Research in Engineering Design (1993) 5:63-69 Research in

i993 Springer-Verlag London Limited

El gineering
esign

Science and Design Methodology: A Review

Nigel Cross
Design Discipline,Faculty of Technology,The Open University,Milton KeynesMK7 6AA, UK

Abstract. Design methodology has always seemed to have a in Engineering Design with a review of previous
problematic relationship with science. The "design methods research.
movement" started out with intentions of making design more
"scientific", but the more mature field of design methodology
has resulted in clarifying the differences between design and
science. This paper reviews the relatively short history of 2. A Brief Overview
design methodology and its relationship with science, maps
out some of the major themes that have sustained it, and tries
The origins of the emergence of new design methods
to esrabl~ish some agreed understanding for the concepts of
in the t950s and 1960s lay in the application of novel,
scientific design, design science and the science of design.
"scientific" methods to the novel and pressing
Keywords. Design methodology; Design science; problems of the Second World War--from which
came OR and management decision-making techni-
Science of design
q u e s - a n d in the development of creativity techniques
in the 1950s. (The latter was partly, in the USA, in
response to the launch of the first sputnik, which
seemed to convince American scientists and engineers
that they lacked creativity.)
1. Introduction The new "design methods movement" developed
through a series of conferences in the 1960s and
It is now more than thirty years since the first 1970s - London, 1962 (Jones and Thornley 1963);
Birmingham, 1965 (Gregory 1966); Portsmouth, 1967
conference on design methods was held in London in
1962 (Jones and Thornley t963). This conference is (Broadbent and Ward 1969); Cambridge, Mass., 1969
generally regarded as the event which marked the (Moore 1970); London I973; New York 1974 (Spillers
t974); Berkeley, Calif., 1975, Portsmouth again in 1976
launch of the "design methods movement", which in
(Evans et al. 1982) and again in 1980 (Jacques and
turn led to the emergence of design methodology as
a subject or field of enquiry. Of course, the field was Powell 1981).
based on some earlier work (the earliest reference in The first design methods or methodology books also
appeared in this period - Hall (1962), Asimow (1962),
design methodology literature is probably Zwicky's
Alexander (1964), Archer (1965), Jones (1970) and
work on morphological method published in 1948
(Zwicky t948)), but the 1962 conference was the first Broadbent (1973), together with the first creativity
time that "design methods" received substantial books - Gordon (t961) and Osborn (1963).
academic recognition. However, the 1970s also became notable for the
So the history of design methodology is still rather rejection of design methodology by the early pioneers.
a brief one. Some previous "history" reviews have been Christopher Alexander said: "I've disassociated myself
from the field . . . . There is so little in what is called
by Broadbent (t979) and Cross (1980 1984). In
1986 the Design Methods Group celebrated its 'design methods' that has anything useful to say about
twentieth anniversary with some special reviews in its how to design buildings that I never even read the
journal Design Methods and Theories. Finger and literature any more . . . . I would say forget it, forget
Dixon (1989) opened the first issue of Research the whole thing . . . . If you call it 'It's A Good Idea To
Do', I like it very much; if you call it 'A Method', I
Correspondence and offprint requests to." Nigel Cross, The Open like it but I'm beginning to get turned off; if you call
University, Milton KeynesMK7 6AA, UK. it 'A Methodology', I just do not want to talk about
64 N. Cross

it." (Alexander 197t), and J. Christopher Jones said: Deutscher Ingenieure) in Germany. These develop-
"In the 1970s I reacted against design methods. I ments were especially strong in England, Germany
disliked the machine language, the behaviourism, the and Japan (Hongo and Nakajima, 1991), if not in the
continual attempt to fix the whole of life into a logical USA. (Although there may still have been only limited
framework." (Jones 1977) evidence of practical applications and results.) A series
These were pretty harsh things for these two of books on engineering design methods and method-
founding fathers to say about their offspring, and were ology began to appear. Just to mention some
potentially devastating to those who were still English-language ones, these included Hubka (1982),
nurturing the infant. To put the quotations of Pahl and Beitz (1984), French (1985), Cross (1989)
Alexander and Jones into context, it may be necessary and Pugh (1991).
to recall the social-cultural climate of the late It should also be acknowledged that in the USA
1960s - the campus revolutions, the new liberal there were some important conferences on design
humanism and rejection of previous values. But also theory, and the National Science Foundation initiative
it had to be acknowledged (and it was) that there had on design theory and methods (perhaps in response
been a lack of success in the application of"scientific" to German and Japanese progress - like the earlier
methods to design. Fundamental issues were also response to the first sputnik?) led to substantial growth
raised by Rittel and Webber (1973), who characterised in engineering design methodology in the late 1980s.
design and planning problems as "wicked" problems, ASME, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
fundamentally unamenable to the techniques of launched a series of conferences on Design Theory
science (and engineering), which dealt with "tame" and Methodology (Stauffer, t991).
problems. So the development of "second generations" of
Design methodology was temporarily saved, how- design methodology in architecture and engineering
ever, by Rittel's (1973) brilliant proposal of "genera- appeared to diverge from each other in the 1970s and
tions" of methods. He suggested that the developments 1980s. Roozenburg and Cross (1991) have pointed out
of the 1960s had been only "first-generation" methods that these two fields have tended to diverge especially
(which naturally, with hindsight, seemed a bit simplis- in their models of the design process, to the detriment
tic, but none the less had been a necessary beginning) of both. Perhaps a third generation of the 1990s might
and that a new, second generation was beginning to be based on a combination of the previous two; or,
emerge. This suggestion was brilliant because it let the as in the model proposed by Cross (1989), on
new methodologists escape from their commitment to understanding the "commutative" (Archer 1979)
inadequate "first-generation" methods, and it opened nature of problem and solution in design. There was
a vista of an endless future of generation upon also a broader renewal of interest in design method-
generation of new methods. ology in the late 1980s - especially in AI developments,
We might wonder what has happened to Rittel's where hope springs again for design automation
theory of "generations". The first generation (of the and/or intelligent electronic design assistants.
1960s) was based on the application of systematic, A particularly significant development has been the
rational, "scientific" methods. The second generation emergence of new journals of design research, theory
(of the early 1970s) moved away from attempts to and methodology. Just to refer, again, to publications
optimise and from the omnipotence of the designer in English, we have had Design Studies (UK) since
(especially for "wicked problems"), towards recogni- 1979, Design Issues (USA) since 1984, Research in
tion of satisfactory or appropriate solution-types Engineering Design (USA) since 1989, the Journal of
(Simon (1969) had introduced the notion of "satisfic- Engineering Design (UK) since 1990 and the Journal
ing") and an "argumentative", participatory process of Design Management (USA) since 1990.
in which designers are partners with the problem
"owners" (clients, customers, users, the community).
However, this approach tends to be more relevant to 3. Relationships Between Design
architecture and planning than engineering and Methodology and Science
industrial design, and meanwhile these latter fields
were still developing their methodologies but in a From the earliest days, design methodologists have
different direction. sought to make distinctions between design and
Engineering design methodology developed strongly science, as reflected in the following quotations.
in the 1980s; for example, in Europe, through Scientists try to identify the components of existing
ICED - the series of International Conferences on structures, designers try to shape the components of new
Engineering Design - and the work of the VDI (Verein structures. (Alexander 1964)
Science and Design Methodology:A Review 65

The scientific method is a pattern of problem solving based on acts of perception, and "it is the epistemology
behaviour employed in finding out the nature of what of design that has inherited the task of developing the
exists, whereas the design method is a pattern ofbehaviour logic of creativity, hypothesis innovation or invention
employed in inventing things ... which do not yet exist. that has proved so elusive to the philosophers of
Science is analytic; design is constructive. (Gregory 1966) science."
The natural sciences are concerned with how things More informed views of both science and design
are.., design on the other hand is concerned with how now exist than they did in the t960s. As Levy (1985)
things ought to be. (Simon 1969) wrote, "Science is no longer perceived in terms of a
single fixed methodology focused on a specific view of
Glynn (1985) has pointed out that the above the world. It is more an expanded rationality for
distinctions tend to be based on a positivistic (and problem-identifying, -structuring and -solving activi-
possibly simplistic) view of the nature of science, and ties." This makes scientific methodology sound indis-
that scientists too, like designers, create their hy- tinguishable from design methodology. Thus the
potheses and theories, and use these theories to guide simple dichotomies expressed in the 1960s are being
their search for facts. Hillier et aL (1972) also criti- replaced by a more complex recognition of the web
cized design methodologists for basing their ideas of interdependencies between knowledge, action and
on outmoded concepts of scientific method and reflection.
epistemology. But in some places, old attitudes die hard! The
Cross et al. (1981) went so far as to suggest that the editorial in the very first issue of this journal was clear
current epistemology of science is in some confusion about the journal's aim to change design from an art
and therefore is a most unreliable guide for an to a science: " F o r the field of design to advance f r o m
epistemology of design. This conclusion was chal- art to science (emphasis added) requires research . . . . "
lenged by Levy (1985), who suggested that transforma- (Dixon and Finger 1989)
tions within the epistemology of science should be seen Let us at least try to clarify some of the terminology
as active growth and development rather than simply that is used in discussing concepts such as "scientific
chaos, and that it would be naive to try to isolate design", "design science" and "the science of design".
design and technology from science and society.
However, there may ~till be a critical distinction to
be made: method may be vital to science (where it 3.1. Scientific Design
validates the results) but not to design (where results
do not have to be repeatable). As already noted above, the origins of design methods
It is also clear that practitioners, whether in science lay in "scientific" methods, similar to decision theory
or design, do not have to be methodologists. As Sir and the methods of operational research. The origina-
Frederick Bartlett pointed out, "The experimenter tors of the "design methods movement" also realised
must be able to use specific methods rigorously, but that there had been a change from pre-industrial
he need not be in the least concerned with methodo- design to industrial design - and perhaps even to
logy as a body of general principles. Outstanding post-industrial design? The reasons advanced for
'methodologists' have not themselves usually been developing new methods were often based on this
successful experimenters." (Bartlett 1958) If"designer" assumption; modern, industrial design is too complex
is substituted for "experimenter", this observation also for intuitive methods.
holds true in the context of design. The first half of this century had also seen the rapid
The Design Research Society's "Design: Science: growth of scientific underpinnings in many types of
Method" conference of 1980 (Jacques and Powdl design - e.g. materials science, engineering science,
1981) gave an opportunity to air many of these building science, behavioural science. A relatively
considerations. The general feeling from that con- simple view of the design - science relationship is that,
ference was that it was time to move on from making through this reliance of modern design upon scientific
simplistic comparisons and distinctions between science knowledge, through the application of scientific
and design; that perhaps there was not so much for knowledge in practical tasks, design "makes science
design to learn from science after all; and that perhaps visible" (Willem 1990).
science rather had something to learn from design. As So we might suggest that "scientific design" refers
Archer (1981) wrote in his paper for that conference, to modern, industrialised design - as distinct from
"Design, like science, is a way of looking at the world pre-industrial, craft-oriented design - based on scien-
and imposing structure upon it." Both science and tific knowledge but utilising a mix of both intuitive
design, as Glynn (1985) pointed out, are essentially and non-intuitive design methods.
66 N. Cross

3.2. Design Science sciences; (2) theory of technical systems; (3) theory of
design processes; (4) design methodology.
"Design science" was a term perhaps first used by Andreasen (1991) points to two important areas of
Gregory (1966), in the context of the 1965 conference theory in design science that are delineated by Hubka
on "The Design Method". Others, too, have the (for mechanical engineering): theory of the design
development of a "design science" as their aim; for process (general procedures, methods, tools) and
example, the originators of the ICED conferences, the theory of machine systems (classification, modelling,
"Workshop Design Konstruction" (WDK), are also etc. of technical systems). This helps to define design
the International Society for Design Science. The science as including both process and product
concern to develop a design science has led to attempts knowledge and theory.
to formulate the design method - a single rationalised So we might conclude that "design science" refers
method, based on formal languages and theories. We to an explicitly organised, rational and wholly
have even had presented the concept of "creativity as systematic approach to design: not just the utilisation
an exact science" (Altshuller 1984). of scientific knowledge of artefacts, but design also in
But a desire to "scientise" design can be traced back some sense as a scientific activity itself.
to ideas in the modern movement of design. The
designer Theo van Doesburg wrote in the 1920s: "Our 3.3. Science of Design
epoch is hostile to every subjective speculation in art,
science, technology, etc. The new spirit, which already There is some confusion between concepts of "design
governs almost all modern life, is opposed to animal science" and of a "science of design", since "science
spontaneity, to nature's domination, to artistic flum- of design" seems to imply (or for some people has an
mery. In order to construct a new object we need a aim of) the development of a "Design Science". For
method, that is to say, an objective system." (van example, we have praxeology, "the science of effective
Doesberg 1923) And a little later, the architect Le action", and in The Sciences of the Artificial Simon
Corbusier wrote: "The use of the house consists of a (1969) defined "the science of design" as "a body of
regular sequence of definite functions. The regular intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalisable,
sequence of these functions is a traffic phenomenon. partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design
To render that traffic exact, economical and rapid is process".
the key effort of modern architectural science." (Le This view is controversial. As Grant (1979), wrote:
Corbusier 1929) "Most opinion among design methodologists and
Hansen (1974), quoted by Hubka and Eder (1987), among designers holds that the act of designing itself
has stated the aim of design science as being to is not and will not ever be a scientific activity; that is,
"recognise laws of design and its activities, and that designing is itself a non-scientific or a-scientific
develop rules." This would seem to be design science activity." However, Grant also made it clear that "the
constituted simply as "systematic d e s i g n " - the pro- study of designing may be a scientific activity; that is,
cedures of designing organised in a systematic way. design as an activity may be the subject of scientific
Hubka and Eder regard this as a narrower interpreta- investigation."
tion of design science than their own: "Design science A similar view of "the science of design" has also
comprises a collection (a system) of logically con- been clearly stated by Gasparski (1990): "The science
nected knowledge in the area of design, and contains of design (should be) understood, just like the science
concepts of technical information and of design of science, as a federation of subdisciplines having
methodology. . . . Design science addresses the prob- design as the subject of their cognitive interests."
lem of determining and categorising all regular In this latter view, therefore, the science of design
phenomena of the systems to be designed, and of the is the study of design - something similar to what I
design process. Design science is also concerned with have elsewhere defined as "design methodology"; the
deriving from the applied knowledge of the natural study of the principles, practices and procedures of
sciences appropriate information in a form suitable design. For me, design methodology "includes the
for the designer's use." study of how designers work and think, the establish-
This definition extends beyond "scientific design", ment of appropriate structures for the design process,
in including systematic knowledge of design process the development and application of new design
and methodology as well as scientific/technological methods, techniques and procedures, and reflection on
underpinnings of design of artefacts. For Hubka and the nature and extent of design knowledge and its
Eder the important constituents of design science are: application to design problems". (N. Cross 1984)
(1) applied knowledge from natural and human So let us conclude here that the "science of design"
Science and Design Methodology:A Review 67

refers to that body of work which attempts to improve Rowe (1987), Davies and Talbot (1987), Wallace and
our understanding of design through "scientific" (i.e. Hales (1987), Stauffer et al. (1987), Eckersley (1988),
systematic, reliable) methods of investigation. Waldron and Waldron (1988). A recent conference in
the Netherlands on "research in design thinking"
brought together several related approaches and
4. Progress in Design Methodology recent new work (Cross et al. 1992).

I conclude here with a brief review of developments

in the science of design (design methodology) over the
4.5. The Philosophy of Design Method: Philosophical
last decade. I will use categories of work similar to
Analysis and Reflection on Design Activity
those I used in Developments in Design Methodology
(N. Cross 1984), which covered the period 1962 - 82.
Some of the comparative discussions of design and
science have already been referred to earlier in this
4.1. The Development of Design Methods:
paper (Levy 1985, Glynn 1985). There have been
Origination and Application of Systematic Methods
several new studies in the epistemology of design
(Buchanan 1989, Zeng and Cheng 1991, Roozenburg
In this category, the last decade has been notable
1992), and we should also include here work in the
for the development of product quality assurance
praxeology of design (Gasparski 1990).
methods, such as Taguchi methods (Ross 1988) and
Some of us have also been theory-building around
quality function deployment (Hauser and Clausing
the concept of "designerly" ways of thinking and
1988).
acting (A. Cross 1984, 1986, Tovey 1986, N. Cross
There has also been significant new work in design
1990), although some aspects of this work have been
automation, using expert systems and other artificial
challenged by Coyne and Snodgrass (1991).
intelligence techniques. A new series of conferences on
AI and design has been established, where this work
is reported (Gero 1991).

4.2. The Management 05 Design Process: Models 5. Conclusion

and Strategies for Executing Design Projects
Design methods emerged in the early 1960s as part of
We have had a new generation of systematic models a desire (with a history going back to the 1920s) to
of the design process, particularly in engineering make design somehow more "scientific". The subject
design, and particularly from Germany (Hubka (1982), became adopted as an academic area of study known
Pahl and Beitz (1984), Verein Deutscher Ingenieure as design methodology.
(VDI) (1987)). We have also seen the emergence For some people, design methodology appeared to
of "concurrent" models of product planning and have died in the 1970s; however, we can now see that
development (Andreasen 1991, Pugh 1991). it survived, and that there has been some particularly
In architecture and planning there has been strong and healthy growth in the 1980s, especially in
development of the "argumentative" process models the engineering and product design fields. There is still
(e.g. McCall 1986). some confusion and controversy over the use of terms
such as design science, but I hope that the discussion
4.3. The Structure of Design Problems: Theoretical
here has helped to clarify this.
Analysis of the Nature of Design Problems
Design methodology has become a much more
There has been significant new work on problem mature academic field, but still suffers from a lack of
"types", for example by Sch6n (1988) and by Oxman confidence in it by design practitioners, and it has had
(1990). In this category we might also include the new little (acknowledged) practical application.
work on formal languages and grammars of design
(Stiny 1980, Flemming 1987).

4.4. The Nature of Design Activity: Empirical Note

Observations of Design Practice
This is a revised version of a paper, "A History of Design
There have been many more protocol and case studies Methodology",prepared for a conferenceon "DesignMethodology
made in this period. Examples include Sch6n (1984), and Relationshipswith Science"(de Vries et aL 1993).
68 N. Cross

References French, M.J. (1985) Conceptual Design for Engineers. London,

Design Council
Gasparski, W. (1990) Editorial: Contributions to Design Science.
Alexander, C. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Design Methods and Theories 24(2): 1186 - 1194
Mass., Harvard University Press Gasparski, W. (1990) On the General Theory (Praxeology) of
Alexander, C. (1971) The State of the Art in Design Methods. DMG Design. Design Methods and Theories 24(2): 1195 - 1215
Newsletter 5(3): 3 - 7 Gero, J. (ed.) (1991) Artificial Intelligence in Design "91. Oxford,
Altshuller, G.S. (1984) Creativity as an Exact Science. London, Butterworth-Heinemann
Gordon & Breach Glynn, S. (1985) Science and Perception as Design. Design Studies
Andreasen, M.M. (199t) Design Methodology. Journal of Engineer- 6(3): 122 - i33
ing Design 2(4): 321 - 335 Gordon, W.J.J. (1961) Synectics. New York, Harper & Row
Archer, L.B. (1965) Systematic Method for Designers. London, Grant, D.P. (1979) Design Methodology and Design Methods.
Design Council Design Methods and Theories 13(1): 4 6 - 47
Archer, L.B. (1979) Whatever Became of Design Methodology? Gregory, S.A. (ed.) (1966) The Design Method. London: Butter-
Design Studies 1(i): I7 - 18 worth
Archer, L.B. (t981) A View of the Nature of Design Research. In Gregory, S.A. (1966) Design Science. In S.A. Gregory (ed.). The
R. Jacques and J. PoweU (ed.) Design: Science: Method. Guildford Design Method. London, Butterworth
Westbury House Hall, A.D. (1962) A Methodologyfor Systems Engineering. Princeton,
Asimow, M. (1962) Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., N.J., Van Nostrand
Prentice-Hall Hansen, F. (1974) Konstruktionswissenschaft. Munich, Carl Hanser
Bartlett, F.C. (1958) Thinking: an Experimental and Social Study. Hauser, J.R.; Clausing, D. (1988) The House of Quality. Harvard
London, George Allen & Unwin Business Review (May/June): 63 - 73
Broadbent, G. (1973) Designin Architecture. Chichester, John Wiley Hiller, B.; Musgrove, J. et al. (1972) Knowledge and Design. In W.J.
Broadbent, G. (1979) The Development of Design Methods. Design Mitchell (ed.) Environmental Design: Research and Practice. Los
Methods and Theories 13(1): 41 - 45 Angeles, Calif., University of California Press
Broadbent, G.; A. Ward (ed.) (1969) Design Methods in Architecture. Hongo, K.: and Nakajima, N. (1991) Relevant Features of the
London: Lund Humphries Decade 198t - t991 for Theories of Design in Japan. Design
Buchanan, R. (1989) Declaration by Design: rhetoric, argument and Studies 12(4): 209 - 214
demonstration in design practice. In V. Margolin (ed.) Design Hubka, V. (1982) Principles of Engineering Design. Guildford,
Discourse. Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press Butterworth
Coyne, R.; A. Snodgrass (1991) Is Designing Mysterious? Challeng- Hubka, V.; Eder W.E. (t987) A Scientific Approach to Engineering
ing the Dual Knowledge Thesis. DesignStudies 12(3): 1 2 4 - 13 I Design. Design Studies 8(3): 123 - 137
Cross, A. (1984) Towards an Understanding of the Intrinsic Values Jacques, R.; Powell, J. (eds) (1981) Design: Science: Method.
of Design Education, Design Studies 5(1): 31 - 39 Guildford, Westbury House
Cross, A. (1986) Design Intelligence: the use of codes and language Jones, J.C. (1970) Design Methods. Chichester, John Wiley
systems in design, Design Studies 7(1): 14 - 19 Jones, J.C. (1977) How My Thoughts About Design Methods Have
Cross, N. (1980) The Recent History of Post-industrial Design Changed During the Years. Design Methods and Theories 11(1):
Methods, in N. Hamilton (ed.) Design and Industry. London, 48 - 62
Design Council Jones, J.C.; Thornley, D.G. (eds) (1963) Conference on Design
Cross, N. (ed.) (1984) Developments in Design Methodology. Methods. Oxford, Pergamon Press
Chichester, John Wiley. Le Corbusier (1929) CIAM 2nd Congress, Frankfurt
Cross, N. (1989) Engineering Design Methods. Chichester, John Levy, R. (1985) Science, Technology and Design. Design Studies
Wiley 6(2): 66 - 72
Cross, N. (1990) The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability, Design McCall, R. (1986) Issue-Serve Systems: a Descriptive Theory of
Studies 11(3): 127 - 140 Design. Design Methods and Theories 20(3): 443 - 458
Cross, N.; Dorst, K.; Roozenburg, N. (eds) (1992) Research in Design Moore, G.T. (ed.) (1970) Emerging Methods in EnvironmentalDesign
Thinking. Delft, Netherlands, Delft University Press and Planning, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Cross, N.; Naughton, J. et al. (1981) Design Method and Scientific Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied Imagination - Principles and Pro-
Method. In R. Jacques and J. Powell (ed.) Design." Science: cedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons
Method. Guildford, Westbury House Oxman, R. (1990) Prior Knowledge in Design. Design Studies 11(1):
Davies, R.; Talbot, R.J. (1987) Experiencing Ideas: Identity, Insight 17 - 28
and the Imago, Design Studies 8(1): 17 - 25 Pahl, G.; Beitz, W. (1984) Engineering Design. London, Design
de Vries, M.J.; Cross, N.; Grant, D.P. (ed.) (1993) Design Council
Methodology and Relationships with Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer Pugh, S. (1991) Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful
Dixon, J.R.; Finger S. (1989) Editorial, Research in Engineering Product Engineering. Wokingham, Addison-Wesley
Design 1(t): t Rittel, H. (1973) The State of the Art in Design Methods. Design
Eckersley, M. (t988) The Form of Design Processes: a Protocol Research and Methods (Design Methods and Theories) 7(2):
Analysis Study, Design Studies 9(2): 86 - 94 143- 147
Evans, B.J.; Powell, J.; Talbot, R. (eds) (1982) Changing Design. Rittel, H. and M. Webber (t973) Dilemmas in a General Theory
Chichester, John Wiley
of Planning. Policy Sciences 4:I55 - 169
Finger, S.; Dixon, J.R. (1989) A Review of Research in Mechanical Roozenburg, N. (1992) On the Logic of Innovative Design, in N.
Engineering Design. Research in EngineeringDesign 1(1): 51 - 67 Cross, C. Dorst and N. Roozenburg (eds). Research in Design
Flemming, U. (1987) The Role of Shape Grammars in the Analysis Thinking. Delft, Delft University Press
and Creation of Designs. In Y.E. Kalay (ed.) Computability of Roozenburg, N.: Cross, N. (1991) Models of the Design Process:
Design. New York, John Wiley Integrating Across the Disciplines. Design Studies 12(4): 215 - 220
Science and Design Methodology: A Review 69

Ross, P.J. (1988) Taguchi Techniquesfor Quality Engineering. New Tovey, M. (1986) Thinking Styles and Modelling Systems. Design
York, McGraw-Hill Studies 7(1): 20 - 30
Rowe, P. (1987) Design Thinking. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press van Doesberg, T. (1923) Towards a Collective Construction, De
Schrn, D. (1984) Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing. Stiff: quoted in Naytor, G. (1968) The Bauhaus. London, Studio
Design Studies 5(3): t32 - 136 Vista
Schrn, D. A. (1988) Designing: Rules, Types and Worlds. Design Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (1987) Systematic Approach to
Studies 9(3): 181 - 190 the Design of Technical Systems and Products: Guideline VD1
Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass., 222I, Berlin, Beuth Verlag
MIT Press Waldron, M.B.; Waldron, KJ. (1988) A Time Sequence Study of a
Spillers, W.R. (ed.) (1974) Basic Questions of Design Theory Complex Mechanical System Design. DesignStudies 9(2): 95 - 106
Amsterdam - New York, North-Holland - Elsevier Wallace, K.; Hales, C. (t987) Detailed Analysis of an Engineering
Stauffer, L.; UUman, D. et al. (1987) Protocol Analysis of Mechanical Design Project. In W.E. Eder (ed.) Proceedingsof the International
Engineering Design. In W.E. Eder (ed.), Proceedings of Interna- Conference on Engineering Design, Boston. New York, American
tional Conference on Engineering Design, Boston, New York, Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Willem, R.A. (1990) Design and Science. DesignStudies 11( 1): 43 - 47
Stauffer, L.A. (ed.) (1991) Design Theory and Methodology - DTM Zeng, Y.; Cheng, G.D. (t991) On the Logic of Design. Design Studies
"9I, New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers 12(3): 1 3 7 - 141
Stiny, G. (1980) Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars. Zwicky, F. (1948) The Morphological Method of Analysis and
Environment and Planning B 7:343 - 351 Construction. In Studies and Essays, New York: Interscience