Methodological Classification of Innovative Engineering Projects

Zwart, SD Sjoerd; Vries, MJ Marc de

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_13

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While scholars recognize the enormous breadth of engineering (Kant & Kerr, 2019), the detailed articulation of projects that engineers engage in is limited. One exception is Zwart and Vries (2016) classification of innovative engineering projects, determined based on how they differ in goals and methods, resulting in categories such as designed artifacts, ENS, and OPT. The honeycomb of engineering framework describes the breadth of engineering in further detail recognizing six ontological categorizations: (1) UCD, (2) DBT, (3) ENS, (4) OPT, (5) EAN, and (6) REV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the process of optimizing such a system, engineers are required to reconcile design criteria and recognize the trade-offs necessary to improve designs (Dandy et al, 2017;Parkinson et al, 2013). The focus is on a mathematically driven approach to optimization, which aims to examine the performance of a system based on a few criteria, such as effectiveness and cost (Zwart & Vries, 2016). In such optimization, the design criteria and parameters are known and clear.…”

Section: Engineering Inquiry Number 4: Optmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education

Purzer

Quintana-Cifuentes

Menekşe

2021

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Understanding the nature of engineering is important for shaping engineering education, especially precollege education. While much research has established the pedagogical benefits of teaching engineering in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12), the philosophical foundations of engineering remain under-examined.Purpose: This conceptual paper introduces the honeycomb of engineering framework, which offers an epistemologically justified theoretical position and a pedagogical lens that can be used to examine ways engineering concepts and practices are taught in precollege education.Scope/Method: The honeycomb of engineering was developed as a descriptive framework by examining existing literature over a wide range of related disciplines such as the philosophy of engineering and technology, as well as design thinking and practice. The pedagogical translation of the framework was then developed to examine published precollege engineering curricula. Results:The framework categorizes the multiple goals of engineering using an ontological classification of engineering inquiries anchored in the central practice of negotiating risks and benefits (i.e., trade-offs). This framework also illustrates the adaptability of design methodology in guiding six inquiries:(1) user-centered design, (2) design-build-test, (3) engineering science, (4) optimization, (5) engineering analysis, and (6) reverse engineering. The published curricula represented these inquiries with varying degrees, with design-buildtest lessons seeing the most representation followed by user-centered design. Conclusions:The honeycomb of engineering framework delineates variations in engineering education based on an epistemological explanation. The pedagogical translations offer guidance to educators, researchers, and curriculum designers for differentiating curricular aims and learning outcomes resulting from participation in different engineering inquiries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Engineering Inquiry Number 4: Optmentioning

confidence: 99%

The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education

Purzer

Quintana-Cifuentes

Menekşe

2021

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, the case should not be non-significant either (Meijers, 2000). These studies are conducted by observing engineering practice, as well as by studying engineering literature or by borrowing case-studies from other disciplines (Kroes & Meijers, 2000;Houkes & Vermaas, 2009;Vermaas, 2016;Zwart & De Vries, 2016).…”

Section: The Analytical Philosophy Of Technology-solutions Offeredmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘Empirical’ in the Empirical Turn: A Critical Analysis

Bosschaert

Blok

2022

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the second half of the twentieth century, several philosophers of technology argued that their predecessors had reflected too abstractly and pessimistically on technology. In the view of these critics, one should study technologies empirically in order to fully understand them. They developed several strategies to empirically inform the philosophy of technology and called their new approach the empirical turn. However, they provide insufficient indications of what exactly is meant by empirical study in their work. This leads to the critical question of what counts as an empirically informed philosophy of technology in the empirical turn. In order to answer this question, we first elaborate on the problems that the empirical turn philosophers tried to address; secondly, we sketch their solutions, and, thirdly, we critically discuss their conceptions of empirical study. Our critical analysis of the empirical turn contributes to new efforts to engage in an empirically informed philosophy of technology.

show abstract

“…In a previous study, we developed a co-design framework offering a landscape in which the different design steps could occur in diverse levels of collaboration (Gaete Cruz et al, in press). The framework builds on reinterpretations of the ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969) and the design cycle (Jonas, 2007;Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995;Zwart & de Vries, 2016). We defined the levels of collaboration and the design actions of co-design.…”

Section: Expanding the Co-design Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The design concept is commonly referred to as the process and the end result (Zwart & de Vries, 2016). Design has also been conceptualised as a timeline in which design solutions, through repetitive design cycles, evolve increasingly from one phase to another one.…”

Section: Expanding the Co-design Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Co-Design Processes and Visual Collaborative Methods: An Action Research Through Design in Chile

Cruz

Ersoy

Czischke

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the urgency to adapt cities to social and ecological pressures, co-design has become essential to legitimise transformations by involving citizens and other stakeholders in their design processes. Public spaces remain at the heart of this transformation due to their accessibility for citizens and capacity to accommodate urban functions. However, urban landscape design is a complex task for people who are not used to it. Visual collaborative methods (VCMs) are often used to facilitate expression and ideation early in design, offering an arts-based language in which actors can communicate. We developed a co-design process framework to analyse how VCMs contribute to collaboration in urban processes throughout the three commonly distinguished design phases: conceptual, embodiment, and detail. We participated in a co-design process in the Atacama Desert in Chile, adopting an Action Research through Design (ARtD) in planning, undertaking and reflecting in practice. We found that VCMs are useful to facilitate collaboration throughout the process in design cycles. The variety of VCMs used were able to foster co-design in a rather non-participatory context and influenced the design outcomes. The framework recognized co-design trajectories such as the early fuzziness and the ascendent co-design trajectory throughout the process. The co-design process framework aims for conceptual clarification and may be helpful in planning and undertaking such processes in practice. We conclude that urban co-design should be planned and analysed as a long-term process of interwoven collaborative trajectories.

show abstract

Methodological Classification of Innovative Engineering Projects

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education

The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education

The ‘Empirical’ in the Empirical Turn: A Critical Analysis

A Framework for Co-Design Processes and Visual Collaborative Methods: An Action Research Through Design in Chile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About