Prescriptive Design Models - Essay Example

Prescriptive Design Models Design research is growing rapidly and maturing each day. This means engineers have to carry out design thinking within and outside their disciplinary domain. This has resulted in creation of a range of methods and design accounts, where the design researcher avail richly equipped design thinking tool box with instruments of design, and the cognitive analysis of actual design (Vermaas, n,d). This has resulted in formulation of prescriptive principles, which is a strategic approach to complex engineering design problems, simplifying the various stages required in the process and then integrating the various sections to form the whole design process.

Pahl & Beitz (1988) developed the systematic approach in design, and divided the flow of work into four distinct steps. According to Pahl and Beitz, the first and initial stage in prescriptive design is clarification of the task. This entails collecting enough materials regarding information of the project, the requirements of the specific design, and the constraints to be faced in the actual design work. These stages will prepare a learner psychologically by offering the background information regarding the design, what they are actually required to do and the limits in terms of requirements and the scope of the actual design.

The second stage according to this model would be the conceptual design. This process as Pahl & Beitz explain involves establishing functional structures, searching for the most suitable and viable solution principles and combining these to form a concept or design alternatives. This approach broadens a learner’s approach to have various ways in which they may approach the design process by understanding the component better through its functional dimension, and broadening the concept to find other design alternatives.

According to Pahl & Beitz, after understanding the functionality of the component and having several design approaches, the next step would be the embodiment design. This entails development of layouts and concept forms, evaluating them, determining the specific preliminary layout, optimizing it, defining layout, and determining the production procedures of such a product. Visser (2006) noted that the process entails a cognitive analysis of the real design, where the learner brainstorms to find the more appropriate design.

The final state is the final design. As Lewis & Samuel (1989) elaborate, the above four stages have two major phases which are; recognizing and defining a problem and searching for possible solutions, and finally selecting the best alternative to solve the problem. To understand the design process better, the learner according to design the model has to view the problem as a multidisciplinary problem, requiring a broader approach to solve (Pugh, 1991). Mathews (2011) further notes that the use of technical language through symbols helps an individual to understand broader concepts, yet requiring just a few symbols to comprehend.

This as Mathews explains is the rationale behind standard bodies’ proliferation; implying though the bodies work independently they have to be governed by published standardized laws and practice constraints. These standards have been tried, tested, and work across the engineering practice, which entails harmonization of engineering principles. Such harmonization offers a structure through which design has to be approached and understood through use of standards in all stages of the design.

Therefore as Dorst (2008) elaborates, these design stages avoid the rash between description and prescription, which may result in confusion to new designers. Therefore, as Brown (2009) prescriptive model applies design thinking to other different problems away from engineering, it makes it easier to appreciate and understand problems. The functional model as suggested by Pahl & Beitz (2007) requires functional reasoning, which similar to Brown’s model can be applied in normal problem solving, thereby training learners to apply design approach procedures in solving other problems, which will help them to understand design better.

This is essential considering that design can be demarcated into a broad format, similar to a reasoning activity, where a concept taken as a position to define the truth is transformed into knowledge (Hatchuel & Weil, 2009). This makes design both a cognitive and practical activity. References List Brown, T., 2009. Change by Design: how Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, NY: Harper Business Dorst,K., 2008 Design Research: A Revolution –waiting-to Happen, Design Studies, 29, 4-11 Hatchuel, A.

, & Weil B., 2009. C-K Design Theory: Advanced Formulation Research in Engineering Design, 19, 1881-192 Lewis W.P., & Samuel A.E., 1989. Fundamentals of Engineering Design, NY: Prentice Hall Matthews, C., 2011. IMechE Engineers’ Data book, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Pahl, G., & Beitz W., 1988. Engineering Design: A systematic Approach, Berlin: Springer Verlag Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen J., & Grote, K., 2007. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, Chichester, Wiley Pugh, S., 1991. Total Design Integrated methods for Successful Product Engineering, Essex: Addison-Wesley Vermass, P.

E, Beyond Expert Design Thinking on General, Descriptive and Prescriptive Models, Interpreting Design Thinking, 405-413 Visser, W., 2006. The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum