Evolutionary Design: Philosophy, Theory, and Application Tactics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evolutionary Design: Philosophy, Theory, and Application Tactics V.V. Kryssanov1, H. Tamaki2, S. Kitamura2 1 College of Information Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan 2 Faculty of Engineering, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan Abstract Although it has contributed to remarkable improvements in some specific areas, attempts to develop a universal design theory are generally characterized by failure. This paper sketches arguments for a new approach to engineering design based on Semiotics – the science about signs. The approach is to combine different design theories over all the product life cycle stages into one coherent and traceable framework. Besides, it is to bring together the designer’s and user’s understandings of the notion of ‘good product’. Building on the insight from natural sciences that complex systems always exhibit a self-organizing meaning- influential hierarchical dynamics, objective laws controlling product development are found through an examination of design as a semiosis process. These laws are then applied to support evolutionary design of products. An experiment validating some of the theoretical findings is outlined, and concluding remarks are given. Keywords: Design, Lifecycle, Semiotics 1 INTRODUCTION Proponents of a different viewpoint claim that theories are Historically, design tasks have been verifying theories, good if they allow for understanding design processes challenging their value in a number of domains varied and products better. Having an obvious analytical flavor, from quite ‘objectivistic’ but highly abstract, such as these theories are expected to incorporate a large amount philosophy and mathematics, to rather situated but of domain-specific knowledge to assist the designer in his pragmatic, such as economics and management, and or her decision-making (e.g. [3, 4]). It is assumed that the further to essentially subjective and loosely structured, quality of a product solely depends on knowledge such as art and sociology. It is then not surprising that in possessed by the designer, and the problem of designing the present era of technocratic civilization, design good products is, in the main, a problem of professional receives significant research attention, having been expertise. A weak point here is that possessing even studied first as a craft and later – as a field of engineering ‘ideal’ knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient that promises to eventually grow into an ‘independent’ condition for the creation of a commercially successful discipline developed in line with the traditions of classical product, while the history witnesses that individuals with science. In an effort to contribute to the development of little qualification and experience but well developed this discipline, both academic researchers and creative abilities invented many great products. practitioners, although seeing the problem from fairly In the spirit of recent advances in psychology, different perspectives, have been trying to understand ethnomethodology, anthropology, and cognitive sciences, and justify if and how one or another theory can be useful some put forward suggestions, highlighting a need for for solving design tasks. observationally and analytically studying gifted people, Adherents of mathematical approaches habitually assess who seem to be able to design, devise, and develop the usefulness of a theory from the standpoint of its without any systematic guidance from the outside (see logical consistency and tractability: only those theories are reference [5]). It is believed that research of this kind considered good, which allow for the generation of true would ultimately lead one to discovering a set of thinking theorems. When it comes to product design, such techniques and methodologies that can be taught to theorems can be reduced to statements of the following designers to make them designing better products (e.g. form: ‘a design is right if π,’ where π is a formally [6]). An obvious danger, however, is that apart from the determinable quality or property (see, for example, usual difficulties with the application of any cognitive reference [1] and, to some extent, reference [2]). The role model, many factors affecting designing will necessarily of the theories is seen to build an apparatus (terminology, be missed in the resultant techniques because of the axiomatic basis, inference methods, etc.) for the design complexity and instability of the ‘network’ topology of science, while their main target is to achieve better control social and psychological relationships: the process of over the design process. However, there are many product concept creation is not limited by activities at the obstacles preventing the broad introduction of these designer’s side, and it is generally not homogeneous in theories into practice. The most fundamental obstacle is terms of space- as well as time-situated interactions [7]. the ontological contradiction between the notions of The latter could question the applicability and usefulness ‘objectively’ good (i.e. right) design and always of the obtained techniques at all. subjectively good product. This contradiction makes the It is now well recognized that there are multiple development of a ‘general’ design theory hardly feasible perspectives on the building of the design discipline, each unless a universal notion of ‘good’ product is formally of which contains part of the truth, but none of which clarified. contains the entire solution [8]. Leaving alone marginal and unconstructive claims like ‘to design, we should only learn from nature’ or ‘design is art and never be science,’ lower-level signs occur, which are allowed by boundary which nonetheless reflect opinions of some professionals, conditions set at level N+1; signs at level N-1 are then a principal question then arises: whether it is possible to constitutive for level N signs, and signs at level N+1 are bridge all the different viewpoints and attitudes toward constraining for level N. The dynamics of semiosis can design within one scientific framework, and if so – what be described in terms of the interactions among the would be the basis for that? adjacent levels of such a sign system [13]. It is our strong belief that Semiotics – a science about Most naturally for the designer, semiosis is a material signs, sign systems, and signification – is exceptionally process, which necessarily involves a translation or re- well suited to link the mathematical, social, and cognitive representation – re-interpretation – of information from theories together to provide insights about design as a one meaning-making level to another. Signs on level N single discipline and encourage the design community to can be representamina of the objects and phenomena at develop new methods and tools to aid designers and level N-1 for processes and structures at level N+1, which lighten the routine burden but improve the quality and form a system of interpretance. The lowest-level signs ‘goodness’ of products. To justify this supposition, we will (e.g. physical objects, phenomena, behavioral discuss a semiotic approach to the design study and dispositions, emotions, and the like) are perceived or illustrate it with an example in the following sections. This realized through their distinctions and get a paper continues the investigation, which the authors representation at the ‘intermediary’ level of the designer’s started with the Semiotic Theory of Creativity for cognition in respect to the interpretive laws of the highest, engineering design [9] that later gave rise to the experiential and environmentally (culturally, socially, development of a more general Semiotic Theory of technically, economically, etc.) induced level, which Evolutionary Design [10]. accommodates interpretants and assigns a meaning to the representamina. The design process is the process of introducing a sign at level N with a meaning for both level 2 SEMIOTICS AND THE 3-LEVEL PARADIGM N-1 (as an entity materially grounded there) and level N+1 Perhaps the most significant thing missing from the (as an entity having a material relevance at this level). traditional design theories is the failure to appreciate how Generally, the sign is allowed to have many possible products are conceived by people as opposed to simply meanings, depending on contextual constraints from perceived by people. Indeed, a product, as we higher interpretive levels. comprehend it in everyday life, is always more than just People perceive a completed product through its an artifact – a physical entity to which human must adapt, distinctions that need to be interpreted and may acquire a while all the product life-cycle processes have a complex, meaning for a sign system. Although human perception is meaning-influential dynamics with regard to the product, relatively uniform and consistent, it is natural that the its concept, and use-environments. People, through their meaning assigned to a representamen can vary activities and practice, originate an ‘objective’ need for the significantly, depending on the subjective dynamics of creation of the product by subjectively assigning its perception (level N) and interpretation (level N+1) as well intended meaning and, at a later time but also as on relations between the adjacent semiotic levels. subjectively, evaluate the product’s value in an environment, i.e. its actual or emergent meaning, yet With a potentially infinite hierarchy of interpretative levels, having many different views and opinions