Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions

Design Principles: Literature
Review, Analysis, and Future

Katherine K. Fu
School of Mechanical Engineering and,
Directions
School of Industrial Design,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Design principles are created to codify and formalize design knowledge so that innova-
Atlanta, GA 30332 tive, archival practices may be communicated and used to advance design science and
solve future design problems, especially the pinnacle, wicked, and grand-challenge prob-
Maria C. Yang lems that face the world and cross-cutting markets. Principles are part of a family of
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
knowledge explication, which also include guidelines, heuristics, rules of thumb, and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
strategic constructs. Definitions of a range of explications are explored from a number of
Cambridge, MA 02139
seminal papers. Based on this analysis, the authors pose formalized definitions for the
three most prevalent terms in the literature—principles, guidelines, and heuristics—and
draw more definitive distinctions between the terms. Current research methods and prac-
Kristin L. Wood tices with design principles are categorized and characterized. We further explore
Engineering Product Development Pillar,
research methodologies, validation approaches, semantic principle composition through
Singapore University of Technology and Design
computational analysis, and a proposed formal approach to articulating principles. In
Singapore 487372, Singapore
analyzing the methodology for discovering, deriving, formulating, and validating design
principles, the goal is to understand and advance the theoretical basis of design, the
foundations of new tools and techniques, and the complex systems of the future. Sugges-
tions for the future of design principles research methodology for added rigor and repeat-
ability are proposed. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4034105]
1 Introduction 2 Background
A number of technical research fields have grown and matured The formalization of design research methodology (DRM) is
over decades through the investigation, study, experimentation, the indisputable path to the maturation of the field. Pahl and Beitz
and validation of core principles. Accepted research methodolo- were some of the first to propose formalized design processes and
gies and standards similarly emerge and mature, founded on the research [4]. Blessing and Chakrabarti formulated a DRM process
scientific method, but also tailored to the characteristics and scope comprising of four main steps: (1) Research Clarification, litera-
of the field. The life sciences and physical sciences are classical ture review to formulate a worthwhile research goal, (2) Descrip-
examples of this growth and maturation process. Numerous cases tive Study I, empirical data analysis in an exploratory study, (3)
are prevalent in these fields, such as the theories and laws of clas- Prescriptive Study, experience synthesized into a vision of how to
sical mechanics to explain the motion of particles, bodies, and improve upon on the existing situation, and (4) Descriptive Study
systems of bodies. II, empirical data analysis of the effect of the improvement sup-
Design research, or design science, is a relatively young field of port developed [5]. Finger and Dixon extensively reviewed design
research investigation. With the first treatises published around research methods, including descriptive models of design proc-
the mid-20th century, the depth of investigation of, public aware- esses, prescriptive models for design, computer-based models of
ness of, and resources devoted to design science has grown stead- design processes, languages, representations, and environments
ily [1]. From the very earliest discourse related to this field, like in for design, analysis to support design decisions, design for manu-
Glegg’s “The design of design,” principles of design have been facturing and other life cycle issues like reliability, serviceability,
postulated [2]. Because of the broad, interdisciplinary or transdis- etc. [6,7]. Many of the research efforts reviewed in this paper fall
ciplinary nature of design science, numerous forms of design prin- into one of these categories, whether descriptive models, like case
ciples have been suggested across disciplines, among disciplines, studies, protocol studies, and observations, or prescriptive models
and at various levels of granularity/specificity. Now it is time to of how the design process ought to be carried out [7]. Inductive
carefully study these efforts and seek a formalization of design versus deductive research methodologies are a particular focus in
principles, definitions, and supporting research methodologies. this paper. Inductive research is based upon a process in which
In this paper, we seek to make strides in formalizing design data are collected first, patterns are extracted, and a theory is
principles from various disparate theoretical, empirical, and ex- developed to explain those patterns. Deductive research is based
perimental approaches, and draw more defined distinctions among upon a process in which a theory is developed first, after which
the terms commonly used in the literature. This research will data are collected and analyzed to determine if the theory is sup-
assist in enabling a fundamental understanding and development ported. Though not perfectly aligned in meaning, descriptive and
of design principles and associated processes. In addition, we inductive research methods are similar in that they both rely on
hope it will guide researchers and practitioners in the advance- discovery of patterns and findings in data. Prescriptive and deduc-
ment and use of such principles. Ultimately, the research provides tive research methods are similar in that they pose a theoretical so-
a foundation for design science. This paper builds on earlier work lution or answer, and test if it is effective or supported. The
presented by the authors [3]. methodologies reviewed in this paper tend to fit into one of these
two categories, though some are in both. In reviewing the current
research efforts to extract design principles, effective techniques
Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received November 3,
and areas for improvement or the development of greater rigor
2015; final manuscript received June 13, 2016; published online August 30, 2016. can be identified toward a more formalized design principles
Assoc. Editor: Mathew I. Campbell. research methodology.
Journal of Mechanical Design Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-1
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

3 Research Methodology
This paper is both a literature review and an original critical
analysis of the state of the art, with the goal of advancing and for-
malizing the field of design principles research. To gain an under-
standing of the types and prevalence of each type of methodology
for exploring, deriving, and validating design principles, the
authors reviewed 66 sources. These included monographs, books,
anthologies, journal publications, and conference publications.
References were chosen based on either their seminal nature to
the foundation of the field (noted by their longevity and/or high
citation rate) or their publication in leading design engineering
journals or conference proceedings. Figures 1–3 show the propor-
tional breakdown of types of references, the field that the referen-
ces come from, and the distribution of references by year of
publication.
As each reference was reviewed, the authors tabulated the fol-
lowing information from each source where applicable: key-
words/key topics, main contribution/brief synopsis, methods to
find principles, methods to validate principles, principles discov-
ered, and any articulated formal nomenclature definitions. These
data were analyzed in several different ways, as reviewed in Secs.
4, 5, and 6.
Fig. 1 Proportion of reference types 4 Discussion of Nomenclature

In the pursuit of standardization, formalization, and added rigor
to any scientific methodological undertaking, the articulation of
clear and well-reasoned definitions for key concepts is imperative.
Formal definitions ensure a common understanding and universal
language, not only between the authors and readers but also
throughout the research community. In the following Secs.
4.1–4.4, the authors articulate formal definitions of design princi-
ples from the literature reviewed. A formal definition for each
term is then posed based on an aggregate assessment of the litera-
ture findings and the expertise of the authors. These definitions
are within the context of the design research field, and therefore,
have an implied “design” before each term reviewed (i.e., design
principle).
4.1 Principle. Design principles are the focus of this

research, though the methodologies surrounding their conceptual
kin (i.e., heuristics, etc.) can be and often are similar, relevant,
and applicable to those for design principles. Several definitions
and characteristics have been gathered and juxtaposed below in
their original form. Researchers use a large variety of terms when
defining principle, including technique, methodology, data, expe-
rience, example, recommendation, suggestion, assertion, and
proposition. Factors considered when classifying and describing
principles include the level of detail in which they impact the
Fig. 2 Field of references design, the point of application in the design process, the level of
Fig. 3 Reference year of publication
101103-2 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

abstraction, the specificity or granularity of the principle itself, the Principles are typically based on experiences, examples, or
manner in which principle is applied, and the level of refinement empirical evidence.
or success of the principle, among others. As expected, terms like The application of principles may be context and/or problem
guideline are used to define principles, and are often used interdependent, but should be more generalizable than a few iso-
changeably in informal settings. The term ontology is related to lated instances.
principle, in that it is “an explicit specification of a con- Principles are used as foundations for understanding and for
ceptualization…” [8]. Often, ontologies are developed as the for- the development of supporting methods, techniques, and tools.
mal, consistent language with which to express design knowledge
Based on the literature review and analysis of the definitions,
codification. To summarize the literature review in Table 1, the
the following is a proposed formal definition for principle.
common threads that can be observed throughout most of the defi-
Formal Definition:
nitions are:
Principle: A fundamental rule or law, derived inductively from
Principles are not universally applicable, effective, or true, extensive experience and/or empirical evidence, which provides
but instead are generally applicable, effective, and true in a design process guidance to increase the chance of reaching a suc-
given context. cessful solution.
Table 1 Literature review of definitions and characteristics for “principle”
Source Definition/characteristics
Merriam-Webster “A moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions; a basic truth or
dictionary [9] theory: an idea that forms the basis of something; a law or fact of nature that explains how something works or why
something happens”
Moe et al. [10] “A (transformation) principle is a generalized directive to bring about a certain type of mechanical transformation. A
Weaver et al. [11] (transformation) principle is a guideline that, when embodied, singly creates a transformation.”
Singh et al. [12]
Glegg [2] “Principles of engineering design can be divided into three distinct types:
(1) Specialized techniques: particular data and manufacturing techniques that have been amassed over a long period of
time with respect to a very specific technology that you cannot hope to design that product without—i.e., camshaft for a
petrol engine.
(2) General rules: broader theoretical considerations which are not confined to a single engineering mechanism—wide
though their scope may be, they are not of universal application.
(3) Universal principles: underlying laws which cross the frontiers of most engineering design. They are the rules
behind the rules; they are not tied to any particular type of design, they concern the design of design.”
Bell et al. [13] Design principles are “…an intermediate step between scientific findings, which must be generalized and replicable,
and local experiences or examples that come up in practice. Because of the need to interpret design principles, they are
not as readily falsifiable as scientific laws. The principles are generated inductively from prior examples of success and
are subject to refinement over time as others try to adapt them to their own experiences. In this sense, they are falsifi-
able; if they do not yield purchase in the design process, they will be debated, altered, and eventually dropped.”
Kali [14] “Specific principles describe the rationale behind the design of a single feature or single research investigation. Due to
their direct relation to one feature, specific principles in the database are embedded within the features.
Pragmatic principles connect several specific principles (or several features),…
Metaprinciples capture abstract ideas represented in a cluster of pragmatic principles.”
Anastas and Zimmerman [15] “The principles are not simply a listing of goals, but rather a set of methodologies to accomplish the goals…the breadth
of the principles’ applicability is important. When dealing with design architecture,…the same…principles must be ap-
plicable, effective, and appropriate. Otherwise, these would not be principles but simply a list of useful techniques that
have been successfully demonstrated under specific conditions. Just as every parameter in a system cannot be optimized
at any one time, especially when they are interdependent, the same is true of these principles. There are cases of synergy
in which the successful application of one principle advances one or more of the others.”
Mattson and Wood [16] “A principle…[is] a fundamental proposition used to guide the design process. The principles in this paper are not sug-
gestions or activities the designer should complete, they are assertions that can guide the designer to a more effective
outcome. The principles do not explicitly say what should be done; they simply guide the engineer as decisions are
made…although principles are not guaranteed, and at times they should not be followed, they should always be
considered”
McAdams [17] A design principle is “‘a recommendation or suggestion for a course of action to help solve a design issue.’ This defini-
tion is adapted from the definition for a design guideline according to Ref. [23]. Off-line principles are applied at the
design stage. On-line principles are applied anytime after this stage, including manufacturing and during use. Another
characteristic that distinguishes between the principles is the level of detail that they change the design.”
Perez et al. [18] “A set of principles can make this process more efficient as well as improve on the design of the original product. The
principles provide a means of processing the information gathered in the reverse engineering step in order to derive
ideas based on specific details encompassed by the example products.”
Sobek et al. [19] “…Principles…are not steps, prescriptions, or recipes. Rather, (Toyota chief) engineers apply the principles to each
design project differently. Design engineers use the principles to develop and evaluate a design process. The key to suc-
cess is the implementation of ideas as much as the principles themselves.”
Altshuller [20] “Technical evolution has its own characteristics and laws. This is why different inventors in different countries, work-
ing on the same technical problems independently, come up with the same answer. This means that certain regularities
exist. If we can find these regularities, then we can use them to solve technical problems—by rules, with formulae, with-
out wasting time on sorting out variants.”—In describing the 40 inventive principles of TRIZ
Pahl and Beitz [4] “Only the combination of the physical effect with the geometric and material characteristics (working surfaces, working
motions and materials) allows the principle of the solution to emerge. This interrelationship is called the working prin-
ciple…and it is the first concrete step in the implementation of the solution.”
Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-3

Table 2 Literature review of definitions for “guideline”
Merriam-Webster “A rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done”
Dictionary [21]
Greer et al. [22] “Design guidelines provide a means to store and reuse design knowledge with the potential to be effective in the early
stages of design where…broad knowledge is beneficial. The format used to present the product evolution design guide-
lines is the imperative form from English grammar…according to Nowack, a design guideline has at least four parts:
issue(s) addressed or impacted, links to design context, action recommendations, and rationale [23].”
Nowack [23] A design guideline is “a prescriptive recommendation for a context sensitive course of action to address a design
issue.”
Kim [24] “…Design guidelines can…be considered as an intermediary interface between the designer and…[expert] knowledge.
The purpose of design guidelines is to enable designers to make usable and consistent applications that conform to des-
ignated conventions. To maximize the compliance of the resulting products, it is important to produce design guidelines
that designers can actually understand and apply [25]. Design guidelines address a wide range of design levels; the
contents are typically based on laboratory experiments and experts’ opinions. These guidelines are being continuously
revised and updated to meet technical and environmental changes.”
Bevan and Spinhof [26] “A good set of guidelines is composed of a combination of more specific guidelines for the application at hand and
more generic guidelines that refer to more general aspects…”
“And the set of guidelines should be well documented, including good or bad examples, a thorough table of contents
and glossaries [24].”
Ja€unsch and Birkhofer [27] “The generality inherent in all guidelines has been greatly increased… direction of the guidelines has changed from a
personal support for individuals…toward a general procedure for a company addressing organization and con-
tent….advice within the guidelines [has] changed from addressing concrete thinking processes to general problem solv-
ing advice…instructions have changed from statements that can be immediately put into action or thought to
instruction on an abstract level, which need to be adapted to the current situation of the designer… appearance of the
descriptions of the guidelines have altered from a pure one-page text-based description to comprehensive descriptions
with figures, in particular flow charts and in-depth texts….content of the descriptions has been enhanced with figures,
examples and a quantity of text.”
Matthews [28] “Guidelines can provide additional assistance by predicting likely outcomes of actions and by identifying additional
issues that should be considered. For guideline support to be effective, appropriate guidelines must be available to the
designer at the time of a design decision.”
Example Principle: “Transformational Principle No. 1: Expand/ be derived, as it has both connotations with computational appli-
Collapse. Change the physical dimensions of an object to bring cations and noncomputational design process applications. Table 3
about an increase/decrease in occupied volume primarily along an draws upon both sets (computational and cognitive) of literature
axis, in a plane or in three dimensions.” [12] in an attempt to generalize the definition among the fields of appli-
cation. Key terms used in describing and defining heuristics from
4.2 Guideline. As discovered in the literature addressing the the sampled literature include rule of thumb, guideline, common
definitions and characteristics of principles, we find similar con- sense, principle, experience, observation, knowledge, lesson, strat-
tent for definitions and characteristics of guidelines. Key terms egy, simple, concise. Again, as in Secs. 4.1 and 4.2 defining princi-
found throughout the literature quoted in Table 2 include prescrip- ple and guideline, we find the terms can be and often are used
tive, imperative, advice, instruction, opinion, recommendation, as- interchangeably in the literature. Distinctions that emerge based on
sistance, prediction, and general. Descriptions address factors like the literature sampled that make heuristics unique include:
when to use guidelines during the design process, how they must Emphasis on reducing search time—not necessarily an opti-
be changed and revised, and how they must be presented to the mal result, but satisfactory, practical, or “quick and dirty.”
user. There are key differences that stand out between the defini- Ability to be prescriptive or descriptive, unlike guidelines,
tions of principles and guidelines: which are mostly prescriptive.
Guidelines are generally presented as more context depend- Value is typically defined by usefulness.
ent and changeable than principles—perhaps even less Heuristics are generally reliable, but potentially fallible
“universal” or “fundamental.” depending on context and circumstances.
The literature on guidelines places strong emphasis on their There may not be as extensive evidence or validation of heu-
modality, organization, and level of detail of presentation for ristics, compared to guidelines and especially compared to
maximum effectiveness and usability, though this could be principles.
an artifact of the choice of references. Based on the literature review in Table 3 and analysis of these
Guidelines are described as more prescriptive than heuristics, definitions, the following is a proposed formalized definition for
presented in Sec. 4.3, which tend to be descriptive or heuristic.
prescriptive. Formal Definition:
Heuristic: A context-dependent directive, based on intuition,
Based on the literature review and analysis of the definitions, tacit knowledge, or experiential understanding, which provides
the following is a proposed formal definition for guideline. design process direction to increase the chance of reaching a sat-
Formal Definition: isfactory but not necessarily optimal solution.
Guideline: A context-dependent directive, based on extensive ex- Example Heuristic: “A properly designed bolt should have at
perience and/or empirical evidence, which provides design process least one and one-half turns in the threads.” [38]
direction to increase the chance of reaching a successful solution. The main differences between heuristics and guidelines are:
Example Guideline: “Minimiz[e] the quantity of resource use Guidelines can be based on empirical evidence, whereas heu-
by optimizing its rate and duration.” [29] ristics are generally not.
Heuristics increase your chances of reaching a successful but
4.3 Heuristic. The term heuristic has an understandably not (necessarily) optimal solution whereas guidelines do not
broader and richer base of literature from which its definition can have specific attributes regarding “level” of success.

Table 3 Literature review of definitions for “heuristic”
Merriam-Webster “Using experience to learn and improve; involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by
Dictionary [30] experimental and especially trial-and-error methods <heuristic techniques> <a heuristic assumption>; also: of or
relating to exploratory problem-solving techniques that utilize self-educating techniques (as the evaluation of feedback)
to improve performance <a heuristic computer program>”
Stone and Wood [31] “(Module) heuristics: A method of examination in which the designer uses a set of steps, empirical in nature, yet proven
scientifically valid, to identify (modules) in a design problem. This definition requires another: the phrase “proven sci-
entifically valid” refers to a hypothesis, formulated after systematic, objective data collection that has successfully
passed its empirical tests. Thus, the heuristics are proven by following the scientific method.”
Bolc and Cytowshi [32] “Heuristics [are] explicit rules derived from human experiences and tacit knowledge.”
Li et al. [33] “Heuristics are rules-of-thumb that have been successful in producing “acceptable,” not necessarily “optimal” solution
to a type of problem.”
Chong et al. [34] Heuristics “…are criteria, methods, or principles for deciding which among several alternative courses of action prom-
ises to be the most effective in order to achieve the desired goals.”
Nisbett and Ross [35] “Heuristics are reasoning processes that do not guarantee the best solution, but often lead to potential solutions by pro-
viding a “short-cut” within cognitive processing.”
Pearl [36] “The term “heuristic” has commonly referred to strategies that make use of readily accessible information to guide
problem-solving.”
Yilmaz and Seifert [37] “The term heuristic implies that it:
(1) Does not guarantee reaching the best solution, or even a solution; and
(2) Provides a “quick and dirty” (easier) method that often leads to an acceptable solution.”
Koen [38] “All engineering is heuristic.
“Synonyms of the heuristic: rule of thumb, intuition, technique, hint, aid, direction, rule of craft, engineering judgment,
working bias, random suggestions, le pif (the nose)”
A heuristic is an “engineering strategy for causing desirable change in an unknown situation within the available
resources…anything that provides a plausible aid or direction in the solution of a problem but is in the final analysis
unjustified, incapable of justification, and fallible. It is used to guide, to discover, and to reveal.”
“Signatures of the heuristic:
A heuristic does not guarantee a solution
It may contradict other heuristics
It reduces the search time in solving a problem for a satisfactory solution
The absolute value of a heuristic…is based on the pragmatic standard…[it] depends exclusively on its usefulness in a
specific context…a heuristic never dies. It just fades from use.
One heuristic [replaces] another by…doing a better job in a given context.”
Magee and Frey [39] “A heuristic is a generally reliable, but potentially fallible, simplification that enables a problem to be addressed within
resource constraints.”
Clancey [40] “The heuristic classification model characterizes a form of knowledge and reasoning-patterns of familiar problem situa-
tions and solutions, heuristically related. In capturing problem situations that tend to occur and solutions that tend to
work, this knowledge is essentially experiential, with an overall form that is problem-area independent.”
Maier and Rechtin [41] “The heuristics methodology is based on “common sense,”…comes from collective experience stated in as simple and
concise a manner as possible… Insight, or the ability to structure a complex situation in a way that greatly increases
understanding of it, is strongly guided by lessons learned from one’s own or others’ experiences and observations. But
they must be used with judgment.”
“People typically use heuristics in three ways…[1] as evocative guides. evoke new thoughts…[2] as codifications of
experience…[3] as integrated into development processes.”
“Two forms of heuristic[s]…[1] descriptive: it describes a situation but does not indicate directly what to do about
it…[2] prescriptive: it prescribes what might be done about the situation.”
“Heuristics…are trusted, nonanalytic guidelines for treating complex, inherently unbounded, ill-structured problem-
s….are used as aids in decision making, value judgments, and assessments…provide the successive transitions from
qualitative, provisional needs to descriptive and prescriptive guidelines and, hence, to rational approaches and
methods.
Heuristic evaluation criteria “…to eliminate unsubstantiated assertions,” personal opinions, corporate dogma, anec-
dotal speculation, mutually contradictory statements:
… must make sense in its original domain or context…a strong correlation, if not a direct cause and effect, must be
apparent between the heuristic and the successes or failures of specific systems, products, or processes.
The general sense…of the heuristic should apply beyond the original context.
The heuristic should be easily rationalized in a few minutes or on less than a page.
The opposite statement of the heuristic should be foolish, clearly not “common sense.”
The heuristic’s lesson, though not necessarily its most recent formulation, should have stood the test of time and
earned a broad consensus.
Humor (and careful choice of words) in a heuristic provide an emotional bite that enhances the mnemonic effect
For maximum effect, try embedding both descriptive and prescriptive messages in a heuristic.
Don’t make a heuristic so elegant that it only has meaning to its creator, thus losing general usefulness.
Rather than adding a conditional statement to a heuristic, consider creating a separate but associated heuristic that
focuses on the insight of dealing with that conditional situation.”
To synthesize the three previous Secs. 4.1–4.3, the authors pose Granularity or Specificity Dimension: the degree of granular-
a set of dimensions that form the definitions of heuristics, guide- ity or specificity tends to be ordered as heuristics, guidelines,
lines, and principles: and principles, in increasing formalization.
Supporting Evidence or Validation Dimension: the degree of Formalization Dimension: the degree of formalization tends
supporting evidence tends to be ordered as heuristics, guide- to be ordered as heuristics, guidelines, and principles, in
lines, and principles, in increasing evidence. increasing formalization.

Prescriptive–Descriptive Dimension: the nature tends to be “guidelines” in combination with more definitive, strong terms
ordered as heuristics, guidelines, and principles, progressing like “precise criteria,” “technical specifications,” and “ensure.”
from more prescriptive to more descriptive. One interpretation of these mixed subtexts is that standards are of-
ten put into place through governmental regulations, relying upon
agreement of law makers and technical experts, and the expertise
4.4 Additional Nomenclature. A number of terms fall into of the SOTA practices as translated (to the extent possible) into
the same family as principles, guidelines, and heuristics, but are exact numerical specifications. This is no small feat to achieve, let
not used prevalently in the literature. A few of these terms are alone articulate.
reviewed here, as acknowledgment of their importance to, rela-
tionship with, or distinction from the three terms defined thus far. 4.4.5 Algorithm. Suh conceived of Axiomatic Design, from
which the definition for algorithm and the following definition for
4.4.1 Rule/Commandment. Roozenburg and Eekels discuss axiom are taken [45,46]. Suh states, “in purely algorithmic design,
design rules as dichotomous in nature, either being algorithmic or we try to identify or prescribe the design process, so in the end the
heuristic. Algorithmic1 design rules are “based on knowledge process will lead to a design embodiment that satisfies design
where the relationship between cause and effect is known well, as goals. Generally, the algorithmic approach is founded on the
in physical laws, and they produce predictable and reliable notion that the best way of advancing the design field is to under-
results.” Heuristic design rules are much less well defined, guaran- stand the design process by following the best design practice”
teed, or proven. They state that “any design rule that cannot be [45]. According to Suh, most terms discussed thus far would fit
converted into an algorithm is heuristic” [42]. In light of the dis- within the category of algorithmic design.
cussion thus far, were there to be a continuum rather than a di-
chotomy between algorithmic and heuristic rules, it would be 4.4.6 Axiom. Suh goes on to define axioms as “generalizable
expected that principles might be placed closer to the algorithmic principles that govern the underlying behavior of the system being
end, heuristics closer to the heuristic end (naturally), with guide- investigated. The axiomatic approach is based on the abstraction
lines somewhere in between. of good design decisions and processes. As stated earlier, axioms
Only one instance of the term commandment was encountered are general principles or self-evident truths that cannot be derived
in the work of Hamstra [43], which presented a set of seven com- or proven to be true, but for which there are no counterexamples
mandments for exhibit and experience design. The research or exceptions. Axioms generate new abstract concepts, such as
describes commandments as “not written in stone…[as] creative force, energy and entropy that are results of Newton’s laws and
work cannot be done from a straightjacket of design principles… thermodynamic laws” [45,46]. While Suh uses the term principle
[they] combine…beliefs about…goals and planning,…methods, in the definition for axiom, the requirements for the level of
and content development. [They]…are designed to spark discus- unshakeable truth and correctness of them make axioms the most
sion and inspiration…to clarify ambitions to clients” [43]. Inter- stringent term discussed yet.
estingly, the author portrays design principles as restrictive, more 4.4.7 Strategy. Merriam-Webster defines strategy as the
so than commandments, despite the semantic connotation of the following:
term. Commandments, as defined, come across as most similar to “1: a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usu-
guidelines, in that they are prescriptive in nature, and based on ally over a long period of time
beliefs rooted in successful design experiences. 2: the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal”
4.4.2 Facilitator. Facilitator is a term found in a series of [47]
related works that study the design of transformers [10–12]. As None of the sources reviewed here directly or explicitly defined
stated by the authors, “a Transformation Facilitator is a design strategy, but rather used rule of thumb as a synonym for other
archetype that helps or aids in creating mechanical transformation. terms, like principle or heuristic. However, the term strategy is
Transformation Facilitators aid in the design for transformation particularly relevant to the concept of design principles, as it
but their implementation does not create transformation singly” implies the influence of principle directives/concepts on develop-
[10–12]. This term harkens to the recommendation of Maier and ing design plans and setting goals. The term strategy also provides
Rechtin [41]: to create associated heuristics, one is tempted to add a scope for design principles regarding their influence on policy,
a conditional statement—in that there are corollaries and associa- design innovation for organizations, and business.
tions among them as well, in addition to being potentially descrip- 4.4.8 Rule of Thumb. Merriam-Webster defines rule of thumb
tive rather than prescriptive. as the following:
4.4.3 State of the Art (SOTA). Koen inextricably links heuris- “1: a method of procedure based on experience and common
tics to the term SOTA [38], which he defines simply as a SOTA, sense
or “a group of heuristics.” He goes on to stipulate that “each 2: a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not
should be labeled…and…time stamp[ed], [as]…SOTA is a func- intended to be scientifically accurate” [48]
tion of time. It changes as new heuristics become useful and are As with strategy, none of the sources reviewed here directly or
added to it and as old ones become obsolete and are deleted” [38]. explicitly defined rule of thumb, but rather used rule of thumb as a
As stated earlier in the heuristic section, Koen sees all of engi- synonym for other terms, like principle or heuristic.
neering as heuristic, so naturally, SOTA practice is defined by 4.4.9 Analogy and Meta-Analogy. A related or relevant term
those heuristics. in a number of the literature sources is analogy. Analogies, in this
context, are directives that suggest an approach for solutions to
4.4.4 Standard. Standards, as defined by Cheng [44], are
design opportunities through the mapping of a source in one do-
“documented agreements containing technical specifications or
main to a target domain of the opportunity [49,50]. Many design
other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines or
principles in the design research field provide such directives. In
definitions of characteristics, to ensure that materials, products,
fact, many provide categories or domains of analogies at a higher
process and services are fit for their purpose.” This definition has
level. We refer to these categories and domains as meta-
a mix of softer, more subjective words like “agreements” and
analogies.
1
An algorithm, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is “A process or set of rules
to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a 5 Design Principles Research Methods
computer.” It is important to note that while the word algorithm (and its derivatives)
often refers to computational applications, we do not restrict our use to To gauge the SOTA in research methodologies for design prin-
computational applications. ciples and their kin, 66 publications were analyzed. From this

point forward in the paper, the term principle is used to refer to
itself and any of the other familial terms reviewed in the nomen-
clature section, as the methods and sources for deriving and vali-
dating any of the knowledge codification types reviewed
previously is valuable to this analysis. The research efforts ana-
lyzed in Sec. 5 include the following Refs.
[2,5,8,10–12,14–20,22,24,25,27–29,31,34,37–40,43,51–92]. The
topics addressed in the research efforts reviewed include transfor-
mational design, biomimetic/bio-inspired design, robotics, soft-
ware design, user interface design, reconfigurable design, green/
environmental design, TRIZ, biomechanical design, and universal
design, among others.
In Fig. 4, the proportion of research efforts in the literature that
used deductive versus inductive approaches is shown, including Fig. 5 Methods used in literature to derive design principles
those that used both approaches. The majority of researchers used
an inductive method, which will be discussed further in Secs. 5.1 benefit of publicly accessible data sources and large sample sizes.
and 5.2. The focus of Sec. 5 is to present the methods for deriva- The second most frequent methodology used principles derived
tion and validation of design principles with corresponding sam- by others, a clear deductive approach to design principles
ple sizes—to identify trends, gaps, and areas of opportunity. research, in which the theory is the starting point of the research
These data and analysis provide a basis for design researchers to confirmed by the validation step. Design experts often write about
understand and choose alternative research methods for future their career’s worth of experiences in a memoir-esque format,
studies, while also having concrete information to judge the verac- sharing their lifelong lessons learned for designers to come. The
ity of principles presented in published works. least prevalent methodologies are those that are highly energy and
resource intensive in terms of observation, data collection, data
coding, and analysis. Only a few papers failed to specify where
5.1 Review of Methodologies for Extraction/Derivation/ the principles came from or how they were derived.
Discovery of Design Principles. Each of the 66 references was Figure 6 shows the sources that researchers used to derive prin-
examined to ascertain the methodology used by the authors to ciples. Many cited multiple sources, using, for example, both con-
derive, discover, extract, or codify design principles. These were sumer products and literature review. If the authors generated
first tabulated as their specific detailed methodologies, and then principles from their own design activities, it was coded as
reduced to broader categories, including: “authors,” rather than “design project/task.” This choice was
made to illustrate that many authors and researchers are writing
Not Specified or Not Applicable: the authors did not state the about their own design experiences, lessons, and accumulated
method by which the principles were derived knowledge, rather than deriving it from an external source. The
Design Expert Observation: in situ observation of expert categories shown in Fig. 6 are described as the following:
designers at work expressly not a laboratory setting or study
Derivation from Laboratory Base Design Practice: design Design Project/task: designers/study subjects performed a
study-based data was collected, from which principles were design task
extracted Students: students served as the subjects for a design study
Derivation from Design Practice: based on design performed Not Specified/Not Applicable: the authors did not state the
by the authors, from which principles were derived—can be source
less time and experience than expert level, otherwise would Expert Designers from Industry: expert industrial designers
fall into the next category were observed, interviewed, or studied as the source
Experience: derived from the experience of an expert de- Nature: natural phenomena, as in biologically inspired or
signer or collection of expert designers, usually the author(s) biomimetic design
Existing Principles: existing literature was used as the source Designers: designers performed design tasks, neither novices
of principles, which were validated or tested using one of the nor experts, nor architects, engineers or roboticists—a mid-
means discussed in Sec. 5.2 dle category for design study subjects
Analysis of Existing Designs/Design Repositories/Empirical Authors: the authors of the research publication served as the
Data Sets: consumer products, patents, nature, or even soft- source either through design activity or experiential
ware were analyzed knowledge
Patents: patents were analyzed as the source
As shown in Fig. 5, most publications derived principles by
studying existing designs themselves, a methodology that has the
Fig. 4 Research method classification for analyzed literature Fig. 6 Sources from which design principles were extracted

Table 4 Sample sizes used in literature to derive principles
Methods to find principles Unit of sample size Sample size
Analysis of existing designs Consumer products 10, 46, 23, 15, 10, 3
Consumer products, patents 190, 90
Consumer products, patents, nature 190, N/A
Examples 163
Nature 1
Patents 200,000, 41
Computer programs N/A
Reconfigurable systems 33
Analysis of existing designs, existing principles Patents 90
Derivation from design practice Design project/task 2, 1, 1
Engineers N/A
N/A (3) N/A (3)
Derivation from laboratory based design practice Design project/task 5
Designers N/A (2), 20
Engineers 36
Students 300, 29
Teams 12
Design expert observation Designs (sketches, early stage) 50
(Person) years 0.5
N/A N/A
Existing principles Literature N/A (5), 442, 10, 3, 2
N/A (6) N/A (6)
Existing principles, experience N/A (2) N/A (2)
Experience N/A (2) N/A (2)
(Person) years 30, 40, 40, 40, 40, 20, 1, N/A (2)
Fig. 7 Methods used in literature to validate design principles
Fig. 8 Sources used in literature to validate design principles

Engineers: engineers were studied, observed, or interviewed
as the source
Consumer products: consumer products were analyzed to Convergence/Asymptotic Analysis: Examining a larger set of
extract principles source material (test data) until the quantity of principles con-
Literature: principles were taken as already articulated in verged to a horizontal asymptote, i.e., asymptotic convergence.
pre-existing literature This numerical technique shows promise for its computational
robustness, but does not address the validation of the utility of the
The sample sizes used for the derivation of the principles were principles.
also tabulated, as shown in Table 4. If any information was not As expected, based on the number of publications that did not
included, “N/A” was marked. Numbers in parentheses denote the address validation methodology, the source for validation was not
number of papers that did not specify that particular information. addressed for the majority of publications (Fig. 8). Most often, the
The largest sample sizes came from analysis based on student par- authors or others performed small-scale implementations of the
ticipant design studies, patent/consumer product analyses, and design principles in practice, as proof of concept and initial vali-
individuals reporting on their own person-years of experience. dation at a case study level.
5.2 Review of Methodologies for Validation of Design Sample sizes used for principle validation were also tabulated,
Principles. Similar to the analysis in Sec. 5.1, the source litera- as they were for derivation. Table 5 shows the samples sizes and
ture was also examined for the ways in which they validated the units of those samples for each paper analyzed. Nearly half (28)
design principles that were derived. Figure 7 shows that the ma- of the papers did not report the method to validate principles, the
jority of publications did not address the validation of the princi- source, nor the sample size. The largest sample sizes came from
ples, but rather focused on the derivation of the principles, or consumer products analyses, patent analyses, and customer review
more often, the pure presentation of the principles themselves, analyses. Most papers went about validation with 1–3 design tasks
without regard for methodology. The second most prevalent vali- implementing the derived principles.
dation methodology was a design project or task—most often a
case study of solving 1–3 design problems employing the design
principles. The results shown in Figs. 7 and 8 indicate a need for 6 Semantic Principle Analysis
greater validation effort within design principle research. Interest- A total of 858 principles/heuristics/guidelines were collected
ingly, a niche in the publication set [12,79,85] is represented by from the literature review in order to perform a computational
those who validated principles through: semantic analysis. The goal was to determine if there were

Table 5 Sample Sizes Used in Literature for Principle Validation
Methods to validate principles Unit of sample size Sample size
Analysis of existing designs Consumer products 4, 17, 70, 645

Industrial products 2
N/A (2) N/A (2)
Convergence analysis Customer reviews 200
Patents 41, 50
Convergence analysis, design project/task Design project/task 1
Design expert observation Designs 218
Design project/task Design project/task 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 28
Students 6, 64, N/A
Team 1
Experience N/A (4) N/A (4)
N/A (28) N/A (28) N/A (28)
patterns in the way principles have been articulated thus far, Hypothesis 1. After other verb forms, nouns account for second
mainly focusing on the parts of speech and order of those parts of most common part of speech type in this analysis, potentially sup-
speech. With an understanding of the semantic patterns of princi- porting Hypothesis 2.
ple articulation, we can make recommendations about how they Figure 10 shows the patterns that emerged from a second analy-
should be formally expressed in future work. sis. The plot shows word and sentence order along the horizontal
Our hypothesis was that there would be two main patterns that axis. Along the vertical axis is the number of principles containing
emerge in the linguistic structures of the principles: that particular part of speech at the particular word position (i.e.,
first word, second word, etc.) within the first five sentences.
(1) Most principles will be stated in the linguistic imperative
The analysis in Fig. 10 indicates very strong support for Hy-
form, indicating a prescriptive instruction for how to go
pothesis 1, showing that most principles in this sample set begin
about doing design successfully.
with an imperative verb. This result most likely indicates the pres-
(2) Some principles will be stated in the linguistic declarative
ence of a prescriptive instruction for how to go about doing design
form, indicating a descriptive statement about the nature of
successfully. Nouns are significantly less represented in the first
a particular design space or application.
five sentences of each design principle, again indicating that most
Imperative sentences are commands, an order, or a firm request. principles are expressed in the linguistic imperative form, rather
Imperative sentences can be detected computationally by finding than the linguistic declarative form. From this analysis, we con-
the presence of the command conjugation of an action verb, which clude that research practice accepts the form of the linguistic im-
is most often at or very near the beginning of the sentence [93]. perative more commonly for the formal articulation of design
For example, “Keep it simple,” a classic adage and design princi- principles, though not exclusively.
ple, is an imperative sentence, where the word keep is the impera- While insightful, these results are not entirely unexpected.
tive form of the infinitive verb to keep. From a recent book on the topic, there is affirmation of the impor-
Declarative sentences are more difficult to detect computation- tance of verbs in linguistics and conceptual representation. The
ally, as the majority of sentences are declarative. Declarative sen- authors state, “Verbs play an important role in how events, states
tences make a statement or assertion. Declarative sentences and other “happenings” are mentally represented and how they
consist of two main components: (1) a subject, which is a noun are expressed in natural language. Besides their central role in
phrase or nominative personal pronoun, and (2) a predicate, which linguistics, verbs have long been prominent topics of research in
completes an idea about the subject, such as what it does or what analytic philosophy—mostly on the nature of events and
it is like. A predicate consists of a finite (as opposed to infinitive) predicate-argument structure—and a topic of empirical investiga-
verb and all of the words modifying it [93]. For example, “All en- tion in psycholinguistics, mostly on argument structure and its
gineering is heuristic,” as declared by Koen [38], consists of the role in sentence comprehension. More recently, the representation
subject—All engineering—and the predicate—is heuristic. of verb meaning has been gaining momentum as a topic of
Each principle, in its entirety, whether single or multiple sen- research in other cognitive science branches, notably neuroscience
tences, was computationally analyzed to extract the part of speech and the psychology of concepts” [96]. Work in engineering design
of each word in order. Design principles were collected from the and biomimicry by Chiu and Shu [97] emphasizes and examines
papers in the literature review. Each principle was placed in a sep- the usefulness of verbs in expressing functionality in design, as
arate row of a matrix, with some comprising of only one word, formerly established by the functional basis [98].
some one sentence, some an entire paragraph. Each principle (row
of the matrix) was then processed using TreeTagger [94,95] to
extract the part of speech types and orders. Here, we focus on dif-
ferent conjugations of verb types, nouns, adverbs, and adjectives.
All other parts of speech have been omitted from the analysis for
brevity (for example, articles like “a” and “the”). TreeTagger sep-
arately tags three particular verbs that are very common—“to be,”
“to do,” and “to have.” In Fig. 9, analyses including and excluding
these particular verbs are plotted. The logic of examining an anal-
ysis excluding these particular verbs is that, given their extreme
commonness in the English language, omitting them may yield
less noisy results. One can see that the overall quantity of verbs
declines slightly in some conjugations, and more drastically in
others, when be, do, and have are omitted. However, the overall
trends remain the same. The verb base form, also called the infini-
tive, root, or imperative form, dominates the part of speech type Fig. 9 Part of speech word position semantic principle
counts within the principles, showing initial support for analysis

Fig. 10 Quantities by part of speech of first three words in first five sentences for set of
design principles
7 Proposed Formalization of Principle Articulation A Descriptive Design Principle:

Based on the analysis presented in Sec. 6, we propose an empir- Is stated in the grammatical declarative form.
ically based grammatical formulation for the articulation of design Informs the designer/reader of some fundamental concept,
principles, validating and building upon that proposed by Greer fact, or acquired knowledge about a particular field of
et al. [22], which is prior work on which co-author Wood was a application
collaborator. Greer et al. states: “The format used to present Is situated within a particular context and point in time, so as
the…design [principles] is the imperative form from English to provide information regarding the scope of the area of
grammar. The imperative form is used to construct verb phrases application/relevance and current state of the art in the field
that make requests, give directions or instructions, or give orders
Example Descriptive Design Principle. “Testing the product
or commands, where the context here is to give directions or
in the actual setting is an essential part of design for the develop-
instructions. This format is consistent with the action-centered
ing world, not merely a final step. Importing technology without
guideline model used by Nowack [23], where a design cycle oper-
adapting it to the specific developing world context is ineffective
ates from an initial issue, which motivates an action that produces
and unsustainable.” [16]
a consequence, which in turn must be evaluated to see if it satis-
fies the original issue. In the model, [design principles] embody
the action that taken to address issue. The result of the [design 8 Proposed Future Directions for Design Principles
principle] application, or action, is the consequence” [22].
Drawing from the analysis in Sec. 6, we assert that design prin- Research Methodology
ciples should, for the most part, be articulated in the imperative The review of the design principles literature indicates some
form and not declarative form. There should be a prescriptive key opportunities for future directions of DRM. First, most
action described in the design principle, not just a description of research efforts focus on the presentation of principles themselves,
the nature of a subject. Design being an active process, we argue with very few offering any prescriptive application of these princi-
that design principles should be imperative and action centered, as ples into design practice for their validation. Author experience
Nowack does [23]. should be combined with empirical derivation/discovery of design
Therefore, we propose the following formal requirements for principles, so as to combine the benefits of longitudinal expertise
the articulation of prescriptive design principles: and reduction of bias in reporting on just one personal perspec-
A Prescriptive Design Principle: tive/experience. As is true of much of design science research,
more investment must be made into the study of expert designers,
Is stated in the grammatical imperative form.
regardless of energy/time/resource intensive requirements—or alter-
Includes a prescriptive action for a designer to take
natively, a solution to this problem should be developed. As an exam-
Increases the likelihood of reaching a desirable consequence,
ple, this issue of sample size and access to expert/advanced level
which must also be explicitly articulated
design participants is being addressed innovatively through efforts
Is situated within a particular context and point in time, so as
like the use of crowd-sourced design and other online platforms [99].
to provide information regarding the scope of the area of
There is also an opportunity for more computational and nu-
application/relevance and current state of the art in the field
merical validation of the principles, through techniques like con-
Example Prescriptive Design Principle. “In the context of vergence analysis referenced earlier [12,79,85]. Alternative
design for flexibility, reduce the effect of a change in a design by computational validation might include other data mining techni-
increasing the number of partitions. This will lessen the impact of ques, agent-based modeling of design processes, modeling of
any individual element on the whole if a change becomes neces- human cognition through Bayesian statistics or other philosophi-
sary for the element in question.” [76] cal approaches, artificial intelligence models implementing meth-
Alternatively, design principles can describe the current state of ods like neural networks, decision trees, and complex systems
the field, SOTA, or foundational theory behind an area of applica- modeling. An increased level of formalism in the articulation of
tion. These types of design principles take on the linguistic declar- principles, using tools like logic operators, language structures,
ative form, and serve as informative statements, rather than etc., is an additional way to add rigor and repeatability to the
prescriptive directions. research methodology.
Therefore, we propose the following formal requirements for As discussed above, there are dimensions of principles that
the articulation of descriptive design principles: emerge from the various definitions that should be considered, or

even explicitly stated, including level of supporting evidence or research. The aim is to help others learn about design, design prin-
validation, level of granularity or specificity, level of formaliza- ciples, and current best practices. The literature review and analy-
tion, and position on the spectrum of prescriptive–descriptive. sis in this paper is a snapshot of the present, based on previous
Other important aspects to consider when articulating design prin- knowledge that will change as new knowledge is gained.
ciples are the time stamp (to indicate a sense of where state of the
art, technological, social, and economic trends stand in relation to
the principle), the context in which the principle is usable/useful/ Acknowledgment
relevant, the intended users of the principle, any expected back-
ground/knowledge for proper application, and any conditions or This work was funded by the SUTD-MIT International Design
qualifiers for applicability. Design principles should also be read- Centre (IDC)2.
able by humans and understandable by designers. Given the com-
mon reference to increasing the designer’s chances for success, it
would be highly valuable to include a metric or dimension of like- References
lihood of success in using the principle. However, this would [1] Papalambros, P. Y., 2015, “Design Science: Why, What and How,” Des. Sci.,
require specific investigation beyond the scope of the literature in 1, p. e1.
extraction of data, such as experiments with each of the principles [2] Glegg, G. L., 1969, The Design of Design, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
tested with different designer types, problems, and contexts. With bridge, UK.
[3] Fu, K., Yang, M. C., and Wood, K. L., 2015, “Design Principles: The Founda-
this type of inquiry, likelihood of success could be rigorously tion of Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2015-46157.
qualified or quantified. [4] Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1988, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach,
Springer-Verlag, London.
[5] Blessing, L. T. M., and Chakrabarti, A., 2009, DRM, A Design Research Meth-
9 Conclusions odology, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
[6] Finger, S., and Dixon, J. R., 1989, “A Review of Research in Mechanical Engi-
Design Science, or in general design research, has received neering Design—Part II: Representations, Analysis, and Design for the Life
increasing attention over the last few decades. The future of prod- Cycle,” Res. Eng. Des., 1(2), pp. 121–137.
ucts, services, systems, software, and architecture relies on [7] Finger, S., and Dixon, J. R., 1989, “A Review of Research in Mechanical Engi-
neering Design—Part I: Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Computer-Based Models
advancing design, both in terms of our foundation/formalized of Design Processes,” Res. Eng. Des., 1(1), pp. 51–67.
understanding and our inspirations for practitioners. Design prin- [8] Gruber, T. R., 1995, “Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for
ciples represent a key component of description and characteriza- Knowledge Sharing,” Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 43(5–6), pp. 907–928.
tion of design and associated design processes. [9] Merriam-Webster, 2016, Definition of Principle, http://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/principle, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, IL.
In this paper, we study past contributions to the area of design [10] Moe, R. E., Jensen, D., and Wood, K. L., 2004, “Prototype Partitioning Based
principles, developing a discourse for, definitions of, and distinc- on Requirement Flexibility,” ASME Paper No. DETC2004-57221.
tions among related formalizations. Key contributions of this [11] Weaver, J. M., Wood, K. L., and Jensen, D., 2008, “Transformation Facilita-
work include working definitions for researchers and practitioners tors: A Quantitative Analysis of Reconfigurable Products and Their Character-
istics,” ASME Paper No. DETC2008-49891.
to investigate, share, and utilize. These definitions may be used [12] Singh, V., Skiles, S. M., Krager, J. E., Wood, K. L., Jensen, D., and Sierakow-
not only to share and describe design principles across design ski, R., 2009, “Innovations in Design Through Transformation: A Fundamental
communities, but also as part of disciplinary fields. We analyze Study of Transformation Principles,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(8), p. 081010.
different research methodologies, highlighting derivation, valida- [13] Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., and Linn, M. C., 2004, “Design-Based Research in
Education,” Internet Environments for Science Education, M. C. Linn, E. A.
tion, and sample size in past design principles research. Research- Davis, and P. Bell, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp.
ers from disparate fields may engage the explored methodologies 73–85.
to improve the rigor of their studies, as well as consider the rec- [14] Kali, Y., 2008, “The Design Principles Database as Means for Promoting
ommendations for even greater rigor for the research field. Future Design-Based Research,” Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education:
Innovations in Science, Technology, Engineering: Mathematics Learning and
directions include further formalization of methodologies for Teaching, A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, and J. Y. Baek, eds., Routledge, New York,
design principles research, and implementation/validation of those pp. 423–438.
methodologies with applications in the areas of digital design for [15] Anastas, P. T., and Zimmerman, J. B., 2003, “Design Through the 12 Principles
manufacturing and bio-inspired design. of Green Engineering,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 37(5), pp. 94A–101A.
[16] Mattson, C. A., and Wood, A. E., 2014, “Nine Principles for Design for the
We hope that this work will make an impact in a number of Developing World as Derived From the Engineering Literature,” ASME J.
ways. This work will be valuable to researchers who are newly Mech. Des., 136(12), p. 121403.
entering the field. The synthesis of the research in this area will be [17] McAdams, D. A., 2003, “Identification and Codification of Principles for Func-
helpful for getting up to speed quickly, identifying new directions tional Tolerance Design,” J. Eng. Des., 14(3), pp. 355–375.
[18] Perez, A., Linsey, J., Tsenn, J., and Glier, M., 2011, “Identifying Product Scal-
and areas for improvement for future work. For those who are al- ing Principles: A Step Towards Enhancing Biomimetic Design,” ASME Paper
ready experienced in this research area, the paper presents a valua- No. IMECE2011-63975.
ble new approach to consider. This paper provides formalization [19] Sobek, D. K., II, Ward, A. C., and Liker, J. K., 1999, “Toyota’s Principles of
to an area in which researchers have been publishing for nearly 70 Set-Based Concurrent Engineering,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1999,
Vol. 40.
years, bringing structure and synthesis to a complex and multidis- [20] Altshuller, H., 1994, The Art of Inventing (And Suddenly the Inventor
ciplinary body of literature, molding it into a form that can now Appeared), Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MA.
be wielded by future researchers much more aptly. The work also [21] Merriam-Webster, 2016, Definition of Guideline, http://www.merriam-webster.
creates an opportunity for talented domain researchers to step into com/dictionary/guideline, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, IL.
[22] Greer, J. L., Greer, J. L., Wood, J. J., Jensen D. D., and Wood, K. L., 2002,
the realm of formulating design principles in their specific appli- “Guidelines for Product Evolution Using Effort Flow Analysis: Results of an
cation areas, which is crucial to the maturation of design practice Empirical Study,” ASME Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34013.
within those fields. [23] Nowack, M. L., 1997, “Design Guideline Support for Manufacturability,” Ph.D.
We recognize and acknowledge that design is prescientific, as a thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
[24] Kim, H., 2010, “Effective Organization of Design Guidelines Reflecting
field of research. In our view, design science will take a form Designer’s Design Strategies,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 40(6), pp. 669–688.
closer to behavioral economics because there will generally be a [25] Nielsen, J., 1993, Usability Engineering, Academic Press, Boston, MA.
human element to design. This human element adds a level of [26] Bevan, N., and Spinhof, L., 2007, “Are Guidelines and Standards for Web
complexity, unpredictability, and heterogeneity that comes from Usability Comprehensive?,” Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Design
and Usability, J. A. Jacko, ed., Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 407–419.
the diverse nature of people themselves. It is difficult to imagine [27] Ja€unsch, J., and Birkhofer, H., 2006, “The Development of the Guideline VDI
how we can control or account for all elements that make human 2221—The Change of Direction,” International Design Conference, Dubrovnik,
beings (and thus designers) so beautifully diverse and complex. Croatia, pp. 45–52.
At the same time, there is scholarship and value in categorizing,
2
synthesizing, and presenting the current SOTA within design http://idc.sutd.edu.sg

[28] Matthews, P. C., 1998, “Using a Guideline Database to Support Design Emer- [63] Glegg, G. L., 1972, The Selection of Design, Vol. 74, Cambridge University
gence: A Proposed System Based on a Designer’s Workbench,” 5th Interna- Press, Cambridge, UK.
tional Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Design, AID98, Workshop: [64] Glegg, G. L., 1973, The Science of Design, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Emergence in Design, S. Chase and L. Schmidts, eds., Lisbon, Portugal, pp. bridge, UK.
13–18. [65] Glegg, G. L., 1981, The Development of Design, Cambridge University Press,
[29] Telenko, C., and Seepersad, C., 2010, “A Methodology for Identifying Environ- Cambridge, UK.
mentally Conscious Guidelines for Product Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., [66] Gunther, J., and Ehrlenspiel, K., 1999, “Comparing Designers From Practice
132(9), p. 091009. and Designers With Systematic Design Education,” Des. Stud., 20(5),
[30] Merriam-Webster, 2016, Definition of Heuristic, http://www.merriam-webster. pp. 439–451.
com/dictionary/heuristic, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, IL. [67] Houssin, R., and Coulibaly, A., 2011, “An Approach to Solve Contradiction
[31] Stone, R., and Wood, K. L., 2000, “A Heuristic Method for Identifying Mod- Problems for Safety Integration in Innovative Design Process,” Comput. Ind.,
ules for Product Architectures,” Des. Stud., 21(1), pp. 5–31. 62(4), pp. 398–406.
[32] Bolc, L., and Cytowshi, J., 1992, Search Methods for Artificial Intelligence, [68] Joseph, S., 1996, “Design Systems and Paradigms,” Des. Stud., 17(3),
Academic Press, London. pp. 227–239.
[33] Li, C. L., Tan, S. T., and Chan, K. W., 1996, “A Qualitative and Heuristic [69] Keese, D. A., Tilstra, A. H., Seepersad, C. C., and Wood, K. L., 2007,
Approach to the Conceptual Design of Mechanism,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., “Empirically-Derived Principles for Designing Products With Flexibility for
9(1), pp. 17–32. Future Evolution,” ASME Paper No. DETC2007-35695.
[34] Chong, Y. T., Chen, C.-H., and Leong, K. F., 2009, “A Heuristic-Based [70] Langheinrich, M., 2001, “Privacy by Design—Principles of Privacy-Aware
Approach to Conceptual Design,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(2), pp. 97–116. Ubiquitous Systems,” Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing International
[35] Nisbett, R. E., and Ross, L., 1980, Human Inference: Strategies, and Shortcom- Conference, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 30–Oct. 2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
ings of Social Judgment, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp. 273–291.
[36] Pearl, J., 1984, Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem [71] Liker, J. K., 2004, The Toyota Way—14 Management Principles From the
Solving, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA. World’s Greatest Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[37] Yilmaz, S., and Seifert, C., 2011, “Creativity Through Design Heuristics: A [72] Matthews, P. C., Blessing, L. T. M., and Wallace, K. M., 2002, “The Introduc-
Case Study of Expert Product Design,” Des. Stud., 32(4), pp. 384–415. tion of a Design Heuristics Extraction Method,” Adv. Eng. Inf., 16(1),
[38] Koen, B. V., 1985, Definition of the Engineering Method, ASEE Publications, pp. 3–19.
Washington, DC. [73] Mulet, E., and Vidal, R., 2008, “Heuristic Guidelines to Support Conceptual
[39] Magee, C., and Frey, D., 2006, “Experimentation and Its Role in Engineering Design,” Res. Eng. Des., 19, pp. 101–112.
Design: Linking a Student Design Exercise to New Results From Cognitive [74] Norman, D., 1988, The Design of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York.
Psychology,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 22(3), pp. 478–488. [75] Rajan, P. K. P., Van Wie, M., Campbell, M., Otto, K., and Wood. K., 2003,
[40] Clancey, W. J., 1985, “Heuristic Classification,” Artif. Intell., 27(3), “Design for Flexibility—Measure and Guidelines,” ICED, Stockholm, Sweden.
pp. 289–350. [76] Rajan, P. K. P., Van Wie, M., Campbell, M. I., Wood, K. L., and Otto, K. N.,
[41] Maier, M. W., and Rechtin, E., 2000, The Art of Systems Architecting, Vol. 2, 2005, “An Empirical Foundation for Product Flexibility,” Des. Stud., 26(4), pp.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 405–438.
[42] Roozenburg, N. F. M., and Eekels, J., 1995, Product Design: Fundamentals [77] Pfeifer, R., Iida, F., and Bongard, J., 2005, “New Robotics: Design Principles
and Methods, Wiley, Chichester, UK. for Intelligent Systems,” Artif. Life, 11(1–2), pp. 99–120.
[43] Hamstra, E., 2012, “Seven Commandments of an Experience Design [78] Poole, S., and Simon, M., 1997, “Technological Trends, Product Design and the
Company,” Dimensions, ASTC, Washington, DC, pp. 36–39. Environment,” Des. Stud., 18(3), pp. 237–248.
[44] Cheng, M., 2003, Medical Device Regulations: Global Overview and Guiding [79] Qureshi, A., Murphy, J. T., Kuchinsky, B.,Seepersad, C. C., Wood, K.L., and
Principles, World Heath Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Jensen, D.D., 2006, “Principles of Product Flexibility,” ASME Paper No.
[45] Suh, N. P., 2001, Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, Oxford Uni- DETC2006-99583.
versity Press, New York. [80] Raviv, D., 2004, “Hands-On Inventive Solutions in Engineering Design,”
[46] Suh, N. P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, Paper No.
New York. 2001089.
[47] Merriam-Webster, 2016, Definition of Strategy, http://www.merriam-webster. [81] Reichert, S. H., 2010, “Reverse Engineering Nature: Design Principles for Flex-
com/dictionary/strategy, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, IL. ible Protection. Inspired by Ancient Fish Armor of Polypteridae,” S.M.
[48] Merriam-Webster, 2016, Definition of Rule of Thumb, http://www.merriam- thesis, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
webster.com/dictionary/rule%20of%20thumb, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Chicago, IL. [82] Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T.,
[49] Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A., and Wood, K. L., 2008, “Analogies and Meta- and Eisenberg, M., 2005, “Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative
phors in Creative Design,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 24(2), pp. 283–294. Thinking,” Institute for Software Research, Paper No. 816.
[50] Markman, A. B., and Wood, K. L., 2009, Tools for Innovation: The Science [83] Sangelkar, S., Cowen, N., and McAdams, D., 2012, “User Activity—Product
Behind Practical Methods That Drive New Ideas, Oxford University Press, Function Association Based Design Rules for Universal Products,” Des. Stud.,
New York. 33(1), pp. 85–110.
[51] Altshuller, G. S., 1984, Creativity as an Exact Science—The Theory of the Solu- [84] Siddiqi, A., and de Weck, O. L., 2008, “Modeling Methods and Conceptual
tion of Inventive Problems (Studies in Cybernetics), Gordon and Breach Design Principles for Reconfigurable Systems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 130(10),
Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p. 101102.
[52] Ammar, A. A., Scaravetti, D., and Nadeau, J.-P., 2010, “A Heuristic Method [85] Singh, V., Skiles, S. M., Krager, J. E., Wood, K. L., Jensen, D., Szmerekovsky,
for Functional Aggregation Within the Design Process,” IDMME-Virtual A., 2006, “Innovations in Design Through Transformation: A Fundamental
Concept, Bordeaux, France, Oct. 20–22. Study of Transformation Principles,” ASME Paper No. DETC2006-99575.
[53] Armstrong, J., 2004, “Design Principles: The Engineer’s Contribution to [86] Son, J. I., Raulf, C., Cheong, H., and Shu, L. H., 2012, “Applying Patterns of
Society,” Royal Academy of Engineering, London. Transformation in Biology to Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-71296.
[54] Bardram, J. E., 2004, “Applications of Context-Aware Computing in Hospital [87] Sosa, R., Wood, K. L., and Mohan, R. E., 2014, “Identifying Opportunities for
Work: Examples and Design Principles,” CM Symposium on Applied Comput- the Design of Innovative Reconfigurable Robots,” ASME Paper No.
ing, Nicosia, Cyprus, March 14–17. DETC2014-35568.
[55] Campbell, R. D., Lewis, P. K., and Mattson, C. A., 2011, “A Method for Identi- [88] Tilstra, A. H., Backlund, P. B., Seepersad, C.C., and Wood, K.L., 2008,
fying Design Principles for the Developing Worlds,” ASME Paper No. “Industrial Case Studies in Product Flexibility for Future Evolution: An Appli-
DETC2011-48584. cation and Evaluation of Design Guidelines,” ASME Paper No. DETC2008-
[56] Cormier, P., Literman, B., and Lewis, K., 2011, “Empirically Derived Heuris- 49370.
tics to Assist Designers With Satisfying Consumer Variation in Product [89] Wallace, K. M., 1995, “Methods and Tools for Decision Making in Engineering
Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-48448. Design,” Des. Stud., 16(4), pp. 429–446.
[57] Daly, S., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., and Gonzalez R., 2012, [90] Weaver, J., Wood, K. L., Crawford, R., and Jensen, D., 2010, “Transformation
“Design Heuristics in Engineering Concept Generation,” J. Eng. Educ., 101(4), Design Theory: A Meta-Analogical Framework,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci.
pp. 601–629. Eng., 10(3), p. 031012.
[58] Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Seifert, C.M., and Gonzalez, R., 2010, “Cognitive Heuris- [91] Yammiyavar, P., 2005, “Usability Heuristics and Their Role in Designing
tic Use in Engineering Design Ideation,” ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, Vehicles—A Case Study of an Electric-Hybrid Vehicle Body Design,” J. Indian
KY, June 20–23, pp. 15.282.1–15.282.25. Inst. Sci., 85(2), pp. 67–82.
[59] Dismukes, J. P., 2005, “Information Accelerated Radical Innovation From Prin- [92] Zanakis, S. H., Evans, J. R., and Vazacopoulos, A. A., 1989, “Heuristic Meth-
ciples to an Operational Methodology,” The Industrial Geographer, Vol. 3, pp. ods and Applications: A Categorized Survey,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 43(1),
19–42. pp. 88–110.
[60] Dong, A., and Agogino, A. M., 2001, “Design Principles for the Information [93] Garner, B. A., 2009, Garner’s Modern American Usage, 3rd ed., Oxford Uni-
Architecture of a SMET Education Digital Library,” JCDL, Roanoke, VA. versity Press, New York.
[61] Esposito, N., and Linsey, J. L., 2012, “Principles of Green Design: Analyz- [94] Schmid, H., 1999, “Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging With an Applica-
ing User Activities and Product Feedback,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012- tion to German,” Text, Speech and Language Tech., 11, pp. 13–25.
71197. [95] Schmid, H., 1994, “Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision
[62] Galle, P., 1996, “Design Rationalization and the Logic of Design: A Case Trees,” International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing,
Study,” Des. Stud., 17(3), pp. 253–275. Manchester, UK.

[96] R. G. de Almeida, and C. Manouilidou, Eds., 2014, Cognitive Science Perspec- [98] Stone, R., and Wood, K. L., 2000, “Development of a Functional Basis for
tives on Verb Representation and Processing, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 359–370.
[97] Chiu, I., and Shu, L. H., 2007, “Biomimetic Design Through Natural Language [99] Chan, J., Dow, S. P., and Schunn, C. D., 2015, “Do the Best Design Ideas
Analysis to Facilitate Cross-Domain Information Retrieval,” Artif. Intell. Eng. (Really) Come From Conceptually Distant Sources of Inspiration?,” Des. Stud.,
Des., Anal. Manuf., AIEDAM, 21(1), pp. 45–59. 36, pp. 31–58.

Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Principles: Literature Review, Analysis, and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Principles: Literature

Review, Analysis, and Future

Journal of Mechanical Design Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 1 Proportion of reference types 4 Discussion of Nomenclature

4.1 Principle. Design principles are the focus of this

Fig. 3 Reference year of publication

101103-2 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 1 Literature review of definitions and characteristics for “principle”

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-3

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

101103-4 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-5

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

101103-6 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-7

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Methods to find principles Unit of sample size Sample size

Fig. 7 Methods used in literature to validate design principles

Fig. 8 Sources used in literature to validate design principles

101103-8 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Methods to validate principles Unit of sample size Sample size

Analysis of existing designs Consumer products 4, 17, 70, 645

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-9

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

7 Proposed Formalization of Principle Articulation A Descriptive Design Principle:

101103-10 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-11

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

101103-12 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101103-13

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.