A tale of two graph models: a case study in wireless sensor networks

Designing and reasoning about complex systems such as wireless sensor networks is hard due to highly dynamic environments: sensors are heterogeneous, battery-powered, and mobile. While formal modelling can provide rigorous mechanisms for design/reasoning, they are often viewed as difficult to use. Graph rewrite-based modelling techniques increase usability by providing an intuitive, flexible, and diagrammatic form of modelling in which graph-like structures express relationships between entities while rewriting mechanisms allow model evolution. Two major graph-based formalisms are Graph Transformation Systems (GTS) and Bigraphical Reactive Systems (BRS). While both use similar underlying structures, how they are employed in modelling is quite different. To gain a deeper understanding of GTS and BRS, and to guide future modelling, theory, and tool development, in this experience report we compare the practical modelling abilities and style of GTS and BRS when applied to topology control in WSNs. To show the value of the models, we describe how analysis may be performed in both formalisms. A comparison of the approaches shows that although the two formalisms are different, from both a theoretical and practical modelling standpoint, they are each successful in modelling topology control in WSNs. We found that GTS, while featuring a small set of entities and transformation rules, relied on entity attributes, rule application based on attribute/variable side-conditions, and imperative control flow units. BRS on the other hand, required a larger number of entities in order to both encode attributes directly in the model (via nesting) and provide tagging functionality that, when coupled with rule priorities, implements control flow. There remains promising research mapping techniques between the formalisms to further enable flexible and expressive modelling.

Demonstration, extension, and refinement of the re-proposed notion of design abduction

The original ideas on design abduction, inspired by treatments in philosophy of science, had a narrow conception on how novelty emerges in design, when looked at in terms of logic. The authors have previously presented a re-proposed notion of abduction in design, taking the differences between science and design into account. Now, in this article, the invention of the airplane by the Wright brothers is analyzed as a retrospective case study. Key parts of the re-proposed notion of design abduction are demonstrated, and two new types of design abduction are identified, namely strategic abduction and dynamic abduction. Perhaps even more importantly, a new hypothesis on the cognitive basis of design abduction is reached. While the importance of model-based abduction (and reasoning) is confirmed, the case also pinpoints the central role of verbalization and discussion in supporting design reasoning in general and especially abduction. All in all, it seems that an improved understanding of design abduction and its cognitive basis would be instrumental in promoting more effective and efficient designing.

Collaborative Design Reasoning in a Large Interdisciplinary Learning Tool Design Project

This design case discusses the complex collaborative design reasoning processes involved in developing an online interactive learning tool for learners of all ages to explore and understand the role of flagellate plants in our society. The learning tool consists of a main website (the Voyager) and an interactive, dynamic map of the evolutionary relationships between thousands of flagellate plant species (the customized OneZoom web application). The design and development of this innovative learning tool required expertise in collaborative design, design reasoning, project management, theories of learning and instructional strategies, software development, and web usability. Collaboration platforms used by the project team involved GitHub and Slack. Domain knowledge needed to complete the project included botany (flagellate plants), web programming (Python and JavaScript), and database management (MySQL). The project included a team of international experts who negotiated design strategies and solutions over the course of a year and produced and improved prototypes until converging on the final product. This article explains the challenges faced during these processes and presents solutions and lessons learned from this experience.

A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains

This paper presents a framework for studying design thinking. Three paradigmatic approaches are described to measure design cognitive processes: design cognition, design physiology and design neurocognition. Specific tools and methods serve each paradigmatic approach. Design cognition is explored through protocol analysis, black-box experiments, surveys and interviews. Design physiology is measured with eye tracking, electrodermal activity, heart rate and emotion tracking. Design neurocognition is measured using electroencephalography, functional near infrared spectroscopy and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Illustrative examples are presented to describe the types of results each method provides about the characteristics of design thinking, such as design patterns, design reasoning, design creativity, design collaboration, the co-evolution of the problem solution space, or design analysis and evaluation. The triangulation of results from the three paradigmatic approaches to studying design thinking provides a synergistic foundation for the understanding of design cognitive processes. Results from such studies generate a source of feedback to designers, design educators and researchers in design science. New models, new tools and new research questions emerge from the integrated approach proposed and lay down future challenges in studying design thinking.

Six Sigma with C-K theory for innovations in operational excellence: a case study

Purpose Six Sigma is a well-established powerful business strategy for achieving operational excellence (OPEX). However, previous studies have suggested that the Six Sigma may negatively impact organizational creativity and innovation. The C-K theory is one of the most widely used technique for design reasoning which promotes the creativity and innovation. The purpose of this paper is to integrate the Six Sigma methodology and C-K theory for enhancing innovative capacity of Six Sigma for achieving OPEX. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes an integration methodology of C-K theory and Six Sigma using the extant literature. Also, a case study is conducted based on the proposed integration model. Findings The paper suggests a step-by-step integration methodology for integrating Six Sigma with C-K theory for both (DMAIC and DMADV). The methodology when applied to a live case in mining logistics the results are very encouraging. The solution was cost effective and also technically superior compared to previous solutions. Practical implications The paper proposes a step-by-step methodology for the integration of Six Sigma with C-K tools. The methodology is practically applied in a live case. Organizations can use findings from this paper to implement an integration model of Six Sigma with C-K theory. Originality/value This is the first paper that proposes an integration methodology of Six Sigma with C-K theory to enhance the innovation capability to achieve the OPEX.

Knowledge structures in engineering design: integrating multiple ‘ways of knowing’

In this paper I discuss the different‘knowledges’ needed to design, and their implications onthe nature of reasoning in design. Donald Schön andHerbert Simon offer useful models of design thatprivilege different knowledge types, both needed to design.Schön describes a form of case-based reasoning built onmaterial examples. Simon’s focus is on abstract reasoning,defined within academic disciplines by formal rationalrelations between theoretical concepts. Andrew Abbott’smodalities of diagnosis, treatment, and inference helpto show what underpins the different ways of knowing, buthis modalities fail to account explicitly for translationbetween the various knowledge structures.A focus on knowledge shows challenges studentsmay face transitioning from sciences to design. It suggestsways that design project briefs constrain the way in whichstudents work with, and between, different knowledgestructures. It also potentially offers ways to think aboutintroducing design reasoning into engineering sciencecourse