Abstract
Abstract
Design process models have a complex and changing relationship to the processes they model, and mean different things to different people in different situations. Participants in design processes need to understand each other’s perspectives and agree on what the models mean. The paper draws on philosophy of science to argue that understanding a design process model can be seen as an imagination game governed by agreed rules, to envisage what would be true about the world if the model were correct. The rules depend on the syntax and content of the model, on the task the model is used for, and on what the users see the model as being. The paper outlines twelve alternative conceptualizations of design process models—frames, pathways, positions, proclamations, projections, predictions, propositions, prophecies, requests, demands, proposals, promises—and discusses when they fit situations that stakeholders in design processes can be in. Articulating how process models are conceptualised can both help to understand how process management works and help to resolve communication problems in industrial practice.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,Mechanical Engineering,Architecture,Civil and Structural Engineering
Reference58 articles.
1. Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words. Clarendon Press, Oxford
2. Bailer-Jones DM (2009) Scientific models in philosophy of science. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh
3. Berger T, Luckmann P (1966) The social construction of reality. Doubleday, New York
4. Bergsjö D, Catic A, Stenholm D (2019) A lean framework for reusing knowledge—introducing engineering checksheets. Int J Lean Enterp Res
5. Brereton MF, Cannon DM, Mabogunje A, Leifer LJ (1996) Collaboration in design teams: how social interaction shapes the product. In: Cross NG, Christiaans HHCM, Dorst K (eds) Analysing design activity. Wiley, Chichester, pp 319–341
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献