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.

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…

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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’

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

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

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

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

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…