Design research in Denmark

The contribution of Professor Mogens Myryp Andreasen to design theory has been discussed earlier in this dissertation. It is only natural that an important research team in this field is located in Denmark. The research team started from Design Science and Hubka. The Danish have, however, created a very wide comprehensive view of the design process, and it is impossible to review their work without understanding this view.

In this dissertation, the research of modularity conducted in the field has been reproached for being blinkered and relying on one basic rule. However, this does not apply to the Danish approach whose view on product design is even wider than the one used in this dissertation. In a study carried out following the Danish research tradition, design is never examined as a separate event, but it is an operation carried out by certain organizations. The view on the product is not static but the life

cycle of the product is always visible in the background. The effects of the design decisions on the various phases of the life cycle are considered. These are called dispositions. When we add that the methods and tools suggested by the Danish researchers often truly aim to apply the theory of domains, we see a distinct research tradition, even though we do not speak of a separate school.

A good idea of the Danish comprehensive view on product design can be acquired in, for example, the dissertation ”Design Modelling in a Designer’s Workbench – Contribution to a Design Language” by Niels Henrik Mortensen [Mortensen 1999]. The dissertation discusses the possibility to develop the ”design language” and examines the ideas and models related to design. The following presents an example figure on the models and elements associated with the design task of the product. The horizontal axis indicates the life cycle of the product. A description of the product, following the TTS and the domain theory, is shown in the middle. It is presented according to the chromosome model. On the product part level, the products have a part of model and a kind of model. The latter two-model system sets the basis for the Product Family Master Plan method (see e.g. [Harlou 2006]).

FIGURE 138. The Danish view on the elements related to the design of a product is wide. This figure serves as an example of this [Mortensen 1999 p. 80].

Danish research also includes the definition of the phenomena related to the design and the product with precise semantics. Therefore, for example, the characteristics and properties of design refer to

different things in Danish research. The first one is related to the structure of the technical system and the latter to its behaviour (operations). The semantical structure hides another discipline related to design theory, as shown in the figure below. If the reader does not realize that the words are not used in their common-language meaning, it may be difficult to understand the Danish research. The approach is nearly the opposite of the US research. A senior researcher once joked that all terms ought to be translated into Latin to make research intelligible in the United States. This is part of a more general problem in the field of research.

FIGURE 139. The Danish research tradition involves defining things via means of semantics.

Therefore, a number of English words have a specific meaning, that is, an invisible ”design” prefix attached to them. [Mortensen 1999 p. 52]

Another viewpoint to design highlighted in the Danish research is the distinction between goals and results. This tradition derives from the German machine design where the issue has been presented by, for example, Hansen (1974) and Roth (1986). According to this, there exists a clear difference between the ”Sollen” (what ought to be) and ”Sein” (what is) items. Here we see that the division derives from much earlier traditions of German philosophy, as we may consider Max Weber (1864-1920) as being the first to crystallize this. This philosophy appears in the Danish research as shown in the figure below.

FIGURE 140. In the design process, the desired ”behaviour” (~functionality) (the Soll behaviour) changes into Ist behaviour, as shown in the figure by using the chromosome model. [Mortensen 1999 p. 71; also Andreasen 1999].

The described philosophy is important for this dissertation because the design process of a new modular product presented in Chapter 12 is based on the idea that a model can be created to describe the behaviour of the modular division in the Sollen context. The fact that the ”Sollen”

elements are not necessarily implemented as ”Sein” elements is considered in the suggested design process as iteration between the phases, as the technical solutions do not enable the desired Soll behaviour.

In the research of designing modular structures, the Danish researchers Andreasen, Hansen, Jensen, and Mortensen have developed a framework model to guide the research. As shown in the figure below, the model differs from the pure function-based approach. The elements following Hypothesis 2 of this dissertation show in the framework model, but the Danish framework model remains neutral on the priority argument included in the hypothesis.

FIGURE 141. The framework model guiding the modularity research of the Danish researchers.

The model in the figure is the version drawn by Andreasen [Andreasen & al 2001]. In the framework model drawn by Hansen, the vertical axis features the Strategic perspective, the Planning perspective, and the Realisation perspective [Hansen & al 2002].

The most recent crystallization of the views on designing modularity in the Danish research can be found in Ulf Harlou's dissertation ”Developing product families based on architectures” [Harlou 2006]. When comparing the present dissertation to Harlou's dissertation, the first important issue is that Harlou speaks of ”product families based on architectures”. This is a wider scope than a mere examination of modular systems, and a much wider view than ”defining a modular product structure in the new product design”. Harlou introduces a framework model on the development of product families, shown in the figure below. The scope of the present dissertation would be located on the top left corner in the figure. If we consider that modularity and platforms are practices developed by the industry, the figure title ought to be ”Research and industrial practice phenomenon”.

FIGURE 142. The framework model for developing product families, according to Harlou [Harlou 2006 p. 42].

In his work, Harlou suggests two tools for designing product families. The tools are the Generic organ diagram (GOD) and the Product family master plan PFMP. Both tools are based on the main theories of Design Science and the Danish research. The generic organ diagram is based on utilizing the Domain theory, and thus its roots lie in Hubka's Theory of technical systems. The Product family master plan, in turn, is based on the Danish idea of a class hierarchy to be created for the elements in the design (see earlier Figure 138). Both tools thus have distinct theoretical premises.

The elements for drawing a generic organ diagram are shown in the figure below. The dependencies between the organs are called interfaces and they may be related to the functions of the technical systems or to the other relationships – including the non-desired –between the structure and the elements.

FIGURE 143. The elements for drawing a generic organ diagram [Harlou 2006 p. 101]

The generic organ diagram is drawn at the beginning of the product family design. It serves as the starting point for the design of each individual product in each product family. It directs towards implementing all products in the product families in the same way, and it also encourages the common use of solutions and components. The approach works best if the entire product range is designed simultaneously (cf. the observations in the industrial examples of Scania and Ponsse). The following shows the generic organ diagram of the Bang & Olufsen BeoLab 2000, 2500, 3500, 4000, 6000, and 8000 loudspeaker series.

FIGURE 144. A generic organ diagram for a BeoLab loudspeaker product family. Most relations are related to functionality. [Harlou 2006 p. 103]

As we see, the generic organ diagram is an efficient design tool that guides towards standardization. The GOD remains neutral on the issue of whether some elements or their parts ought to be formed into modules; and it cannot do that, as it is not relevant for the business goals to form the modular structure solely on the basis of the organ structure, as has been proved in this dissertation. Therefore, the GOD is a method for designing a product family and it does not focus on creating a modular system. Of course, a product family can be designed without a modular system. That is to say, the fact that the method does not suit the scope of the present dissertation does not diminish its value.

The Product family master plan is based on a theoretical idea that in turn is based on the Object Oriented Modelling (OOM) method used in software (which is part of the Object Oriented Approach). OOM is based on the modelling of elements as entities that contain all their possible functions (in software engineering, this also includes the definition of via which variables the communication takes place over the interface of the entity). Physical structures can also be modelled according to the OOM [for example, see e.g. Korpela & Karjalainen 2007]. Operating in

this way, the class hierarchy typical to object oriented approach becomes usable in part structure domain. The Danish presentation of the kind-of type hierarchy to be formed in addition to the assembly hierarchy is based on this. The PFMP method utilizes the class hierarchy and is thus able to show the commonalities between the various products in the product range. This is a method analyzing the structure of an existing product range, operating on the part structure level. As such, the method remains outside the scope of this dissertation^*. The method and the good results achieved with it are explained in [Harlou 2006].

When comparing the author's dissertation to the Danish research as a whole, numerous similar elements and ideas can be found. This is not a coincidence, as there is strong co-operation between the research teams lead by Asko Riitahuhta and Mogens Myrup Andreasen. The Danish research would undoubtedly have plenty of things to give for future research in the issue as well. For example, the method of generic organ diagram (GOD) could form a basis for drawing a target architecture, but such a tool that would draw the desired module boundaries has not been developed yet. However, this research differs from the Danish one in applying the explicit data flow view. In this dissertation, we have not merely contented on stating which issues are related to which in design, but on the basis of the new product design processes it is evaluated where each design decision is created, what prerequisites it set to following phases. Thus the possible see sequence between design steps. This has enabled the re-evaluation of the importance of the functional structure in the definition of the architecture of a modular product.

12.1.5 The product structure development processes in the German-speaking world