1. Knowledge Basis for Design Steve Frezza, Ph. D., C.S.D.P.
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Knowledge Basis
for Design
Steve Frezza, Ph. D., C.S.D.P.

2. Designing the Engineer
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Designing the Engineer
Motivation:
What makes engineering education Engineering…
What engineers know…
How they know it…
What makes engineering knowing different…
Not that different, form of Common-Sense Knowledge
Different from Scientific knowing
Yet different – Informed, Pragmatic
Walter Vincente 1990…

3. Usefulness as Value Epistemological lens
Suggests a set of defining values
Pragmatic use
‘Pragmatic’ always located in a context
Problem/solution context
Solvers’ context

4. Problem/Solution Context
Each problem/solution context may be unique
Includes:
Social as well as domain-specific patterns
Problem-specific knowledge
Knowledge brought to, discovered or synthesized
Exploring the problem context is part of the engineering activity
?? Not emphasized in the rationalist approach

5. Solvers’ Context
Epistemological lens the engineers bring to problems and solutions
Includes
Historical, scientific and artistic roots of modern engineering practice,
Embodied in the knowledge expected of current engineers
Engineering heuristics and patterns specific to sub-domains of engineering
E.g., electrical, mechanical, environmental, civil, software, etc.

6. Design Considerations
Engineering activity:
Activity and work product
Aimed at sufficiently satisfactory solution(s)
vs. single, optimal solution
Social, human activity
Characterized by language and goal negotiation
Creative, constructive knowledge & skill
Rationalist, empiricist, other?

7. Thinking about …engineering design thinking
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Thinking about …engineering design thinking
Key question:
Is engineering design knowing somehow different from other types of knowing?
Scientific knowing
Artistic knowing
Use in soln over explanation
External value over internal
scientific approach and the engineering approach is its goal:
The scientist aims at explanation: universal, reliable, comprehensive and sufficiently precise formulation of knowledge;
the engineer, aims at timeliness, completeness, with sufficient precision and comprehension [10].
Science and math are used in design as means to an end, tools to approximate reality and not an end in themselves.
Similarly this is different from artistic design in that its primary goal (goodness) is its ability to solve the contextually-located problem for which the task was
undertaken
Engineering Design Knowing Differs

8. Thinking about …engineering design thinking
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Thinking about …engineering design thinking
Key questions:
In engineering design, what do we know, and how do we know it?
Math and science: Approximating Reality
Practical reasoning: Conversation
Constructing solutions: Puzzle making and puzzle solving
Value claims: Usefulness
While similar, these next slides focus on what distinguishes
Engineering Design Knowing
Similar, but different

9. Approximating Reality
Engineering Design as a goal-oriented activity:
Identify & solve contextually-located problem(s)
Reality: Subjective and objective
Science and Math:
Means to an end
Theoretical Knowing, statistical knowing
Rationalist Approach:
Math and science as foundational analytical methods; overemphasis on objective reality

10. Practical Design Reasoning
Reasoning that terminates in an action
Core metric: ‘satisfactoriness,’
Selecting course of action; satisfactory way to fulfill a need
Action to explore requirements, advance designs, evaluate sufficiency of product or the process
A set of developing arguments
In the mind of the designer
Among collaborating designers
Among the members of a design team
Among designers and stakeholders

11. Practical Design Reasoning
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Practical Design Reasoning
Designer(s) identify the relevant details
From the surrounding context
Weave it into a plan to satisfactorily achieves the sought-for good
Activities and artifacts act as warrants and reasons
Build the case for the solution, sought-for good
Establish a value claim with respect to the problem(s) identified
Examine details of the problem/solution fragments
Requires a certain reasoning skill
Activities and artifacts
extend the knowledge and conversation of the design
relevance that helps determine the next activities.
Not all practical reasoning is design;
but it is not about the creation of a new object, system or process to satisfy a need or desire. This is where the constructive nature of design plays a key and distinguishing role.

12. Constructing Distinctly Engineering Designs
Puzzle making and puzzle solving
Require a satisfactory response
ongoing series of satisfactory responses
‘wicked’–no definitive formulation;
Solutions emerge
A function of how the problem is described
Must be compared, judgment over relative “goodness”
Criteria of goodness negotiated

13. Constructing Designs Constructed artifacts and conversations
Part of the design process
Multi-purpose: constructed artifacts serve as
Sub-goals for the knowledge-generating activities
Evidence of what has been learned, accepted,
Evidence of what remains to be assessed for its validity or ‘goodness’

14. Values and Value Claims
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Values and Value Claims
Central value: Justified reasoning
Use of math and science
Means to an end; Approximation of reality
Application of practical reasoning
Reasoning for action; satisfactoriness
Domain-specific means of constructing solutions
Traditional engineering content
Establishing and validating value claims
Economics, trade-offs, pitches, refinement
scientific approach and the engineering approach is its goal:
The scientist aims at explanation: universal, reliable, comprehensive and sufficiently precise formulation of knowledge;
the engineer, aims at timeliness, completeness, with sufficient precision and comprehension [10].
Science and math are used in design as means to an end, tools to approximate reality and not an end in themselves.
Similarly this is different from artistic design in that its primary goal (goodness) is its ability to solve the contextually-located problem for which the task was
undertaken

15. Implications for Pedagogy
Gannon University
September 15, 2018
Implications for Pedagogy
Shift the focus of engineering education
from applied technical or scientific knowledge
to practical reasoning and solution making & solving
Distinguishing engineering design education…
Foundations in reasoning
Social patterns of design
Patterns for exploring problem/solution contexts
Design Reasoning

16. Teach Design Reasoning
To support action
Uses ‘satisfactoriness’ as its central metric
Under incomplete knowledge
Where details are essential
In situations where the relevance of details is not clear or obvious

17. Core Engineering Design
Education that emphasizes
Puzzle making and puzzle solving
Risk and Failure
Identification of the user perspective
Social context of design

18. Core Engineering Design
Education emphasizing the wicked
Solution making that:
Emerges as a function of how the ‘problem’ is described…
Lack clear-cut criteria for determining if the problem has been satisfactorily solved…
Are about better or worse, not right or wrong…
Whose costs and risks only allow for one attempt…