The Challenge Of Conceiving: Approaches To Problem Identification And Framing

The Challenge Of Conceiving: Approaches To Problem Identification And Framing

C. Hansen, U. Jørgensen (2011).  The Challenge Of Conceiving: Approaches To Problem Identification And Framing . 14.

One of the big challenges in the CDIO approach to engineering education is the first part focusing on conceiving problems to be handled and eventually solved. Traditional engineering education has been dominated by its focus on technical disciplines emphasising their individual tool box of problem solving and optimization methods. Going back to the earlier days of engineering education problems were defined through the repertoire of existing technologies and solutions taken up and handled as given cases in the education. With the growing emphasis on scientific methods leading to a continued change in engineering disciplines throughout the mid 20th century the focus changed and problems were defined in more theoretical terms. Engineering education remained dominated by its introduction of a more and more dense repertoire of methods and theoretical models.

In this paper we will approach this problem from the perspective of engineering design challenges where the need for problem identification is obvious to avoid the pitfall to reproduce and piecemeal engineer already existing product or service concepts. Problem identification is not a simple desk research task as it often involves a multitude of actors having different or even not very well established ideas of what might be a good design result.

We present two mutually supportive approaches to problem identification that we have developed, applied and refined. The first is providing an approach to map the arenas of development that influence the context of materials, visions and actors providing the basis for analysing problems related to a design task. The second is providing an approach to the co-evolution of problem space and solution space into a matching pair, which constitutes a good starting point for synthesising design concepts. The two approaches have a solid grounding in existing theories of the socio-technical nature of engineering and the process of synthesising solution spaces in engineering design. 


Authors (New): 
Claus Thorp Hansen
Ulrik Jørgensen
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
problem identification
development arena
Downey G., Are engineers losing control of technology? From ‘problem solving’ to ‘problem definition and solution’ in engineering education. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 83, 2005.: 
Vincenti W.G., What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1990.: 
Bucciarelli L. L., Designing Engineers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996.: 
Seely B., The Other Re-engineering of Engineering Education, 1900-1965. Journal of Engineering Education, July, 1999, pp. 285-294.: 
Mindell D., Between Human and Machine – Feedback, Control, and Computing before Cybernetics. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2002.: 
Hughes A.C. and Hughes T.P., Systems, Experts, and Computers: The Systems Approach in Management and Engineering, World War II and after. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000.: 
Wengenroth U., Managing Engineering Complexity: A Historical Perspective. Paper for the Engineering Systems Symposium at MIT, 2004.: 
Juhlin O. and Elam M., What the New History of Technological Knowledge Knows and How It Knows It. In Juhlin O., Prometheus at the Wheel: Representations of Road Transport Informatics. Linköping: Tema T, Linköping Universitet, 1997.: 
Seely B., A Swinging Pendulum: The Place of Science in American Engineering Schools, 1800- 2000. Paper for a workshop in Copenhagen on The Engineering Profession and Foundations of Technological Competence, (forthcoming).: 
Kjersdam F. and Enemark S., The Aalborg Experiment - Implementation of Problem Based Learning. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press, 2002.: 
Crawley E., Malmqvist J., Ostlund S. and Brodeur D., Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.: 
Bijker W.E., Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs – Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.: 
Jørgensen U. and Sørensen O., Arenas of Development. In Sørensen K., Williams R. (Eds.) Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002, pp. 197-222.: 
Callon M., The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. In Callon M., Law J. and Rip A. (Eds.) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. London: Houndmills, 1986, pp. 19-34.: 
Rozenburg N.F.M. and Ekels J., Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1995.: 
Cross N. and Dorst C.H., Co-evolution of problem and solution spaces in creative design – observations from an empirical study. Proceedings International Workshop on Computational Models on Creative Design, Queensland, Australia, 1998.: 
Hansen C.T. and Andreasen M.M., The content and nature of a design concept. Proceedings NordDesign, NTNU, August 2002, pp. 101-110.: 
Dorst C.H. and Cross N., Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 2001, pp. 425-437.: 
Dorst C.H., Design Problems and Design Paradoxes, Design issues, 22 (3), 2006, pp. 4-17: 
Crawley E., The CDIO Syllabus – A statement of goals for undergraduate engineering education. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. MIT, 2001.: 
Armstrong P.J., The CDIO Syllabus: Learning outcomes for engineering education. In Crawley E., Malmqvist J., Ostlund S. and Brodeur D., Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach. Springer, 2007.: 
Go to top