**3. Examination of consequences of the curricular differences**

The differences identified in design briefs and task descriptions suggest that the two design curricula place different emphases on the "problem finding" activities, i.e., the ways in which problems are envisaged, posed, formulated, created [15, 16]. The examination of these two curricula's influences on students' habitual design behaviors thus focuses on how ID and ME students formulate and solve design problems when given the same set of design briefs and task descriptions. The design experiment was conducted in a design-studio-like setting, as shown in Figure 2. The unit of participation was a small design team formed by 2 final-year undergraduate students. Each team was asked to perform two conceptual design tasks, one for the existing market and one for future market. A detailed description of this experiment is presented in the authors' previous paper [17].

Literature shows there are two types of problem finding, i.e., the "reactive/passive" and "proactive/purposive" problem finding [15, 18]. The former category refers to the prob‐ lem recognition triggered by similarities between the current situation and a known problem type related to existing solutions/problem-solving repertories. "Purposive" prob‐ lem finding refers to proactive formulation of problems which are otherwise not existed or perceived as problems. Purposive problem finding is usually claimed to be "a key as‐ pect of creative thinking and creative performance" [16] and perhaps more important than problem solving [19].

**High level concept/ schema**

Abstract General Context-

Concret e

Design Thinking in Conceptual Design Processes: A Comparison Between Industrial and Engineering Design Students

Designing process transforms human needs or desires into a specification of physical embodi‐ ment. The inspiration source and form development process play an important role deter‐ mining the final solution of the product. An additional analysis is then conducted to compare the "conceptual distance" between the main inspiration source and the final outcomes. This

Design problems have long been recognized as ill-defined [25], ill-structured [26] or "wicked" [27, 28]. A typical design problem usually consists of determined, undetermined and "under‐ determined" elements [29, 30]. The formulation of a workable design problem seems to be the first step of the designing process. Designers need to understand the problematic situation and identify the relevant considerations. Table 1 lists the elements that each team used to make

ID teams seemed to study the design problem from contextual points of view. They were observed spending a large amount of cognitive efforts and time to go through the problem space (e.g., potential user's profile and possible usage contexts), and to explore the potential opportunities to create something new and appropriate (cf. [17, 31]). Their problem analysis and framing activities resembled a semi-structured process, including "naming" and "fram‐ ing" activities [20, 21, 30, 32]. "Mind maps" (a graphic tool to stimulate creativity and idea generation [33]) were often used to assist the discussions during this period. Figure 4 presents two examples of the graphic tools applied in early episodes of ID teams' design sessions. The main branches of graphs in the Figure show how ID teams organized their thinking process and identified the aspects of design that need to be considered. Lateral/divergent thinking [34] was demonstrated in this period which mainly aimed to enlarge the problem space. These identified elements mainly concerned about end users and potential usage contexts, rather

independent

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52460

33

Specific Context-dependent


**Formal prototypes:** - Non-contextual

**Precedents:** - Highly contextual

sense of the initial design brief.

**Functional prototypes:** - Functional context

**Figure 3.** A structure of prior knowledge in design (adapted from [22])

provides a coarse indicator for the design creativity.

**4. Problem formulation: Framing** *versus* **clarification**

than directly related to characteristics of design solutions.

**Figure 2.** Experiment setup

The examination of problem finding or formulation applied Schön's reflection-in-action framework [20, 21]. Designers first "name" the relevant elements to set the boundary of problematic situation and then impose a "frame" to understand the context as well as deter‐ mining actions towards solution. The analysis will focus on the quantity of named elements and how the relationships of these elements are articulated to stimulate designing processes. A small quantity of named elements and relatively direct mapping to design specifications suggest that designers do not spend much effort to proactively formulate their "own" problems to work on.

The analysis of solution development stages of designing focuses on the trajectory in which design ideas/concepts evolve. Oxman[22] proposed a multi-level structure of design knowl‐ edge from specific, context dependent precedents to more abstract, context-independent ones, as shown in Figure 3. Two distinct approaches of designing can be defined with regard to the form of the initial solution, i.e., a schema-driven refinement and a case-driven adaptation [23, 24]. The former approach starts with a highly abstract concept (i.e., a schema), and follows with a sequence of "refinement" operations to "particularize" the initial schematic state into a detailed description of a specific product [23, 24]. The latter refers to a sequence of adaptions made to transform a rather detailed concept (i.e., a case) to work in a new situation.

**Figure 3.** A structure of prior knowledge in design (adapted from [22])

lem finding refers to proactive formulation of problems which are otherwise not existed or perceived as problems. Purposive problem finding is usually claimed to be "a key as‐ pect of creative thinking and creative performance" [16] and perhaps more important

The examination of problem finding or formulation applied Schön's reflection-in-action framework [20, 21]. Designers first "name" the relevant elements to set the boundary of problematic situation and then impose a "frame" to understand the context as well as deter‐ mining actions towards solution. The analysis will focus on the quantity of named elements and how the relationships of these elements are articulated to stimulate designing processes. A small quantity of named elements and relatively direct mapping to design specifications suggest that designers do not spend much effort to proactively formulate their "own"

The analysis of solution development stages of designing focuses on the trajectory in which design ideas/concepts evolve. Oxman[22] proposed a multi-level structure of design knowl‐ edge from specific, context dependent precedents to more abstract, context-independent ones, as shown in Figure 3. Two distinct approaches of designing can be defined with regard to the form of the initial solution, i.e., a schema-driven refinement and a case-driven adaptation [23, 24]. The former approach starts with a highly abstract concept (i.e., a schema), and follows with a sequence of "refinement" operations to "particularize" the initial schematic state into a detailed description of a specific product [23, 24]. The latter refers to a sequence of adaptions

made to transform a rather detailed concept (i.e., a case) to work in a new situation.

than problem solving [19].

32 Advances in Industrial Design Engineering

**Figure 2.** Experiment setup

problems to work on.

Designing process transforms human needs or desires into a specification of physical embodi‐ ment. The inspiration source and form development process play an important role deter‐ mining the final solution of the product. An additional analysis is then conducted to compare the "conceptual distance" between the main inspiration source and the final outcomes. This provides a coarse indicator for the design creativity.
