2/26/2023 0 Comments Heart model 3dweatherExtension of these models to include people using or interacting with this artifact is a real problem since most human mathematical models are far from being representative, and even less predictive. For that matter, the design of an artifact involves decision-making and engineering design, commonly supported by development of mathematical models that represent artifact structure(s) and function(s). Engineers have managed to optimize these artifacts in the mathematical sense (Papalambros & Wilde Reference Papalambros and Wilde2000). People have created artifacts for a long time, to support and improve their lives. Consequently, I consider (at least in this article) design science as a discipline that contributes to the production of design knowledge useful to and usable for, the production of artifacts. Science contributes to the production of knowledge that enables explanation and/or prediction of facts and events. An artifact is any conceptual or physical object that is made by people. Consequently, putting design and science together, as complementary disciplines, contributes to combine creativity, demonstration and validation.ĭesign contributes to the production of artifacts that could be useful to and usable by people. Design is about creativity and innovation, considered as a new synthesis of existing materials at various levels of integration. Science is strongly based on rigorous demonstration and validation of initial claims. I first thought that ‘design’ and ‘science’ could be considered as very different concepts leading to two very different kinds of practice and culture. When I was offered the opportunity to write this position paper in the Design Science journal, I tried to better understand what design science is about. Concepts developed in this article are based on the rationalization of a long experience in the aerospace domain. Three useful conceptual models are presented: the SFAC (Structure/Function versus Abstract/Concrete) model the NAIR (Natural/Artificial versus Cognitive/Physical) model and the AUTOS (Artifact, User, Task, Organization and Situation) pyramid. Operationalization issues are moving from software to hardware, making tangibility a central issue. I denote this shift, the ‘socio-technical inversion’. From the beginning of the 21st century, we began to do the exact opposite! Currently, we typically start a project by designing and developing technology on computers, using software only, which is later transformed into hardware (and software). Operationalization issues moved from hardware to software, making automation and user interfaces central issues. The 20th century saw tremendous industrial developments based on tangible materials that were transformed and assembled to make washing machines, cars, aircraft and power plants during its last three decades, electronics and software were incrementally added to hardware machines. This position paper presents a new approach based on my experience in the evolution of human-centered design (HCD) during four decades, and how it has struggled to become a discipline in its own right in complex socio-technical systems’ creation, development and operations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |