Difference in Similarity: Interpreting the Architectural Design Process

Abstract

Depending on discipline, models of the design process tend to focus on one of three general concepts: representation, form, and structure. We hypothesise that aspects of each concept will be found when studying designing from one particular discipline and that, in the case of architecture, the three concepts can be combined to produce a general model of the architectural design process. To show this we have developed a ‘difference in similarity’ methodology-studying individual differences through general behavioural patterns—to carrying out a study of five architects varying in experience from six to fifteen years. Our results support our hypothesis and also suggest that as designers gain both general and specific experience of architecture they are able to quickly generate a problem paradigm, or coherent grasp of a set of issues in a particular design situation. We observe distinct patterns of reasoning in all designers and present a general model of the architectural design process.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agabani

F A

, 1980 Cognitive Aspects of Architectural Design Problem Solving PhD thesis, Department of Architecture, Sheffield University, Sheffield

Cross

, 1989 Engineering Design Methods (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)

Darke

, 1979, “The primary generator and the design process” Design Studies 1 36–44

Davies

S P

, 1991, “Characterising the program design activity: Neither strictly top-down nor globally opportunistic” Behaviour and Information Technology 10 173–190

Détienne

, 1992, “Acquiring experience in object-oriented programming: Effects on design strategies”, in Cognitive Models and Intelligent Environments for Learning Programming Eds Lemut

du Boulay

Dettori

, (Springer, Berlin) pp 31–42

Downing

, 1992, “Conversations in imagery” Design Studies 13 291–319

Eastman

C M

, 1970, “On the analysis of intuitive design processes”, in Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning Ed. Moore

G T

, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 21–37

Eckersley

, 1988, “The form of design processes: A protocol analysis study” Design Studies 9 86–94

Galle

Kovàcs

L B

, 1992, “Introspective observations of sketch design” Design Studies 13 229–272

10.

Guindon

, 1990a, “Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts” Human Computer Interaction 5 305–344

11.

Guindon

, 1990b, “Knowledge exploited by experts during software system design” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 33279–304

12.

Hillier

Musgrove

O'Sullivan

, 1984, “Knowledge and design”, in Developments in Design Methodology Ed. Cross

, (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 245–265

13.

Jones

J C

, 1980 Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)

14.

Lawson

B R

, 1990 How Designers Think (Butterworth, Sevenoaks, Kent)

15.

Lloyd

P A

Scott

P J

, 1994, “Discovering the design problem” Design Studies 15 125–140

16.

March

L J

, 1976, “The logic of design”, in The Architecture of Form Ed. March

L J

, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 1–40

17.

Newell

Simon

H A

, 1972 Human Problem Solving (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)

18.

Pahl

Beitz

, 1984 Engineering Design (The Design Council, London)

19.

Rittel

H W J

Webber

M M

, 1973, “Planning problems are wicked problems” Policy Sciences 4 155–169

20.

Roozenburg

N F M

Cross

N G

, 1991, “Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines” Design Studies 12 215–220

21.

Schön

D A

, 1983 The Reflective Practitioner (Temple Smith, London)

22.

Schön

D A

, 1984, “Problems, frames and perspectives on designing” Design Studies 5 132–136

23.

Schön

D A

, 1988, “Designing: Rules, types and worlds” Design Studies 9 181–190

24.

Schön

D A

, 1992, “Kinds of seeing and their function in designing” Design Studies 13 135–156

25.

Tovey

, 1986, “Thinking styles and modelling systems” Design Studies 7 20–30

26.

Visser

, 1990, “More or less following a plan during design: Opportunistic deviations in specification” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 33 247–278