Presentation for paper on the topic presented at FIE14 in October 2014. This prevention focuses on the application of knowledge-basedepistemology of engineering to the understandings of the engineering design process. This work aims to extend discussion on Philosophy of Engineering into its impact on our understanding of engineering design. The question being addressed is how a knowledge-based philosophy of engineering supports the distinctive challenges in distinguishing engineering design from scientific exploration and artistic design. This work argues for the centrality of argument as the center of engineering design. The paper then aims at discussing implications that such an understanding of design would have on the learning of engineering design.

1. Knowledge Basis
for Design
Steve Frezza, Ph. D., C.S.D.P.
1

2. Designing the Engineer
Motivation:
What makes engineering education Engineering…
What engineers kHnooww …they know it…
What makes engineering knowing different…
Not that different, form of Common-Sense Knowledge
Different from Scientific knowing
Yet different – Informed, Pragmatic
2

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

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

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

6. Design Considerations
Engineering activity: Design
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?
6

7. Thinking about …
engineering design thinking
Key question:
Is engineering design knowing somehow different
from other types of knowing?
UUssee iinn ssoollnn oovveerr eexxppllaannaattiioonn
EExxtteerrnnaall vvaalluuee oovveerr iinntteerrnnaall
7
Scientific knowing
Artistic knowing
EEnnggiinneeeerriinngg DDeessiiggnn KKnnoowwiinngg DDiiffffeerrss

8. 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
EEnnggiinneeeerriinngg DDeessiiggnn KKnnoowwiinngg
SSiimmiillaarr,, bbuutt ddiiffffeerreenntt
8

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

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

11. 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
11

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

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

14. 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
14

15. 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
15

16. Teach Design Reasoning
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
16

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

18. Core Engineering Design
Education emphasizing the wicked
Solution making that:
Emerge 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…
18