IASDR07 

Emerging Trends in Design Research. Hong Kong: The 

Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Hong Kong. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

343


344 

CHRISTIAANS, H. 1992. Creativity in Design: The role of 

domain knowledge in designing, Utrecht, Lemma. 

CHRISTIAANS, H., VAN ANDEL, J. 1993. The effects of 

examples on the use of knowledge in a student design 

activity: The case of the ‘Flying Dutchman’. Design Studies, 

14(1), pp. 58-74. 

CHRISTIAANS, H., VAN ANDEL, J. 1998. Information 

Processing and Storage during the Design Process: the 

use of a flexible information system. In: FRANKENBERGER, 

E., BADKE-SCHAUB, P., BIRKHOFER, H. (ed.) Designers: 

The key to successful product development. UK: Springer 

Verlag, pp. 12-28. 

CHRISTIAANS, H., RESTREPO, J. 2001. Information 

Processing in Design: a theoretical and empirical 

perspective. In: ACHTEN, H., DE VRIES, B., HENNESSEY, 

J. (eds.) Design Research in the Netherlands 2000. 

Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, pp. 63-73. 

CHRISTIAANS, H. 2002. Creativity as a design criterion. 

Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), pp. 41-54. 

CHRISTIAANS, H., RESTREPO, J. 2004. Problem structuring 

and information access in design. Journal of Design 

Research, 4(2). 

CHRISTIAANS, H., ALMENDRA, R. 2008. Problem 

structuring and information access in a design problem: 

a comparative study between Dutch and Portuguese 

students. P&D Design 2008 - 8º Congresso Brasileiro de 

Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento em Design. São Paulo, Brasil: 

Centro Universitário Senac, São Paulo. 

CHUA, R., IYENGAR, S. 2008. Effects of experience, 

instruction, and choice on creativity. Journal of Creative 

Behavior, 42(3), pp. 164-180. 

CLARK, K., WHEELWRIGHT, S. (eds.) 1994. The Product 

Development Challenge: Competing through Speed, 

Boston, Quality and Creativity. 

COREY, E. 1975. Key options in market selection and 

product planning. Harvard Business Review, (75502). 

COSTA, D. 1992. Design e Mal-Estar, Lisboa-Porto, Porto 

Editora - Centro Português de Design. 

DESIGN COUNCIL. 2004. The impact of Design on 

Stock Market Performance: An Analysis of UK Quoted 

Companies 1994-2003. [Accessed 19 April 2007]. 

DESIGN COUNCIL. 2005. The Business of Design: 

Design Industry Research 2005. Available: http:// 

www.designcouncil.org.uk/Design-Council/3/ 

Publications/?PageNum=2 [Accessed 19 April 2007]. 

COURT, A. 1997. The relationship between information 

and personal knowledge in new product development. 

International Journal of Information Management, 17(2), 

pp. 123-138.

COYNE, R., SNODGRASS, A. 1991. Is designing mysterious? 

Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies, 

12(3), pp. 124-131. 

COYNE, R. 1995. Designing information technology in the 

postmodern age, Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. 

CROSS, N. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design 

Studies, 3(4), pp. 221-227. 

CROSS, N., (ed) 1984. Developments in Design 

Methodology, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. 

CROSS, N. 1989. Engineering Design Methods, Chichester, 

Wiley. 

CROSS, N., ROOZENBURG, N. 1992. Modelling the design 

process in engineering and in architecture. Journal of 


CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. 1994. Design 

expertise among student designers. Journal of Art and 

Design Education, 13(1), pp. 39-56. 

CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (eds) 1996. 

Analysing Design Activity, Chichester, Wiley. 

CROSS, N., CROSS, A. 1996. Observations of teamwork and 

social processes in design. In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, 

H.,DORST, K. (eds.) Analysing Design Activity. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons, pp. 291-317. 

CROSS, N. 2001. Design Cognition: Results of Protocol and 

Other Empirical Studies of Design Activity. In: EASTMAN, 

C., MCCRACKEN, W., NEWSTETTER, W. (eds.) Design 

Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. 

Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 79-103. 

CROSS, N. 2006. Designerly ways of knowing. London, 

Springer. 

CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M., ROCHENBERG-HALTON, E. 1981. 

The Meaning of Things: Domestic symbols and the Self, 


DAMÁSIO, A. 1995. O Erro de Descartes, Emoção, Razão 

e Cérebro Humano, Mem Martins, Publicações Europa 

América. 

DAMÁSIO, A. 2000. O Sentimento de Si – o Corpo, a 

Emoção e a Neurobiologia da Consciência, Mem Martins, 

Publicações Europa América. 

DARKE, J. 1979. The primary generator and the design 

process. Design Studies, 1(1), pp. 36-44. 

DASGUPTA, S. 1991. Design Theory and Computer Science: 

Processes and Methodology of Computer Systems Design, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

345


346 

DAVIES, S. 1991. Characterizing the program design 

activity: neither strictly top-down nor globally 

opportunistic. Behavioral Information Technologies 10(3), 

pp. 173-190. 

DERRIDA, J. 1976. Of Grammatology, USA, G.C. Spivak 

Johns Hopkins University Press. 

DEWEY, J. 1934. Art as Experience, New York, Minton 

Balch. 

DEWEY, J. 1948 (1st ed. 1920). Reconstruction in philosophy, 

Boston MA, Beacon Press. 

DO, E., GROSS, M., NEIMAN, B., ZIMRING, C. 2000. 

Intentions in and relations among design drawings. 

Design Studies, 21(5), pp. 483-503. 

DORMER, P. 1995 (1st ed. London, 1990). Os significados 

do Design Moderno – a caminho do séc. XXI, Lisboa, Centro 

Português de Design. 

DORST, C., CROSS, N. 2001. Creativity in the design 

process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design 

Studies, 22(5), pp. 425-437. 

DORST, C. 2003. Understanding Design, Amsterdam, BIS 

Publishers. 

DORST, C. 1995. Comparing the paradigms of design 

methodoldogy. In: HUBKA, V., (ed.) Proceedings of ICED 

95, 1995, Zürich, Heurista. 

DORST, K. 1997. Describing Design: A Comparison of 

Paradigms, Delft, The Netherlands, Delft University of 

Technology. 

DORST, K., CROSS, N. 2001. Creativity in design process: 

Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Issues, 22(5), 

pp. 425-437. 

DORST, K. 2004. On the problem of design problems - 

problem solving and design expertise. Journal of Design 

Research, 4(2). 

DOUGHERTY, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful 

product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 

3(2), pp. 179-202. 

DOUGLAS, M., ISHERWOOD, B. 1979. The World of Goods, 

London, Allen Lane. 

DOWNING, F. 2000. Remembrance and the Design of Place, 

College Station, Texas, A&M University Press. 

DREYFUS, H. 1992. What Computers still can’t do, 

Cambridge MA, MIT Press. 

DREYFUS, H. 2003. Unpublished Notes from the Spinoza 

Lectures. University of Amsterdam. 

DUMAINE, B. 1990. Who needs a boss? Fortune. Time Inc’s 

Fortune/Money Group.

DUMAS, A., MINTZENBERG, H. 1989a. Managing design/ 

design management. Design Management Journal, 1(1), 

pp. 37-43. 

DUMAS, A., WHITEFIELD, A. 1989b. Why design is difficult 

to manage: A survey of attitudes and practices in British 

industry European Management Journal, 7(1), pp. 50-56. 

EASTMAN, C., MCCRACKEN, W. (EDS) 2002. Design 

knowing and learning: cognition in design education - 

Newsletter. Design Studies, 23(4), July 2002. 

EASTMAN, C. M. 1970. On the analysis of intuitive design 

processes. In: MOORE, G. (ed.) Emerging Methods in 

Environmental Design and Planning. Cambridge MA, USA: 

MIT Press 

EDER, W. 1998. Design modelling, a design science 

approach (and why does industry not use it?). Journal of 


EREV, I., BORNSTEIN, G., GALILI, R. 1993. Constructive 

intergroup competition as a solution to the free rider 

problem: a field experiment. Journal of Experimental 

Social Psychology, 29, pp. 463-478. 

ENDSLEY, M., HOFFMAN, R., KABER, D., ROTH, E. 2007. 

Cognitive engineering and decision making: an overview 

and future course. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and 

Decision Making, 1(1), pp. 1-21. 

ENSICI, A., BAYAZIT, N., BADKE-SCHAUB, P., LAUCHE, K. 

2008. Decision making in design teams: analysis of used 

and rejected decisions. In: MARJANOVIC, D., STORGA, 

M., PAVKOVIC, N., BOJCETIC, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 

10th International Design Conference 2008, Glasgow. 

Design Society, pp. 1121-1128. 


performance: evidence on maximal adaptations on task 

constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp. 273-305. 

ERICSSON, K. 2005. Recent advances in expertise research: 

a commentary on the contributions to the special issue. 

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, pp. 233-241. 

European Community. 2006. MEMO/06/190. 

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?referen 

ce=MEMO/06/190&format=HTML&aged=0&language= 

EN&guiLanguage=fr (Accessed in May 2007). 

FAUST, W. 2000. Building and fostering long-term client 

relationships. Design Management Review, 11(2), pp. 33-42. 

FIDEL, R., GREEN, M. 2004. The many faces of accessibility. 

Journal of Information Processing and Management, 40(3), 

pp. 563-581. 

FOOKS, J., RYAN, M., HAWKINS, L. 2000. Professional 

Expertise: Practice, Theory and Education for Working in 

Uncertainty, London, Whiting and Birch. 

347 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


348 

FORTY, A. 1986. Objects of Desire. Design and Society Since 

1750, London, Thames and Hudson. 

FRANKENBERGER, E., BADKE-SCHAUB, P. 1996. Modelling 

design processes in industry – empirical investigations 

of design work in practice. In: AKIN, Ö., SAGLAMER, G. 

(eds.) Proceedings of DMD’96, 1996, Istambul. 

FREIRE, A. 1994. Casos de Inovação de Sucesso, Lisboa, 

Abril ControlJornal Editora. 

FREIRE, A. 1997. Estratégia – Sucesso em Portugal, Lisboa, 

Editorial Verbo. 

FRENCH, M. 1985. Conceptual Design for Engineers, 

London, UK, Design Council. 

FROST, R. 1999. Why does industry ignore design science? 

Journal of Engineering Design, 10(4), pp. 301-304. 

GABRIELSEN, G., GRØNHAUG, K., KAHL, L., KRISTENSEN, 

T., PLENBORG, T., WILKE, R. 2007. Is good design good 

business? Available: www.nhh.no/Admin/Public/ 

DWSDownload.aspx?File...pdf. 

GADAMER, H.-G. 1975. Truth and Method, London, Sheed 

and Ward. 

GADAMER, H.-G. 1986. The relevance of the beautiful and 

other essays, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

GERO, J. S., KANNENGIESSER, U. 2006. A Function- 

Behaviour-Structure ontology of processes. In: GERO, J. 

(ed.) A Function-Behaviour-Structure ontology of processes. 

New York: Springer, pp. 407-422. 

GIEDION, S. 1948. Mechanization Takes Command, New 

York Oxford University Press. 

GIERKE, M., HANSEN, J., TURNER, R. 2002. Wise Counsil: a 

trinity of perspectives on the business value of design. 

Design Management Journal, 13(1), pp. 10-17. 

GOEL, V., PIROLLI, P. 1992. The structure of design 

problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), pp. 395-429. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1991. The dialects of sketching. 

Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), pp. 123-143. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 1996. The Designer as a team of one. 

In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (eds.) Analysing 

Design Activity. New York: Wiley, pp. 65-92. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G. 2005. How good are good ideas? 

Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26, pp. 

593-611. 

GOLDSCHMIDT, G., SMOLKOV, M. 2006. Variances in 

the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving 

performance. Design Studies, 27, pp. 549-569. 

GOLEMAN, D. 1996 (1st ed. 1970). Emotional Intelligence, 

London, Bloomsbury.

GOODMAN, N. 1984. Of Mind and Other Matters, 

Cambridge and London, Harvard University Press. 

GOODMAN, N. n.d. Ways of Worldmaking, Indiana, 

Hackett Publishing Company. 

GORB, P., DUMAS, A. 1987. Silent Design. 8(3), pp. 150-156. 

GORB, P. 1990. Design Management, London, Architecture 

Design and Technology Press. 

GREENBERG, E. 1992. Creativity, autonomy and evaluation 

of creative work: artistic workers in organizations. Journal 

of Creative Behavior, 26(2), pp. 75-80. 

GREENE, J., CARACELLI, V., GRAHAM, W. 1989. Toward a 

conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation 

designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 

pp. 255-274. 

GREGORY, S. 1966. The Design Method, London, 

Butterworths. 

GUINDON, R. 1990. Designing the design process: 

exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human Computer 

Interaction, 5(2), pp. 305-344. 

GUNTER, J., FRANKENBERGER, E., AUER, P. 1996. 

Investigation of Individual and team design processes. 

In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H.,DORST, K. (eds.) Analysing 

Design Activity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 117-131. 

GUNTHER, J., FRANKERBERGER, F., AUER, P. 1996. 

Investigation of individual and team design processes. 

In: CROSS, N. CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, C. (eds.) Analysing 

Design Activity. New York: Wiley, pp. 117-132. 

HAMMOND, J., KEENEY, J., RAIFFA, H. 1999. Smart Choices: 

A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions, Boston, MA, 

Harvard Business School Press. 

HAQUE, B., BELECHEANU, R., BARSON, R., PAWAR, K. 

2000. Towards the application of case based reasoning 

to decision-making in concurrent product development 

(concurrent engineering). Knowledge-Based Systems, 

13(2/3), pp. 101-112. 

HARTSHORNE, C., WEISS, P. (eds.) 1958. Collected papers 

of Charles Sanders Peirce, Boston, Harvard University 

Press. 

HAWKINS, D., BEST, R., CONEY, K. 1998. Consumer Behavior 

– Building Marketing Strategy, Boston, McGraw Hill. 

HEIDEGGER, M. 1962. Being and Time, London, Basil 

Blackwell. 

HEIN, L. 1994. Design methodology in practice. Journal 

of Engineering Design, 5(2), pp. 145-163. 

349 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


HERRMAN, J. 2004. Decomposition in Product 

Development - Technical Report 2004-6. College Park: 

Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland. 

HERRMAN, J. W., SCHMIDT, L. C. 2002. Viewing product 

development as a decision production system. 

In: Proceedings of DETC 2002, ASME 2002 Design 

Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and 

Information in Engineering Conference, September, 29 - 

October, 2, 2002, Montreal, Canada. 

HERTENSTEIN, J., PLATT, M. 2000. Profiles of strategic 

alignment: the role of cost information in new product 

development. Design Management Journal, Academic 

Review, 1(1), pp. 8-24. 

HERTENSTEIN, J., PLATT, M., BROWN, D. 2001. Valuing 

Design: enhancing corporate performance through 

design effectiveness. Design Management Journal, 12(3), 

pp. 10-19. 

HERTZUM, M., PEJTERSEN, A. 2000. The informationseeking 

practices of engineers: searching for documents 

as well as for people. Information Processing and 

Management, 36(5), pp. 761-778. 

350 

HESKETT, J. 1993. Industrial Design, London, Thames and 

Hudson. 

HILLIER, B., LEAMAN, A. 1974. How is design possible? . 

Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 3(1), pp. 

4-11. 

HINRICHS, T. 1992. Problem Solving in Open Worlds: a case 

study in Design New Jersey, Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 

Inc. Publishers. 

HONG, J-l, CHANG, N-K. 2004. Analysis of Korean High 

School Student’s Decision-making processes in solving 

a problem involving biological knowledge, Research in 

Science Education, 34, pp97-111 

HOFSTEDE, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: comparing 

values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations 

across nations (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE 

Publications. 

HONGO, K., AMIRFAZLI, A. 1994. Design philosophy. 

Journal of Engineering Design, 5(2), pp.93-102. 

HOWARD, T., CULLEY, S., DEKONINCK, E. 2008. Describing 

the creative design process by the integration of 

engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. 

Design Studies, 29, pp. 160-180. 

HUANG, G., MAK, K. 1999. Web-based collaborative 

design. Journal of Engineering Design, 10(2),pp.183-194.

HUITT, W. 1992. Problem solving and decision making: 

Consideration of individual differences using the Myers- 

Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24, 

pp. 33-44. 

JAMES, W. 1995 (1st ed. 1907). Pragmatism, New York, 

Dover. 

JAY-HAK, C. 2008. National Design Competitivness 

Report 2008. Korean Institute of Design Promotion. 

JEVNAKER, B. 2000. Championing design: perspectives 

on design capabilities. Design Management Journal; 

Academic Review, 1, pp. 25-39. 

JEVNAKER, B. 2000b. How design becomes strategic. 


JIN, Y., CHUSILP, P. 2005. Study of mental iteration in 

different design situations. Design Studies, 27(1), pp. 25-55. 

JOHNSON, D. 1992. Approaches to Research in Second 

Language Learning, New York, Longman. 

JOHNSON, R., TURNER, L. 2003. Data collection strategies 

in mixed methods research. In: TASHAKKORI, A., TEDDLIE, 

C. (eds.) Handbook of mixed methods in social and 

behavioral research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 297-319. 

JOHNSON, R., ONWUEGBUZIE, A. 2004. Mixed methods 

research: a research paradigm whose time has come. 

Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp. 14-26. 

351 

JONES, J. 1992 Design Methods, New York, John Wiley & 

Sons Inc. 

JONSON, B. 2005. Design Ideation: the conceptual sketch 

in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), pp. 613-624. 

JOSEPH, S. 1996. Design Systems and Paradigms. Design 

Studies, 17(3), pp. 227-239. 

KATZENBACH, J., SMITH, D. 1993. The Wisdom of 

Teams:Creating the High-Performance Organization, 

Boston, Harvard Business School Press. 

KELLER, K. 1998. Strategic Brand Management, Hemel 

Hempstead, Prentice-Hall. 

KEPNER, C., TREGOE, B. 1965. The Rational manager: a 

systematic approach to problem solving and decision 

making, New York, McGraw-Hill. 

KESTER, L., HULTINK, H., BADKE-SCHAUB, P., LAUCHE, 

K. 2007. Complex decision making in portfolio 

management: an exploratory study. In: MOSIER, K., 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


FISCHER, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International 

Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, NDM 8, San 

Francisco. San Francisco State University, pp. 1-7. 

KESTER, L., HULTINK, H., LAUCHE, K., BADKE-SCHAUB, P. 

2008. An exploratory study of the practices and challenges 

of portfolio decision making genres. In: KOLLER, H., 

HERSTATT, C., TEICHERT, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 

15th International Product Development Management 

Conference 2008, Brussels. EIASM, pp. 1-18. 

KIM, M., KIM, Y. 2007. Perceived Creativity and Design 

Team interaction. IASDR07. The Hong Kong Polytechnic 

University. 12-15 November 2007. 

KLEIN, G., CALDERWOOD, R., CLINTON-CIROCCO, A. 

1986. Rapid decision making on the fire ground. In: 

Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, CA. Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 576-580. 

KLEIN, G. 1989. Recognition-primed decisions. In: ROUSE, 

W. (ed.) Advances in man-machine systems research. 

Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 47-92. 

352 

KLEIN, G. 1993. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) 

model of rapid decision making. In: KLEIN, G., ORASANU, 

J., CALDERWOOD, R., ZSAMBOK, C. (eds.) Decision making 

in action: Models and methods Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 

138-147. 

KLEIN, G., ROSS, K., MOON, B., KLEIN, D., HOLLNAGEL, E. 

2003. Macrocognition. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(3), pp. 

81-85. 

KLEIN, N. 2002. No Logo, Lisboa, Relógio d’Água Editores. 

KLEINSMANN, M., VALKENBURG, R. 2008. Barriers and 

enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design 

projects. Design Studies, 29, pp. 369-386. 

KOLODNER, J., WILLS, L. 1996. Powers of Observation in 

Creative Design. Design Studies, 17(4), pp. 385-416. 

KOPEIKINA, L. 2005. The Right Decision Every Time: How To 

Reach Perfect Clarity on Though Decisions, Upper Saddle 

River, NJ, Prentice-Hall. 

KOTLER, P., RATH, G. 1984. Design: a powerful but 

neglected strategic tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 

5(2), pp. 16-21. 

KOTLER, P. 2000. Marketing Management - The Millenium 

Edition, s.l., Prentice Hall. 

KOTONYA, G., SUMMERVILLE, I. 1998. Requirements 

Engineering Processes and Techniques, Chichester, Wiley.

KREITNER, R., KINICKI, A. 2004. Organizational Behavior, 

New York, McGraw-Hill. 

KRISTENSEN, T. 1998. The Contribution of Design to 

Business: A competence-based perspective. In: BRUCE, 

M., JEVNAKER, B. (eds.) Management of Design Alliance. 

Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Chichester: Wiley 

KROES, P. 2002. Design Methodology and the Nature of 

Technical Artifacts. Design Studies, 23(3), pp. 287-302. 

KUBLER, G. 1990. A Forma do Tempo, Lisboa, Vega. 

KUHN, D. 2001. How do people Know? Psychological 

Science, 12 (1), pp. 1-8. 

KUUSELA, H., PAUL, P. 2002. A comparison of concurrent 

and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. The American 

Journal of Psychology, University of Illinois Press, 113(3), 

pp. 387-404. 

LAKOFF, G., JOHNSON, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live, 

Chicago, USA, University of Chicago Press. 

LAUCHE, K., CARDOSO, C., BADKE-SCHAUB, P., 

ROOZENBURG, N. 2008. Ways to encourage reflection 

on design methodology and professional practice. In: 

CLARKE, A., EVATT, M., HOGARTH, P., LLOVERAS, J., PONS, 

L. (eds.) New perspectives in design education Courtleigh: 

IED, pp. 535-540. 

353 

LAUREL, B. 2003. Design research, Methods & Perspectives, 

Cambridge, The MIT Press. 

LAWSON, B. 1979. Cognitive strategies in architectural 

design. Ergonomics, 22(1), pp. 59-68. 

LAWSON, B. 1990. How designers think: the design process 

demystified. London, Butterworth. 

LAWSON, B. 1994. Design in mind. Oxford, Architectural Press. 

LELE, M., KARMAKAR, U. 1983. Good product support is 

smart marketing. Harvard Business Review, (83611). 

LEVIN, P. 1966. Decision Making in Urban Design - Building 

Research, Station Note EN51/66 Building Research Station, 

Herts, UK, Garston. 

LEWIS, A., SADOSKY, T., CONNOLY,T. 1975. IEEE Transactions 

on Engineering Management, pp.119-124. 

LLOYD, P., SCOTT, P. 1994. Discovering the design 

problem. Design Studies, 15(2), pp. 125-140. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


LOCOPOULOS, P., KARAKOSTAS, V. 1995. System 

Requirements Engineering, New York, McGraw-Hill. 

LONGUEVILLE, B., LE CARDINAL, J., BOCQUET, J., DANEAU, 

P. 2003. Towards a project memory for innovative product 

design: a decision-making process model. International 

Conference on Engineering Design (ICED03). Stockholm. 

LONGUEVILLE, B., LE CARDINAL, J., BOCQUET, J. 2007. 

La gestion des connaissances pour les projects de 

conception de produits innovants. Journal of Design 

Research, 6(1-2), pp. 169-189. 

LOVE, T. 2005. A unified basis for design research and 

theory. International Design Congress - IASDR 2005: 

New Design Paradigms. Douliou, Taiwan: International 

Association of Societies of Design Research, Taiwan. 

MAFFIN, D. 1998. Engineering design models: context, 

theory and practice. Journal of Engineering Design, 9(4), 

pp. 315-327. 

MAIDEN, N., GIZIKIS, A. 2001. Where do requirements 

come from? IEEE Software, 16(5), pp. 10-12. 

354 

MAIDEN, N., GIZIKIS, A. 2004. Requirements and design 

are creative processes: Is it not time we understand 

creativity? In: HALE, A., KERWAN, B., KJELLEN, U. (eds.). 

Forthcoming. 

MALAGA, R. 2000. The effect of stimulus modes and 

associative distance in individual creativity support 

systems Design Support Systems, 29, pp. 125-141. 

MALDONADO, T. 1991 (1st ed. 1976). Disegno 

Industriale:un riesame, Milano, Feltrinelli. 

MALLICK, D. 2000. The Design Strategy Framework. 


MANN, L., HARMONI, R., POWER, C. 1989. Adolescent 

Decision Making : The development of competence. 

Journal of Adolescence, 12 (3), pp. 265-278. 

MARCH, L. 1976. The Logic of Design and the Question 

of Value. In: MARCH, L. (ed.) The Architecture of Form. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 

MARGOLIN, V. 1989. Design Discourse – History, Theory 

and Criticism, Chicago, The University Press. 

MARGOLIN, V., BUCHANAN, R. (eds.) 1995. The Idea of 

Design, Cambridge and London, The MIT Press. 

MARGOLIN, V. 2002. The Politics of the Artificial, Chicago 

and London, The University of Chicago Press.

MARI, E. 2001. Progetto e Passione, Torino, Bollati 

Boringhieri. 

MARPLES, D. 1960. The Decisions of Engineering Design, 

London, Institute of Engineering Designers. 

MARSH, J., 1997. The Capture and Utilisation of Experience 

in Engineering Design, PhD Thesis, Cambridge 

University. 

MASON, P. 1982. Recent trends in design education. 


MASSIRONI, M. 1982. Ver pelo Desenho, aspectos técnicos, 

cognitivos, comunicativos., Lisboa, Edições 70. 

MAYER, R. 1992. Thinking, Problem Solving and Cognition 

New York, W.H. Freeman and Company. 

MEIJERS, A. 2000. The relational ontology of technical 

artifacts. In: KROES, P., MEIJERS, A. (eds.) The Empirical 

Turn in the Philosophy of Technology. Oxford: Elsevier 

Science 

MERLEAU-PONTY, M. 1992. Phenomonology of Perception, 

London, Routledge. 

MICHEL, L. 2007. Understanding decision making in 

organizations to focus its practices where it matters. 

Measuring Business Excellence, 11(1), pp. 33-45. 

355 

MITCHELL, T. 1996. New Thinking in Design – Conversations 

on Theory and Practice, New York, Van Nostrand 

Reinhold. 

MOLES, A. 1972. Semiologia dos Objectos, Petrópolis, 

Editora Vozes. 

MOODY, S. 1984. The Role of Industrial Design in the 

Development of New Science based Products. In: 

LANGDON, R. (ed.) Design and Industry. London: The 

Design Council 

MORROW, D., MILLER, L., RIDOLFO,. H., KELLY, R., FISHER, 

U., STINE-MORROW, E. 2003. The influence of pilot 

expertise on comprehension and decision making. 

12th International Symposium on Aviation Psycology. 

Dayton,pp. 1-4. 

MURTY, P., PURCELL, T. 2007. Designerly, reflective and 

insightful ways of designing. IASDR07 Emerging Trends in 

Design Research. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic 

University. 

NELSON, B., YEN, J., ROSEN, D. 2009. Refined metrics for 

measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 30(6), 

pp. 737-743. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


NEVADO, P., BARATA, J., ALMENDRA, R., ROMÃO, L. 

2008. The “Igloo Model”: A proposal for an analysis of 

the contribution of design to the competitiveness of 

companies. ICAM - 15th Annual International Conference 

on Advances in Management. Hyatt Harborside 

Hotel,Boston. July 16-19, 2008, pp.1-12. 

NEWELL, A., SIMON, A. 1972. Human Problem Solving, 

New York, Prentice-Hall. 

NGUYEN, L., SWATMAN, P. 2003. Managing the 

requirements engineering process. Requirements 

Engineering, 8(1), pp. 55-68. 

NICHOLLS, K. 1990. Engineering changes under control. 

Journal of Engineering Design, 1(1), pp. 5-15. 

NIEMINEN, T., LAUTAMAKI, S., SALIMAKI, M. 2005. 

Modelling the Strategic Impacts of Design in Businesses. 

Helsinki: UIAH/Designium. 

NUTTGENS, P. 1977. Learning to Some Purpose, London, SIAD. 

OAKLEY, M. 1990. Design Management – a Handbook 

of Issues and Methods, Oxford/Cambridge, Blackwell 

Reference. 

356 

OLSON, E. 1997. Design equity: a corporate perspective. 

Design Management Journal, 8(2), pp. 78-83 

OLSON, E. 2000. Managing design for competitive 

advantage: a process approach. Design Management 

Journal, 11(4), pp. 10-17. 

ONWUEGBUZIE, A., LEECH, N. 2004. Enhancing the 

interpretation of significant findings: The role of mixed 

methods research. Annual meeting of the Eastern 

Educational Research Association. Clearwater. 

OWENS, D. 2000. Structure and status in design 

teams: implications for design management. Design 

Management Journal, Academic Review, 1(1), pp. 55-64. 

OXMAN, R. 1999. Educating the Designerly Thinker. 


OXMAN, R. 2004. Think-maps: teaching design thinking 

in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), pp. 63-91. 

PAHL, G., BEITZ, W. 1984. Engineering Design, London, 

The Design Council. 

PATEL, V, AROCHA, J., 2001. The nature of constraints on 

collaborative decision-making in health care settings. In 

SALAS, E., KLEIN G. (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic 

decision making. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.

PAUL, J. 2000. Performance Metrics to Measure the Value 

of Design. Design Management Journal, 11(4), pp. 71-75. 

PERKINS, D. 1986. Knowledge as Design, Hillsdale, NJ, 

Erbaum. 

PETERS, T. 2000. Design as Advantage Nº I: The Design + 

Identity 50. Design Management Journal, 11(1), pp. 10-17. 

POHL, K. 1994. Three dimensions of Requirements 

Engineering: Framework and its applications. Information 

Systems, 19(3), pp. 243-258. 

POLANYI, M. 1983 (1st ed. 1966). The Tacit Dimension, 

Gloucester Peter Smith, Mass. 

POLYA, G. 1957. How to solve it: a new aspect of 

mathematical method, Princeton NJ, Princeton University 

Press. 

POPOVIC, V. 1996. Design activities structural categories. 

In: CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H., DORST, K. (eds.) Analysing 

Design Activity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 211-220. 

POPPER, K. 1994. Knowledge and The Body-Mind 

Problem: In Defense of Interaction, London and New York, 

Routledge. 

POPPER, K. 1994. The Myth Of The Framework: In Defense 

of Science and Rationality, London and New York, 

Routledge. 

357 

POTTER, S., ROY, R., CAPON, C., BRUCE, M., WALSH, V., 

LEWIS, J. 1991. The Benefits and Costs of Investment in 

design: using professional design expertise in product, 

engineering and graphics projects. Design Innovation 

Group, Milton Keynes: The Open University and UMIST. 

PRATS, M., LIM, S., JOWERS, I., GAMER, S., CHASE, S. 2009. 

Transforming shape in design: observations from studies 

of sketching. Design Studies, 30(5), pp. 503-520. 

PRESS, M., COOPER, R. 2003. The Design Experience – the 

Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-first Century, 

UK, Ashgate. 

PUGH, S. 1991. Total Design: Integrated Methods for 

Successful product Engineering, Wokingham, Addission- 

Wesley. 

PYE, D. 1978. The nature and Aesthetics of Design, London, 

Barry and Jenkins. 

QIU, Y.-F., CHUI, Y-P., HELANDER, M. 2007. A cognitive 

approach to understanding knowledge-based virtual 

team decision making in product design. International 

Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, 1(1), pp. 45-64. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


REHMAN, F., YAN, X. 2007. Supporting early design 

decision-making using design context knowledge. 

Journal of Design Research, 6(1-2), pp. 169-189. 

REINERTSEN, D. 1997. Managing the Design Factory: A 

Product Developer’s Toolkit, New York, Free Press. 

REITMAN, W. 1964. Heuristic decision procedures, open 

constraints and the structure of ill-defined problems. 

In: SHELLY, M., BRYAN, G. (eds.) Human Judgments and 

Optimality. New York: Wiley 

RESTREPO, J., GREEN, W., CHRISTIAANS, H. Structuring 

design problems: strategies, hindrances and 

consequences to design education. International Journal 

of Technology and Design Education. 

RESTREPO, J., RODRÍGUEZ, A., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2000. The 

Finality Argument on Design Methods: A Theoretical 

Approach From the Social Sciences In: PIZZOCARO et al 

(eds.) Design Plus Research Milano: Politecnico di Milano, 

pp. 109-115. 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003. Design Requirements: 

Conditioners or Conditioned? ICED03 - International 

Conference on Engineering Design. Stockholm. 

358 

RESTREPO, J., CHRISTIAANS, H. 2003. Problem Structuring 

and Information Access in Design. Paper accepted for 

the Design Thinking Research Symposium 6: ‘Expertise in 

design’. Australia. 

RESTREPO, J. 2004. Information Processing in Conceptual 

Design. Design Science Planning, Delft, The Netherlands, 

Delft University Press. 

RHEA, D. 1992. A new perspective on design: focusing 

on customer experience. Design Management Journal, 

9(4), pp. 10-16. 

RIEDEL, J., ROY, R., POTTER, S. 1996. Market Demands that 

Reward Investment in Design. 8th International Forum on 

Design Management Research and Education. Barcelona. 

RITCHEY, T. 2007. Wicked Problems: Structuring 

Social Messes with Morphological Analysis. Swedish 

Morphological Society [Online]. Available: http://www. 

swemorph.com/wp.html [Accessed 24 November 2007]. 

RITTEL, H., WEBBER, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general 

theory of planning. Policy Science, 4, pp. 155-169. 

RITTEL, H., WEBBER, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory 

of Planning. In: CROSS, N. (ed.) Developments in Design 

Methodology. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, pp. 135-144.

ROBERTSON, S., ROBERTSON, J. 1999. Mastering the 

Requirements Engineering Process, London, Addison- 

Wesley. 

RODGERS, P., GREEN, G., MCGOWN, A. 2001. Using 

concept sketches to track design progress. Design 

Studies, 21(5), pp. 451-464. 

ROMÃO, L., ALMENDRA, R., DIAS, E.; BARATA, J., NEVADO, 

P., URBANO, P., MARCELINO, J., DIAS, J., GOMES, F. 

2007. An online survey’s design to capture Portuguese 

companies’ perspective of Design. In: Proceedings of 

the 2007 Conference of Defsa International Design 

Education, Cape Town. 

ROOZENBURG, N., CROSS, N. 1991. Models of the design 

process - integrating across the disciplines. In: HUBKA, V. 

(ed.) Proceedings of ICED 91, 1991 Zürich. Heurista. 

ROOZENBURG, N. 1993. On the pattern of reasoning in 

innovative design. Design Studies, 14(1), pp. 4-18. 

ROOZENBURG, N., EEKELS, J. 1995. Product Design: 

Fundamentals and Methods, Chichester, John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc. 

ROSS, J. 1981. Improving adolescent decision making 

skills. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, pp. 279-295. 

ROTHROCK, L., YIN, J. 2008. Integrating Compensatory 

and Noncompensatory Decision-Making Strategies in 

Dynamic Task Environments. In: KUGLER, T., SMITH, J., 

CONNOLLY, T., SON, Y-J. (eds.) Decision Modeling and 

Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments. New 

York: Springer,Part II, pp. 125-141. 

359 

ROWE, P. 1998. Design Thinking, Cambridge and London, 

The MIT Press. 

ROY, R., SALAMAN, G., WALSH, V. 1986. Research Grant 

Final Report, Design-based Innovation in manufacturing 

Industry. Principles and Practices for Successful Design 

and Production. Milton Keynes: Design Innovation 

Group, Open University. 

ROY, R., POTTER, S. 1993. The commercial impact of 

investment in design. Design Studies, 14(2), pp. 171-193. 

ROY, R., RIEDEL, J., POTTER, S. 1998. Market Demands that 

Reward Investment in Design (MADRID): Final Report 

submitted to the Design Council. Design Innovation 

Group, Milton Keynes: The Open University. 

SARMA, V. 1994. Decision Making in Complex Systems. 

Systems Practice, 7(4), pp. 399-407. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


SCHÖN, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How 

Professionals Think in Action, New York, Basic Books. 

SCHÖN, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San 

Francisco, Jossey-Bass – A Wiley Imprint. 

SELLE, G. 1975. Ideologia e Utopia del Diseño, Barcelona, 

Gustavo Gili. 

SENTENCE, A., CLARKE, J. 1997. The Contribution of 

Design to the UK Economy. In: Design Council (ed.). 

London: Centre for Economic Forecasting, London 

Business School. 

SHAH, J., VARGAS-HERNANDEZ, N., SUMMERS, N., 

KULKARNI, S. 2001. Collaborative sketching as an idea 

generation technique for engineering design. Journal of 

Creative Behavior, 35, pp. 169-198. 

SIMON, H. 1973. The ill structure of ill-structured 

problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, pp. 181-204. 

SIMON, H. 1996. Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, The 

MIT Press. 

360 

SIMON, H., DANTZIG, G., HOGARTH, R., PIOTT,C., RAIFFA, 

H., SCHELLING, T., SHEPSLE, K., THAIER, R., TVERSKY, A., 

WINTER, S. 1986. Report on the Research Briefing Pannel 

on Decision Making and Problem Solving. Washington 

DC: National Academy of Sciences. 

SNODGRASS, A., COYNE, R. 1997. Is Designing 

hermeneutical? Architectural Theory Review, Journal of 

the Department of Architecture, 2 (1), 65-97. 

SNOEK, H., HEKKERT, P. 1999. Directing designers towards 

innovative solutions. In: JERRARD, B., NEWPORT, R., 

TRUEMAN, M. (eds.) Managing new product innovation. 

London: Taylor & Francis,pp. 167-180. 

SOLOVYOVA, I. 2003. Conjecture and Emotion: An 

Investigation of the Relationship Between Design 

Thinking and Emotional Content. DTRS6 - Design Thinking 

Research Symposium 6, Creativity and Cognition Studios. 

Sidney, Australia: University of Technology. 

STOLL, H. 1999. Product Design Methods and Practices, 

New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc. 

STOMPFF, G. 2003. The forgotten Bond: Brand Identity 

and Product Design. Design Management Journal, 14(1), 

pp. 26-32. 

SUCHMAN, L. 1987. Plans and situated actions, Cambridge, 

Cambridge University Press.

SUWA, M., TVERSKY, B. 1997. What do architects and 

students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol 

analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), pp. 385-403. 

SUWA, M., GERO, J., PURCELL, T. 2000. Unexpected 

discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: 

important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 

21(6), pp. 539-567. 

SVENGREN, L. 1995. Industrial Design as a Strategic 

Resource. In: The European Academy of Design, 11-13 

April 1995, University of Salford. 

TAYLOR, P., RICHARDSON, J., YEO, A., MARSH, I., TROBE, 

K., PILKINGTON, A. 1995. Sociology in focus, Ormskirk, 

Causeway Press. 

THOMAS, J. 1978. A design interpretation analysis of 

natural English with applications to man-computer 

interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 

10(6), pp. 651-668. 

THOMAS, J., CARROLL, J. 1979. The psychological study 

of design. Design Studies, 1(1), pp. 5-11. 

TOPALIAN, A. 2002. Promoting Design Leadership 

through Skills Development Programs. Design 

Management Journal, 13(3) 

TOVEY, M., PORTER, S., NEWMAN, R. 2003. Sketching, 

concept development and automotive design. Design 

Studies, 24(2), pp. 135-153. 

361 

TURNER, R., TOPALIAN, A. 2002. Core of Responsibilities 

of Design Leaders in Commercially Demanding 

Environments. Design Leadership Forum (Inaugural 

session). London: Alto Design Management. 

ULLMAN, D., DIETTRICH, T., STAUFFER, L. 1988. A model of 

the mechanical engineering process based on empirical 

data. AI EDAM, 2(1), pp.33-52. 

URBAN, G., HAUSER, J. 1993. Design and Marketing of New 

Products, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. 

UTTERBACH, J. ALVAREZ, E. EKMAN, S. SANDERSON, S. 

TETHER, B. VERGANTI, R. 2006. Chapter one: What makes 

products great? In UTTERBACH, J. (ED.) Design Inspired 

Innovation. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing Co. 

Pte. Ltd. 

VALKENBURG, R. 2000. The Reflective Practice in Product 

Design Teams. TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design 

Engineering. 

VAN DER LUGT, R. 2001. Sketching in design idea 

generation meetings. TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial 

Design Engineering. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


VAN MANEN, M. 1990. Researching lived experience, 

Ontario, The Althouse Press. 

VARELA, F., THOMPSON, E., ROSCH, E. 1991. The Embodied 

Mind, Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. 

VERMAAS, P., DORST, K. 2007. On the conceptual framework 

of John Gero’s FBS-model and the prescriptive aims of 

design methodology. Design Studies, 28(2), pp. 133-157. 

VISSER, W. 1988. Giving up a Hierarchical Plan in a Design 

Activity. Rocquencourt, France: Institut National de 

Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. 

VISSER, W. 1992. Designers’ activities reviewed at three 

levels: organization, strategies and problem-solving 

processes. Knowledge Based Systems 5(1), pp. 92-104. 

VISSER, W. 2006. The Cognitive Artifact of Designing 

Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

VISSER, W. 2009. Design: one, but in different forms. 


VON STAMM, B. 2003. Managing Innovation, Design & 

Creativity, England, Wiley. 

362 

WALKER, J., CHAPLIN, S. 1997. Visual Culture: An 

Introduction, Manchester, Manchester University Press. 

WALSH, V., ROY, R., BRUCE, M., POTTER, S. 1992. Winning 

by Design, Technology, product Design and International 

Competitiveness, Oxford, Blackwell Business. 

WALSH, V. 1995. The evaluation of design. International 

Journal of Technology Management, 10(4/5/6), pp. 489-509. 

WALSH, V. 2000. Design, Innovation and the Boundaries 

of the Firm. Design Management Journal, Academic 

Review, pp. 174-92. 

WALTON, M. 2003. Building a case for added value though 

design. Report to Industry New Zealand. Wellington: NZ 

Institute of Economic Research (Inc.). 

WALTON, T. 2000. Design management as a business 

and academic discipline. Design Management Journal, 

Academic Review, 1, pp. 5-8. 

WALTON, T. 2002. Exploring the Fundamental 

Relationship between Design and Good Business. Design 


WARD, T., SMITH, S., FINKE, R. 1999. Creative Cognition. 

In: STENBERG, R. (ed.) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press

WEISS, L. 2002. Developing Tangible Strategies. Design 


WILLIAMS, T., SCHAAF, W., BURNETTE, A. 1999. A History 

of Invention: From Stone Axes to Silicon Chips, London, 

Litlle, Brown and Company. 

WINOGRAD, T., FLORES, F. 1986. Understanding computers 

and cognition, Norwood New Jersey, Ablex. 

WINOGRAD, T., FLORES, F. 1996. Computers and Cognition. 

A New Foundation for Design, Norwood, New Jersey, 

Ablex. 

YATES, J., VEINOTT, E., PATALAN, A. 2002. Hard Decisions, 

Bad Decisions: on Decision Quality and Decision 

Aiding. In: SCHNEIDER, S., SHANTEAU, J. (eds.) Emerging 

Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. Boston, 

MA: Cambridge University Press 

363 

BIBLIOGRAPHY


364

APPENDIX A 

GLOSSARY 

Constructionism - Constructionist learning is inspired 

by the constructivist theory were individual learners 

construct mental models to understand the world 

around them. Nevertheless, constructionism grasps that 

learning can happen most effectively when people are 

also active in making tangible objects in the real world. 

Being so, constructionism is related with experiential 

learning and builds on some of the ideas of Jean Piaget. 

Constructivism - Constructivism is a psychological 

theory of knowledge (epistemology) which argues 

that humans generate knowledge and meaning from 

their experiences. Constructivism is not a specific 

pedagogy, even though it is frequently confused with 

constructionism, an educational theory developed by 

Seymour Papert. 

Declarative knowledge - Declarative knowledge 

is knowing “that” (e.g., that Lisbon is the capital of 

Portugal), as contrasting to procedural knowledge is 

knowing “how” (e.g., how to cycle a bicycle). Declarative 

knowledge is further divided into: a) Episodic knowledge: 

memory for “episodes” (i.e., the context of where, when, 

who with etc); usually measured by accuracy measures, 

as autobiographical reference. b) Semantic knowledge: 

Memory for knowledge of the world, facts, meaning of 

words, etc. (e.g., knowing that the first month of the year 

is April (alphabetically) but January (chronologically). 

365 

Heuristic - from the Greek “Ε ρίσκω” for “find” 

or “discover”) is an adjective for experience-based 

techniques that help in problem solving, learning and 

discovery. A heuristic method is particularly used to 

rapidly come to a solution that is hoped to be close to the 

best possible answer, or ‘optimal solution’. Heuristics are 

“rules of thumb”, educated guesses, intuitive judgments 

or simply common sense. In more precise terms, 

heuristics stand for strategies using readily accessible, 

though loosely applicable, information to control 

problem solving in human beings and machines. 

Intuition - is the apparent ability to acquire knowledge 

without inference or the use of reason. “The word 

‘intuition’ comes from the Latin word ‘intueri’, which is 

GLOSSARY


often roughly translated as meaning ‘to look inside’ or 

‘to contemplate’.” Intuition provides us with beliefs that 

we cannot necessarily justify. Intuition is one of Swiss 

psychologist Carl Jung’s four ‘psychological types’ or ego 

functions. In this early model of the personal psyche, 

intuition was opposed by sensation on one axis, while 

feeling was opposed by thinking on another axis. Jung 

argued that, in a given individual, one of these four 

functions was primary — most prominent or developed 

— in the consciousness. The opposing function would 

typically be underdeveloped in that individual. The 

remaining pair (on the other axis) would be consciously 

active, but to a lesser extent than the primary function. 

This schema is perhaps most familiar today as the Myers- 

Briggs Type Indicator. 

366 

Phenomenology - “Phenomenology” comes from 

the Greek words phainómenon, meaning “that which 

appears”, and lógos, meaning “study”. In Husserl’s 

conception, phenomenology is primarily concerned 

with making the structures of consciousness, and the 

phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness, 

objects of systematic reflection and analysis. Such 

reflection was to take place from a highly modified “first 

person” viewpoint, studying phenomena not as they 

appear to “my” consciousness, but to any consciousness 

whatsoever. Husserl believed that phenomenology 

could thus provide a firm basis for all human knowledge, 

including scientific knowledge, and could establish 

philosophy as a “rigorous science”. Husserl’s conception 

of phenomenology has been criticised and developed 

not only by himself, but also by his student Martin 

Heidegger, by existentialists, such as Maurice Merleau- 

Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and by other philosophers, such 

as Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas, and Alfred Schütz. 

(Wikipedia) 

Positivist epistemology - Rests on three dichotomies. 

First, the separation of means from ends, since 

instrumental problem solving is seen as a technical 

procedure to be measured by its effectiveness in 

achieving a pre-established objective. Second, the 

separation of research from practice: Practice as 

application to problems of research based theories, 

verified via controlled experiments. Third, the separation 

of knowing from doing, action is only an implementation 

and test of technical decision.

Pragmatism - is a philosophical movement that includes 

those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if 

it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is 

to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, 

and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. (Wikipedia 

definition) 

Qualitative data - is descriptive data from observation 

or unstructured interviews (Taylor et al., 1995 p632) 53 . 

Quantitative data - is data in numerical form, often 

derived from questionnaires or structured interviews. 

Creativity criteria – the extent to which the concept 

presents something partly or wholly novel either in 

material, formal, technical , constructive, or use terms; 

Decision Making Process criteria – the adequacy of 

decisions that are taken along the process resulting in 

consistent moves towards a coherent solution (s) 

Ease of Installation and Maintenance criteria - Allows 

a friendly installation and maintenance without the use 

of special tools and / or specific technical training. 

Energy Efficiency criteria - Degree to which the Project 

makes a rational and efficient use of the total energy 

used for its operation. 

367 

Feasibility criteria –The extent to which the design can 

be achieved or put into effect, the degree in which the 

design is doable. 

Overall Quality criteria - Overall judgement of the 

designing. 

Production costs criteria - Suitability between 

production costs and the value perceived by the 

market. 

Prototypicality criteria – the extent to which the design 

is prototypical for its class of products. What Purcell 

(1984) named goodness of example and refers to the 

referent you have for a category of objects regardless 

your judgement if it is a good or bad example of a 

category; If you feel that the concept is the best example 

53. Taylor, P., Richardson, J., Yeo, 

A., Marsh, I., Trobe, K. and A. 

Pilkington (1995). Sociology in 

focus. Ormskirk, Causeway Press. 

GLOSSARY


of your image of a litter-disposal system you will use 10 

to grade it; if you feel that it is the worst example you 

should use 1. 

Quality of the communicative interaction criteria 

- the potential to visually and verbally stimulate 

intervention so as to guarantee the total understanding 

of the ideas, contexts, concepts and technical solutions 

which make up the product design. 

Reflection-in-action (Schön) - Comprehensive 

conversation with the materials of a situation that allows 

to reshaping during the working process. 

Reflection-on-action (Schön) - “Lessons learned,” 

reflection on tacit understandings and assumptions 

to achieve deeper understanding motivations and 

behaviours. 

368 

Strategic adequacy criteria – the extent to which the 

concept integrates and aligns the formal, technical and 

constructive aspects with business aspects i.e. the extent 

to which the product is able to assume a correct market 

positioning, contributing for brand consolidation and 

company’s reputation. 

Tacit Knowledge - is a term coined by Michael Polyani 

that identifyes a pre-logical phase of knowing as Tacit 

knowledge comprises a range of conceptual and sensory 

information and images that can be brought to bear in 

an attempt to make sense of something. 

Technical rationality (TR) - Professional activity consists 

of instrumental problem solving activity made rigorous 

by the application of scientific theory and techniques.

369 

GLOSSARY

decision making in the conceptual phase of design processes

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?