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

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 sense of the initial design brief.

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 than directly related to characteristics of design solutions.


After identifying the key aspects required to be considered, ID teams then examined the relationships between the "named" elements and "frame" the design space in which ideation and concept development was conducted. The colored lines/texts in Figure 4 labeled designers' endeavors of connecting the identified element to formulate a coherent design "frame" that

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

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

35

Problem analysis and framing in the ID sessions was semi-structured. Though the search of pertinent elements aimed to systematically explore the problem, it was never intended to be exhaustive. Instead, a set of particular design problem probes were used, such as humancentric factors, sensory experience, interaction, emotion, etc. (cf. Table 1). Once an promising opportunity was identified, ID teams would take "opportunistic" moves [35, 36] and propose some tentative solutions (usually in abstract forms) accordingly. There is no evidence showing

ME teams put less emphasis in understanding the design problem than ID teams did. The issues discussed in the early episodes (Table 1) were either prescribed in the design brief, such as "target users" and "types of entertainment", or related to syntactic attributes of product, such as "size/dimension" and "technology". They focused on the clarification of the problem stated in the initial task description than proactively explore the problematic situation from various perspectives. They quickly made a checklist-like "specification", which was used later to evaluate whether or not their solution fulfilled these requirements. Two examples of ME

The different quantities of ID and ME teams' named elements reflect an attitudinal difference about the role of a design brief between ID and ME students. ME teams tended to treat the initial design brief as a given problem, though it may not provide a completed picture. What they ought to do is to fill the missing information and turn it into a set of measurable criteria. The stated problem was thus remain unchanged and can facilitate solution development. The "problem framing", i.e., selectively viewing a situation from various ways [20, 21], were not

facilitate tentative design "moves" towards the solution [20, 21].

ID teams may stick to a rigidly structured systematic process.

teams' named list are presented in Figure 5.

**Figure 5.** Specifications proposed in ME team's problem analysis

**Table 1.** Elements identified to define the design problem

**Figure 4.** Mind maps used in ID team's problem framing

After identifying the key aspects required to be considered, ID teams then examined the relationships between the "named" elements and "frame" the design space in which ideation and concept development was conducted. The colored lines/texts in Figure 4 labeled designers' endeavors of connecting the identified element to formulate a coherent design "frame" that facilitate tentative design "moves" towards the solution [20, 21].

Problem analysis and framing in the ID sessions was semi-structured. Though the search of pertinent elements aimed to systematically explore the problem, it was never intended to be exhaustive. Instead, a set of particular design problem probes were used, such as humancentric factors, sensory experience, interaction, emotion, etc. (cf. Table 1). Once an promising opportunity was identified, ID teams would take "opportunistic" moves [35, 36] and propose some tentative solutions (usually in abstract forms) accordingly. There is no evidence showing ID teams may stick to a rigidly structured systematic process.

ME teams put less emphasis in understanding the design problem than ID teams did. The issues discussed in the early episodes (Table 1) were either prescribed in the design brief, such as "target users" and "types of entertainment", or related to syntactic attributes of product, such as "size/dimension" and "technology". They focused on the clarification of the problem stated in the initial task description than proactively explore the problematic situation from various perspectives. They quickly made a checklist-like "specification", which was used later to evaluate whether or not their solution fulfilled these requirements. Two examples of ME teams' named list are presented in Figure 5.

**Figure 5.** Specifications proposed in ME team's problem analysis

Session\Team **1 2 3 4**

Making process

electric) Market trend Interactivity

Context (one the go/ not on the go) Type (electric vs nonPeople Type of coffee Ways to make coffee Ways to drink coffee

People Types of coffee Ways to make coffee How to enrich experience

People & lifestyle 5 Senses (visual, sound, smell, touch & taste) Analysis of existing

Features (existing, maybe

Type of entertainment Feature (portable, easy to

products

to have)

use)

Target user Size Cost

Look Fun stuffs Market analysis Technology

Who

electronic) Where

Sensory

Sleek stuffs Size

Portable size + large

AR/VR

display Interactive

Target user Target user

Types of entertainment

& products

What (electronic vs non-

How (passive vs active)

Who Why When Where What

ID,Task 1 (existing market)

ID,Task 2 (future market)

ME,Task 1 (existing market)

ME,Task 2 (future market) Context People & lifestyle

34 Advances in Industrial Design Engineering

When What (small, personalized) How (dispense) Sensory experience

(aroma)

Places Physical/digital Intuitive interaction

Game

Past/now/future Sensory experience

Type of coffee maker Size/dimension

**Table 1.** Elements identified to define the design problem

**Figure 4.** Mind maps used in ID team's problem framing

Types of relevant products Technology (VR) Size (portability)

Target user

The different quantities of ID and ME teams' named elements reflect an attitudinal difference about the role of a design brief between ID and ME students. ME teams tended to treat the initial design brief as a given problem, though it may not provide a completed picture. What they ought to do is to fill the missing information and turn it into a set of measurable criteria. The stated problem was thus remain unchanged and can facilitate solution development. The "problem framing", i.e., selectively viewing a situation from various ways [20, 21], were not observed in ME sessions. ID students, on the other hand, consideredthe design problem as an imperative to innovation. The ID problem may constantly evolve when the designing process progressed. During the concept development stage, ID teams rarely made an explicit com‐ parison between their solution and the formulated problem.
