**5. Solution development: "Schema-driven"** *versus* **"case-driven"**

Preliminary exploration of design observations indicates that most design teams (both ID and ME) seldom changed their strategies when they encountered with different design tasks, though they more elaborated their solution in the design targeting at the existing market than the design for the future market. In general, design concepts were incrementally evolved from initial ideas. The difference between ID and ME's design sessions were mainly observed in the forms of their initial ideas or concepts.

As mentioned in the last section, ID teams mainly explored user and contextual issues in the early episodes of designing. The initial ideas or "primary generator" [37] proposed by them were usually highly abstract and conceptual, such as sensory experience (shown in Figure 6, left). The left panel of Figure 7 demonstrates a trajectory in which an ID concept was developed. The red arrows and annotations were labeled by the authors to visualize the flow of ideas. Many design alternatives were explored and developed in parallel. The abandoned ideas were not shown in this Figure. The keywords underlying this design were "aroma" (smell), "veil of mist" (visual) and "cute" forms. These abstract ideas were thus slowly embodied and refined through a series of thumbnails and sketches, though designers may go back and forth between different levels of abstraction.

**Figure 7.** Two exemplar processes of concept development

During the problem analysis stage, ME teams tended to use specific precedents to under‐ stand the problematic situation. For example, in the right panel of Figure 6, a ME team used existing devices of MP3, VR, e-media, etc. to define the problem space of the design of a fu‐ ture entertainment device. Different from ID's "general to specific" process, ME teams' proc‐

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

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

**Figure 6.** Two notes that assist the problem formulation process (left: ID session, right: ME session)

**Figure 7.** Two exemplar processes of concept development

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‐

Preliminary exploration of design observations indicates that most design teams (both ID and ME) seldom changed their strategies when they encountered with different design tasks, though they more elaborated their solution in the design targeting at the existing market than the design for the future market. In general, design concepts were incrementally evolved from initial ideas. The difference between ID and ME's design sessions were mainly observed in the

As mentioned in the last section, ID teams mainly explored user and contextual issues in the early episodes of designing. The initial ideas or "primary generator" [37] proposed by them were usually highly abstract and conceptual, such as sensory experience (shown in Figure 6, left). The left panel of Figure 7 demonstrates a trajectory in which an ID concept was developed. The red arrows and annotations were labeled by the authors to visualize the flow of ideas. Many design alternatives were explored and developed in parallel. The abandoned ideas were not shown in this Figure. The keywords underlying this design were "aroma" (smell), "veil of mist" (visual) and "cute" forms. These abstract ideas were thus slowly embodied and refined through a series of thumbnails and sketches, though designers may go back and forth between

**5. Solution development: "Schema-driven"** *versus* **"case-driven"**

**Figure 6.** Two notes that assist the problem formulation process (left: ID session, right: ME session)

parison between their solution and the formulated problem.

forms of their initial ideas or concepts.

36 Advances in Industrial Design Engineering

different levels of abstraction.

During the problem analysis stage, ME teams tended to use specific precedents to under‐ stand the problematic situation. For example, in the right panel of Figure 6, a ME team used existing devices of MP3, VR, e-media, etc. to define the problem space of the design of a fu‐ ture entertainment device. Different from ID's "general to specific" process, ME teams' proc‐ esses were usually a "specific to specific" process, i.e., adapting a rather detailed precedent or "functional prototype" to fit the current situation. This approach also refers to case-based reasoning [23]. The right panel of Figure 7 demonstrates an adaption process of designing a coffee maker on the basis of a functional prototype(i.e., a structured form of prior knowl‐ edge in design [22], cf. Figure 3). Adaptions were made with regard to considerations relat‐ ed to the target situation. For example, the size was scaled down to meet a single-person usage. Components, such as the shell, were modified to cut the cost. Much fewer design al‐ ternatives were observed in ME's designing processes.

Figure 8 shows that ID teams tended to drive their designs with a verb (e.g., experience or actions) rather than a noun [38]. For example, they proposed ideas like to "enjoy the aroma" from nice coffee (Fig. 8, 1a), to "shake" like a bartender (Fig. 8, 1b), to "refill" coffee powder like a gumball machine (Fig. 8, 1c), to "paint or draw" like a kid (Fig.8, 2a), to "share gossips" with friends (Fig.8, 2d), etc. Even when they generated forms by analogizing, it was usually undertaken in a very abstract level. As demonstrated by Figure 9, it was the feeling or emotional response that designers tried to recreate, rather than to duplicate the specific forms.

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

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

39

ME teams tended to build solutions on the basis of adaptation from existing products. They seemed to use product morphing or variant method [39, 40], and tended to incorporate salient features of existing products in their designs. Some incremental modifications were made, but the overall system architecture [41] were often kept untouched. Their designs were thus mainly redesigns, or "variant"/ "adaptive" designs [40]. All ME teams displayed a very high degree of similarity in their future product solutions, i.e.,a goggle-based VR system for the future entertainment design. In the design for the existing market (a coffee maker), two teams recreated a simplified version of existing products to reduce the manufacture costs. Though ME tream3 located their inspiration source outside of coffee-related products for their coffee maker concept, they almost duplicated the form of a cradle and squeezing the coffee making

The above results suggest that different types of innovation strategies were preferred between these two groups of students and the preferences seemed to be independent from the nature of design tasks. ID teams seemed to be more interested on radical innovation and their designs were less attached to available design precedents. This claim echoed with Purcell and Gero's [10] study of precedence fixation effect. ME participants may mimic some characteristics of

**Figure 9.** An inspiration source and the implements in an ID designing process

components into this form abruptly, as shown in Figure 10.

inspired sources directly and ID students shown otherwise.

In short, the solution development of ID sessions generally resembled a schema-drive refinement process, and that of ME sessions tended to follow a case-driven adaptation process [23, 24].

#### **5.1. The inspiration sources**

Figure 8 displays the main inspiration sources and the final designs from ID and ME teams. The concepts are presented in sketches and inspiration sources are represented with related photos. The association between their concepts with the inspiration sources was assisted with qualitative analysis of design processes, not just what students claimed in the concept presentations.


**Figure 8.** Design outcomes and their inspiration sources

Figure 8 shows that ID teams tended to drive their designs with a verb (e.g., experience or actions) rather than a noun [38]. For example, they proposed ideas like to "enjoy the aroma" from nice coffee (Fig. 8, 1a), to "shake" like a bartender (Fig. 8, 1b), to "refill" coffee powder like a gumball machine (Fig. 8, 1c), to "paint or draw" like a kid (Fig.8, 2a), to "share gossips" with friends (Fig.8, 2d), etc. Even when they generated forms by analogizing, it was usually undertaken in a very abstract level. As demonstrated by Figure 9, it was the feeling or emotional response that designers tried to recreate, rather than to duplicate the specific forms.

**Figure 9.** An inspiration source and the implements in an ID designing process

esses were usually a "specific to specific" process, i.e., adapting a rather detailed precedent or "functional prototype" to fit the current situation. This approach also refers to case-based reasoning [23]. The right panel of Figure 7 demonstrates an adaption process of designing a coffee maker on the basis of a functional prototype(i.e., a structured form of prior knowl‐ edge in design [22], cf. Figure 3). Adaptions were made with regard to considerations relat‐ ed to the target situation. For example, the size was scaled down to meet a single-person usage. Components, such as the shell, were modified to cut the cost. Much fewer design al‐

In short, the solution development of ID sessions generally resembled a schema-drive refinement process, and that of ME sessions tended to follow a case-driven adaptation process

Figure 8 displays the main inspiration sources and the final designs from ID and ME teams. The concepts are presented in sketches and inspiration sources are represented with related photos. The association between their concepts with the inspiration sources was assisted with qualitative analysis of design processes, not just what students claimed in the concept

> **ME, task 1**  (existing market)

**ME, task 2**  (future market)

**4a** 

**ID, task 2**  (future market)

**1b 2b 3b 4b** 

**1c 2c 3c 4c** 

**1d 2d 3d 4d** 

**1a 2a 3a** 

ternatives were observed in ME's designing processes.

**ID, task 1**  (existing market)

**Figure 8.** Design outcomes and their inspiration sources

[23, 24].

presentations.

**5.1. The inspiration sources**

38 Advances in Industrial Design Engineering

ME teams tended to build solutions on the basis of adaptation from existing products. They seemed to use product morphing or variant method [39, 40], and tended to incorporate salient features of existing products in their designs. Some incremental modifications were made, but the overall system architecture [41] were often kept untouched. Their designs were thus mainly redesigns, or "variant"/ "adaptive" designs [40]. All ME teams displayed a very high degree of similarity in their future product solutions, i.e.,a goggle-based VR system for the future entertainment design. In the design for the existing market (a coffee maker), two teams recreated a simplified version of existing products to reduce the manufacture costs. Though ME tream3 located their inspiration source outside of coffee-related products for their coffee maker concept, they almost duplicated the form of a cradle and squeezing the coffee making components into this form abruptly, as shown in Figure 10.

The above results suggest that different types of innovation strategies were preferred between these two groups of students and the preferences seemed to be independent from the nature of design tasks. ID teams seemed to be more interested on radical innovation and their designs were less attached to available design precedents. This claim echoed with Purcell and Gero's [10] study of precedence fixation effect. ME participants may mimic some characteristics of inspired sources directly and ID students shown otherwise.

teams may treat it as a start point and tended to expand and reformulate the problem based on their investigation. Roozenburg and Dorst[32] argued that "problem framing" concept is proposed to challenge "technical rationality", and primarily views design as a socio-cultural construct [20, 21]. ME students, however, tend to view product as a technical/physical construct and focused on syntactic aspects of design. Problem solving model of designing perhaps is

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

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

41

As stated earlier, NUS ID and ME programs both champion an immersive hands-on approach of teaching and learning, while less relying on traditional lectures. Using research's terminol‐ ogy, the teaching styles of these two programs fall into an "inductive" approach, which learning is characterized by student-centered, active learning and collaborative learning [45, 46]. The different emphases on design problems, or varying degrees of "structuredness"/ "openness" of the problem, further distinguish ID and ME's teaching into two related but different inductive approaches, i.e., problem-based and project-based ones[45, 46]. Problembased teaching/learning is a student-centered pedagogical approach that assumes the "cen‐ trality of problems" to learning [47]. Students work in teams to explore an open-end, illstructure, complex (real-world) problem that usually requires knowledge from various disciplines/domains [48, 49]. A problem-based curriculum is organized around problems, and

Project-based teaching/learning involves an assignment leading to the production of a final product [45, 46]. It may be subdivided into three categories according to high to low levels of student autonomy, i.e., guided project, independent project and independent inquiry [50]. The

The problem statements in project-based learning are relatively well defined and the needed knowledge may be previously acquired in the past courses. ME industry projects (cf. Section 2), for example, roughly defined the scope of knowledge needed, e.g., mechanical design, heat transfer, etc. ID "vertical studio" more expects students to make speculative and exploratory propositions, such as to question the old definition of problem in the modern context or explore the vision of future. It is not about to solve a problem, but to define what the problem is. The evaluation of ID course is thus more qualitative than that of ME projects, which requires more

Some researchers recommend engineering education adopting problem-based teaching/ learning approach to better prepare their students for complex real-world problems [e.g., 51]. Empirical studies have confirmed that problem-based learning has positive effects on the selfdirected problem solving skills and tacit knowledge, but some negative effects are also found in the mastery of declarative knowledge [52]. Compared to speculative nature of ID, more precise requirements in engineering design more relies on a robust base of scientific knowl‐ edge. The failure of engineering design usually has severe consequences of huge cost or even human lives. Several empirical studies also show that experienced engineering designers may heavily rely on the proven solutions and make incremental refinements [53, 54]. Meanwhile, ID is much more tolerant of failure and willing to take risks. The failure of an ID concept usually

more appropriate for the technically-oriented design [30].

the learning process is mainly self-monitored and self-directed.

last form, independent inquiry, is overlapped with problem-based learning.

**6.1. Teaching styles of ID and ME programs**

precise and quantitative calculations.

**Figure 10.** An ME team'scoffee maker concept and its inspiration source

## **6. Discussions**

The qualitative examination of ID and ME teams' conceptual design processes suggests that design curricula have significant impact on senior design students' habitual design behaviors. Independent of which design task they encounter with, students' designing processes generally resembled the schedule of their capstone design courses. ID teams spent considerable time and efforts to make sense of the problematic situation and purposively deferred genera‐ tion of solutions or partial solutions in the stage of problem framing. ME teams, on the contrary,tended to adopt a solution-oriented "problem structuring" strategy [42]. They were more likely to treat the given design brief as the mission and clarify it with envisioned solutions.

The observed behavioral differences between ID and ME students were consistent with their perceptions reported in the pretest questionnaires and follow-up interviews (cf. [43]). Though sharing similar terminologies and designing process models, ID and ME students held quite different understanding of design and designing. ME participants often held a traditional "problem-solving" view of designing. Their reports implied that the problem situations should be already prescribed in design brief, and their job is to recognize them and generate a feasible solution accordingly. ME students also tended to consider the designed product as a selfcontained system, to some extent detached themselves from relevant users and contexts. On the contrary, ID students apprehended design from the perspective of its ultimate aim, i.e., "the improvement of human quality of lives" (excerpted from an ID session'sconversation). The role of user (human) and usage context were usually more emphasized than that of a product per se.

Connecting these findings to the design literature, the problem formulation processes of ID and ME sessions may respectively resemble the two design paradigms, i.e., relation-in-action andproblem solving [44]. ME teams mainly clarified the problem to be solved, whereas ID teams may treat it as a start point and tended to expand and reformulate the problem based on their investigation. Roozenburg and Dorst[32] argued that "problem framing" concept is proposed to challenge "technical rationality", and primarily views design as a socio-cultural construct [20, 21]. ME students, however, tend to view product as a technical/physical construct and focused on syntactic aspects of design. Problem solving model of designing perhaps is more appropriate for the technically-oriented design [30].

#### **6.1. Teaching styles of ID and ME programs**

**Figure 10.** An ME team'scoffee maker concept and its inspiration source

The qualitative examination of ID and ME teams' conceptual design processes suggests that design curricula have significant impact on senior design students' habitual design behaviors. Independent of which design task they encounter with, students' designing processes generally resembled the schedule of their capstone design courses. ID teams spent considerable time and efforts to make sense of the problematic situation and purposively deferred genera‐ tion of solutions or partial solutions in the stage of problem framing. ME teams, on the contrary,tended to adopt a solution-oriented "problem structuring" strategy [42]. They were more likely to treat the given design brief as the mission and clarify it with envisioned

The observed behavioral differences between ID and ME students were consistent with their perceptions reported in the pretest questionnaires and follow-up interviews (cf. [43]). Though sharing similar terminologies and designing process models, ID and ME students held quite different understanding of design and designing. ME participants often held a traditional "problem-solving" view of designing. Their reports implied that the problem situations should be already prescribed in design brief, and their job is to recognize them and generate a feasible solution accordingly. ME students also tended to consider the designed product as a selfcontained system, to some extent detached themselves from relevant users and contexts. On the contrary, ID students apprehended design from the perspective of its ultimate aim, i.e., "the improvement of human quality of lives" (excerpted from an ID session'sconversation). The role of user (human) and usage context were usually more emphasized than that of a

Connecting these findings to the design literature, the problem formulation processes of ID and ME sessions may respectively resemble the two design paradigms, i.e., relation-in-action andproblem solving [44]. ME teams mainly clarified the problem to be solved, whereas ID

**6. Discussions**

40 Advances in Industrial Design Engineering

solutions.

product per se.

As stated earlier, NUS ID and ME programs both champion an immersive hands-on approach of teaching and learning, while less relying on traditional lectures. Using research's terminol‐ ogy, the teaching styles of these two programs fall into an "inductive" approach, which learning is characterized by student-centered, active learning and collaborative learning [45, 46]. The different emphases on design problems, or varying degrees of "structuredness"/ "openness" of the problem, further distinguish ID and ME's teaching into two related but different inductive approaches, i.e., problem-based and project-based ones[45, 46]. Problembased teaching/learning is a student-centered pedagogical approach that assumes the "cen‐ trality of problems" to learning [47]. Students work in teams to explore an open-end, illstructure, complex (real-world) problem that usually requires knowledge from various disciplines/domains [48, 49]. A problem-based curriculum is organized around problems, and the learning process is mainly self-monitored and self-directed.

Project-based teaching/learning involves an assignment leading to the production of a final product [45, 46]. It may be subdivided into three categories according to high to low levels of student autonomy, i.e., guided project, independent project and independent inquiry [50]. The last form, independent inquiry, is overlapped with problem-based learning.

The problem statements in project-based learning are relatively well defined and the needed knowledge may be previously acquired in the past courses. ME industry projects (cf. Section 2), for example, roughly defined the scope of knowledge needed, e.g., mechanical design, heat transfer, etc. ID "vertical studio" more expects students to make speculative and exploratory propositions, such as to question the old definition of problem in the modern context or explore the vision of future. It is not about to solve a problem, but to define what the problem is. The evaluation of ID course is thus more qualitative than that of ME projects, which requires more precise and quantitative calculations.

Some researchers recommend engineering education adopting problem-based teaching/ learning approach to better prepare their students for complex real-world problems [e.g., 51]. Empirical studies have confirmed that problem-based learning has positive effects on the selfdirected problem solving skills and tacit knowledge, but some negative effects are also found in the mastery of declarative knowledge [52]. Compared to speculative nature of ID, more precise requirements in engineering design more relies on a robust base of scientific knowl‐ edge. The failure of engineering design usually has severe consequences of huge cost or even human lives. Several empirical studies also show that experienced engineering designers may heavily rely on the proven solutions and make incremental refinements [53, 54]. Meanwhile, ID is much more tolerant of failure and willing to take risks. The failure of an ID concept usually has a gentler consequence than an engineering failure. This may partially account that ID studio course is more problem-based teaching/ learning whereas ME capstone course is more project-based teaching/ learning.

[8] Akin Ö. Variants in design cognition. In: Eastman CM, McCracken WM, Newstetter WC. (eds.) Design knowing and learning : Cognition in design education. Oxford:

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

43

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

[9] Akin Ö. Variants and invariants of design cognition. In: McDonnell J, Lloyd P. (eds.)

[10] Purcell T., Gero J.S. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies 1996; 17(4):

[11] Lawson B.R. Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics. 1979; 22(1):

[12] NUS ME. Bachelor of engineering (mechanical engineering): Degree requirement. http://me.nus.edu.sg/ prospectivestudent\_undergrad\_req.php/ (accessed July 12,

[13] NUS DID. The synergistic three-pronged approach. 2010. http://nusdid.edu.sg/

[14] Fuh J.Y.H., Lu L., Quan C., Lim S.C. Product design for industry: The NUS experi‐ ence. In: Proceedings of the Engineering Capstone Design Course Conference; June

[15] Getzels J.W., Csikszentmihalyi M. The creative vision: A longitudinal study of prob‐

[16] Jay E.S., Perkins D.N. Problem finding: The search for mechanism. In: Runco MA. (ed.) The creativity research handbook. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press; 1997. p.

[17] Jiang H., Yen C.C. Understanding senior design students' product conceptual design activities: A comparison between industrial and engineering design students. In: the 2010 Design Research Society (DRS) international conference "Design & Complexity";

[18] Kleindorfer P.R., Kunreuther H.C., Schoemaker. P.J.H. Problem finding and alterna‐ tive generation. In: Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker. PJH. (eds.) Deci‐ sion sciences : An integrative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

[19] Runco M.A., eiditor. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood,

[20] Schön D.A. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situa‐

[21] Schön D.A. The reflective practitioner : How professionals think in action (Paperback

whynusdid/ ourapproach.htm/ (accessed July 12, 1011).

lem finding in art. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1976.

About: Design: Analysing design meetings: CRC Press; 2009. p171-92.

Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2001. p. 105-24.

363-83.

59-68.

2011).

2007.

257-93.

1993. p24-63.

7-9 July 2010; Montreal, Canada.

N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1994.

ed.). Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate; 1991.

tion. Knowledge-Based Systems 1992; 5(1): 3-14.

On the other side, the increasing demand of interdisciplinary design collaborations requires designers to better understand or appreciate their neighboring disciplines, in order to form a common ground for effective collaborations. Some fused design curricula are proposed accordingly. A design-centric engineering curriculum (DCC), for example, is recently launched by the NUS Faculty of Engineering. Many elements of design studio's approach are grafted onto engineering design courses to enhance engineering students' capabilities of "identifying and defining problems and formulating innovative and creative solutions" [55]. ID's "Design Thesis Project" module also raises the requirements on ID students' ability to develop and implement an appropriate, well-planned ID solution within the constraints of a "real world" framework of social, environmental, commercial and industrial issues, rather than simply proposing a good concept.
