DRS 2012 Bangkok

Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand, 1–4 July 2011

Author Name(s) (2011). Paper Title. XX – XX

The Influence of Design Methods on the

Design Process: Effect of Use of Scenario,
Brainstorming, and Synectics on Designing

Hsien-Hui Tanga, Ying-Ling Chena and John S. Gerob

a
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology; b Krasnow
Institute for Advanced Studies

This paper presents the results of protocol analyses of collaborative design sessions to
examine whether the use of different design methods influences the design process. Nine
collaborative design sessions using brainstorming, scenario, synectics were analyzed using
the function-behavior-structure ontology. The frequencies and distributions of percentages
of design issues and design processes were statistically analyzed to determine differences in
the design processes caused by the use of different design methods. The results indicate that
the use of different design methods influences the design process and the differences appear
early on in the design sessions. Brainstorming was more oriented toward functional
thinking. Scenario was more oriented towards the design of customer-oriented products by
simulating various expected behaviors in context. Synectics was more oriented towards the
thinking of product structures and their combination. When dividing the design sessions
into three sections, it was found that the influences of the design methods were most
pronounced in the early design stage of the conceptual design process. This research
contributes to a better understanding of the use of design methods from a design cognition
point of view.

Keywords : Design method; Design process; Protocol analysis; Function-behaviour-

structure framework; Brainstorming; Synectics; Scenario;
Introduction
The direction for developing innovative products and service in a fast evolving and highly
competitive industrial environment has been shifted from manufacturing and R&D
focuses to a design-focused brand innovation era. Consequently, design has gradually
become a popular and prominent major at schools. Amongst the courses young
designers study, design method is a common compulsory course offered by industrial
design faculty at universities. Its aim is to teach students how to develop a design project
from the beginning to the end with appropriate approaches and techniques. They can
help students develop critical thinking capacity as a conceptual aid for organizing the
design process quickly and effectively.

This study is interested in how various techniques learned by students in a design

method course can facilitate the process of product design. The major question is how
different design methods influence the design process. The minor question is how
different design methods fit into different stages of the design process.

Protocol Analysis
Protocol analysis, verbal reporting as data, has been widely applied in the design
community as one of the research methods exploring the cognitive process of design
(Cross, 2001; Cross, Christiaans, & Dorst, 1996).

Discussions of theory and operational techniques have been extensively published over
the last decade or so (Foreman & Gillett, 1997; van Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg,
1994; Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Recent developments in knowledge and methodological
improvements are scattered across different journal articles, books, and conferences
(Cross, 2001, 2007; Cross, Christiaans, & Dorst, 1996; Michel, 2007; McDonnell & Lloyd,
2009).

Two protocol approaches have been developed: concurrent, and retrospective (Ericsson
& Simon, 1993). In concurrent protocols the subjects are required to design and verbalize
thoughts simultaneously (Lloyd, Lawson, & Scott, 1995). In retrospective protocols,
subjects are asked to design first, and then retrospectively report the design processes,
with or without visual aids. Studies of collaborative design have collected concurrent
protocols in communication between members without compulsory thinking-aloud
(McDonnell & Lloyd, 2009; Stempfle & Badke-Schaub, 2002; Turner & Turner, 2003).

The procedures of concurrent protocol analysis are videoing, transcription, segmentation,

encoding, and analysis (Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Foreman & Gillett, 1997; van Someren,
et al., 1994). Segmenting and encoding can be integrated into one step, in which coders
simultaneously parse and encode the protocol.

Collaborative design studies have merited considerable attention (McDonnell, 2005;

McDonnell & Lloyd, 2009). The various research methods used include ethnographic field
research, case studies, interviews, linguistic analysis, and protocol analysis. An important
research theme in collaborative design studies using protocol analysis is reflection-in-
action (Adams, Turns, & Atman, 2003; Stempfle & Badke-Schaub, 2002; Valkenburg &
Dorst, 1998).

Design Methods
Current design education provides many different design methods for students to learn
and apply in their design projects (Cross,1989, Jones, 1992).
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

Brainstorming

Amongst different methods, brainstorming is the most used group creativity technique by
which a group could generate a large amount of ideas in a short time and provoke
divergent thinking in a team. It was developed and coined by Alex Faickney Osborn in
1953 through the book Applied Imagination. It published both the method and its rules. It
is commonly believed that brainstorming can help to foster the atmosphere of creativity or
innovation in a team with its freedom of proposing unusual and unconstrained ideas.

The greater the number of unusual ideas generated, the more the chances of having
good design idea even within a limited time (Osborn,1963). Brainstorming helps
participants to participate in a non-judgemental and non-egocentric atmosphere, being
similar to the way children communicate, and to establish trust about the concepts
through sharing them (Jones, 1992).

A successful brainstorming session needs an appropriate "host" to guide the process. It

usually includes warm up, brainstorming, and evaluation (VanGundy, 1998). The
downside of brainstorming is the lack of a macroscopic view to resolve complex problems
or the problems requiring professional knowledge (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995).
Execution points of brainstorming are the following (Kelley, 2004): 1. One at a time, 2.Go
for quantity, 3. Delay judgment, 4. Encourage wild ideas, 5. Build on others’ ideas, 6.
Focus on topics, 7. Be visual.

Scenario

Scenario is time-based narrative used to describe process, action, and snapshots of

events (Campbell, 1992). It uses personal experiences to express the structure of a story
through which designers can absorb and transfer related information internally or
externally. It can be used to depict the implementation of advanced technology in fulfilling
the users’ life in the future (Nardi, 1992). It can play roles of communication and guidance
to assist the coordination of the design process and situation (Carroll, 2000), and thus it is
often used in industrial and service design to establish product image and bridge
designers and managers in communication. It provides links and language for
multidisciplinary collaborative design team.

IDEO has been promoting Scenario as a design process in practice and emphasizes the
importance of the concept of "user-centered" design. In practice, Brown (2009) regarded
the primary principle of scenario as the relaying of concepts based on partners’ opinions.
In his company, IDEO, the practical implementation of scenario was through using a large
amount of Post-It stickers on almost every wall in the meeting room.

The procedure of using Scenario is 1. understand, 2.observe, 3.visualize and predict,

4.evaluate and refine, 5.implement. The use of scenario often includes information
collection through observation, establishing user needs and product insights through
understanding user behaviors and intentions that they are not even aware of, and having
empathy to place oneself into someone's shoes to design product, service, system and
interaction (Brown, 2009). Storyboards, snapshots, 5W1H are often used to illustrate the
context where users interact with designed artifacts.

Execution points of Scenario are the followings:

1. Set up target users and their characteristics and explore their needs and wants

2. Using visual brainstorming to explore the relationship between users and

products
 3. Describing key HCI process including 5W1H

4. Depict the major scenarios from which critical issues and key ideas are
generated

5. Generate details through critical issues and key ideas

Synectics

Synectics is a systematic problem solving methodology that stimulates thinking

processes via metaphor and analogy and emphasizes the importance of integration of
individual opinions. It was developed by George M. Prince and William J.J. Gordon in the
1950s. (Gordon,1961).The methodology has evolved substantially in the ensuing 50
years (Nolan, 2003).

The main idea is to link initially unrelated issues together to change thinking models and
then produce new concepts. During the process, random text tables, dictionaries,
newspapers could be utilized as aids to provoke associations and multiple links. These
associations and links were originated from mostly physical objects. Synectics enables
every member of a team to contribute to the results with his/her own background. Its
major difference from brainstorming is the directional guidance provided by four kinds of
analogy (Jones, 1992).

The execution points for Synectics are the followings:

1. Decompose design topic into isolated elements to make the familiar strange

2. Use metaphor to analyze design topic。

3. Look for alternatives to replace isolated elements using four kinds of analogy:
personal analogy, direct analogy, symbolic analogy, and fantasy analogy

4. Reassemble alternatives and elements into different combinations to make the

strange familiar

5. Evaluate different combinations by experts

These three methods were chosen to compare in this study because of the wide use of
them in design practice and education. They cover rational and creative design
processes and emphasize both users and artifacts being designed.

The Function-Behavior-Structure Model

The Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) model of designing was initially developed by
Gero and his colleagues (Gero, 1990; Tham et al., 1990). The elements of the model
have been extended to cover broader cognitive issues (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).
For example, the FBS model has been adapted into a descriptive model that integrates
the design process with processes from cognitive psychology. The model links different
operations to types of outcome from both disciplines (Howard et al., 2008). FBS as both
prescriptive and descriptive models have been extensively discussed (Vermaas & Dorst,
2007). As a result, the FBS model is one of the representative models that could be
utilized in understanding the design process and can be used as an ontology of designs
and designing.

This study applied the FBS ontology as the coding scheme. To apply the function-
behaviour-structure ontology in encoding the protocol, the transcripts have to be parsed
into segments and coded according to the designers’ intentions (Ericsson & Simon 1993;
McNeill et al., 1998). Details of the ontology are shown at Figure 1 and elaborated further
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

in the next section. This FBS ontology has been applied and compared in different
disciplines (Kruchten, 2005).

Design Issue
The FBS ontology of design uses the concept of design issue as the basic unit of its
ontology and defines six foundational non-overlapping design issues (Gero & McNeill,
1998). The ontological variables that map on to design issues are: function, behavior, and
structure plus design description, Figure 1. Outside the direct control of the designer is
the set of requirements, labeled R, provided by the client. The function (F) of a designed
object is defined as its teleology; the behavior (B) of that object is either derived (Bs) or
expected (Be) from the structure, where structure (S) represents the components of an
object and their relationships. In terms of encoding, function corresponds to the users’
needs, the service the system will provide, i.e. the purpose of the artifact. Behavior
corresponds to the system’s expected and actual performances, ie how the system and
its sub-systems work. Structure corresponds to the resulting forms of the designed
artifacts in terms of its elements and their relationships. Therefore, any design utterance
or activity fits into one of these six categories, namely, functions (F), expected behaviours
(Be), structure behaviours (Bs), structures (S), Descriptions (D), and requirement (R)
(Gero, Kan, & Pourmohamadi, 2011).

Design Process
From an ontological view, the aim of designing is to transform a set of function issues into
a set of structures and finally document them as a set of descriptions. However, there is
no direct route from functions to structure. Instead, the designer goes through a series of
transitional processes between different issues to reach a final design. The transition
from one design issue to another is a design process. Figure 1 shows the relationships of
the six design issues and resulting eight design processes, numbered 1 through 8.

Figure 1. Design issues, labeled with symbols, and resulting design processes, numbered
1 through 8, defined by FBS ontology of design (after: Gero et al 2012)

Formulation (R→F, F→Be), labeled 1 in Figure 1, is the design process of producing a

set of expected behaviours from the requirement and function issues. The design process
synthesis (Be→S), labeled 2, is the design process of generating structure issues from
the expected behaviours. The analysis process (S→Bs), labeled 3, occurs when a set of
behaviours are deduced from the structure issues. The evaluation process (Bs→Be, Be→
Bs), labeled 4, of the ideated structures is produced when comparing the expected and
structure behaviours. The documentation process (S→D), labeled 5, can be of the
structure or the externalization of any design issue. In addition to these processes, the
FBS ontology of design has three types of reformulations. These processes are aimed at
capturing the actively changing state of the design and accounts for changes in structure,
behaviour or function issues. The processes are respectively called reformulation-1 (S→
S), labeled 6, reformulation-2 (S→Be), labeled 7, and reformulation-3 (S→F), labeled 8,
in Figure 1.

Based on the FBS coding scheme, two types of transition processes can be generated
from any coded protocol: semantic and syntactic design processes. In the semantic
approach, coded segments of the protocol are connected by their semantics which
generates a link between them and depending on which design issue is at each end of
the link a particular design process is produced. This kind of linking generates a semantic
linkograph.

The syntactic approach is based on a weaker model of design activity and relies on the
sequential order of the design issues to generate the links between and to produce the
design process, which is called the syntactic design process. Here each segment is
linked to its immediately preceding segment. Depending on which design issue is at each
end of the link a particular design process is produced. This kind of linking generates a
syntactic linkograph.

We employ the syntactic approach in this research to produce the syntactic design
processes of the participants in each protocol.

Hypotheses
Based on the definitions of the three design methods and FBS ontology, we proposed
hypotheses regarding how the distributions of design issues and design processes might
change as a result of the use of different design methods.

In terms of design issues we propose three hypotheses:

D1. Brainstorming has more function design issues than synectics and scenario because
brainstorming is about generating a large amount of conceptual ideas without thinking
whether they are important or useful.

D2. Scenario has more expected behavior design issues than brainstorming and
synectics because scenario emphasizes the possible behaviors of users in context.

D3. Synectics has more structure design issues than brainstorming and scenario
because synectics uses the combination of isolated elements as a way to generate new
objects.

In terms of design process we propose three hypotheses:

P1. Brainstorming has more formulation (R→F, F→Be) than synectics and scenario
because brainstorming generates many ideas that are extended or examined by how
people may respond to them.

P2. Scenario has more evaluation (Bs→Be, Be→Bs) than brainstorming and synectics
because scenario helps to illustrate and consider how users' behaviors may interact with
the objects' responses.
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

P3. Synectics has more analysis (S→Bs) than brainstorming and scenarios because
synectics require users to evaluate the behaviors deduced from the structures of
combined elements.

In terms of design stages, this paper hypothesizes that using these three design methods
may result in the differences of the distributions of design issues and processes in the
early, middle, and later parts of a design session.

Process
This research examined design teams that used these three design methods to explore
the influences of design methods on the design process in three steps. First, we
conducted collaborative design experiments. Second, two coders encoded the protocols,
transcribed from the conversations in the collaborative design process, with the
corresponding sketches and video clips by using the Function-Behavior-Structure
ontology as the coding scheme to decode the design process in revealing the changes of
design issues and processes.

Experiment planning
The twenty-seven participants were sophomores at the Department of Commercial and
Industrial design in National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. All were
majors in industrial design. Half of them were male, and half were female. They were
grouped with familiar classmates into nine teams of three. Each team applied one method
to design a water bottle that can protect users as an exam in the end of their compulsory
course of design method where participants learnt brainstorming, synectics, and scenario
design methods.

The averaged scores of major design course of teammates were used as the reference to
allocate design methods.

Each team used sketches to collaborate face-to-face in a classroom at school. Two digital
cameras recorded the whole design session: one for a microscopic view for sketching
activities of the team on the table, and one for a macroscopic view for discussions and
interactions between participants.

During each experiment, researchers first gave a brief about the chosen design method
and the experimental process. Then, each team had sixty minutes to finish the design
project and an additional 10 minutes to prepare a 3-minutes final presentation. During the
final presentation, each team faced a camera to present their main idea using ideas and
scenario sketches. This recorded presentation and sketches produced during the design
process were used to evaluate their design outcome by judges. Additional information
about the design problem was provided.

Three design professors in the faculty were invited as judges to score their final design
outcome according to their A3 posters, sketches, and video clips in terms of innovation,
function, and aesthetics.

We used protocol analysis as the research method to investigate the effect of adopting
different design methods by industrial design students on the design process. The
Function-behavior-structure ontology-based coding scheme was employed to produce
data to comprehend the thinking structure of the participants and to further examine
whether the design method is responsible for inducing differences in design thinking.

Each segment of protocol was encoded as one of the six kinds of design issues:
requirement, function, expected behavior, structure behavior/behavior from structure,
structure and description. The syntactic links was encoded as one of the eight kinds of
design process: formulation, synthesis, analysis, evaluation, documentation,
reformulation 1, reformulation 2, and reformulation 3. Due to the various lengths of design
processes, the numbers of design issues and processes were normalized by converting
them into percentages. Before calculating the percentages, we deleted utterances that
could not be categorized into the six kinds of design issues and the design processes that
could not be categorized into eight kinds of design processes in the FBS ontology.
Further, when more-than-three contiguous design issues of the same kind occurred they
were collapsed into two adjacent design issues, for example, SSSSSS became SS. The
effect of this was to remove multiple contiguous design issues and multiple contiguous
design processes.

In the following section, we use the differences of percentages obtained from the results
of using the three design methods to test our hypotheses.

Results
The averaged percentages of design issues were calculated in terms of design methods
and plotted as bar charts, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 2. The results indicate the
following:

1. Brainstorming had the highest percentage of function design issues; this provides
support for hypothesis D1.
2. Scenario had the highest percentage of expected behaviour design issues; this
provides support for hypothesis D2.
3. Synectics had highest percentage of structure design issues and structure
behavior design issues; this provides support for hypothesis D3.
Table 1.
Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming, Scenario, Synectics Design Issues

Methods R   F   Be   Bs   S   D  
Brainstorming 3.29 15.44 20.5 12.16 36.28 12.34
Scenario 3.17 8.7 33.38 14.37 32.94 7.43
Synectics 8.34 6.62 22.05 15.97 40.51 6.52
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

Figure 2. Bar Charts of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming, Scenario,

Synectics in Terms of FBS Design Issues

The averaged percentages of syntactic design processes were calculated in terms of

design methods and plotted as bar charts, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 3.
Table 2.
Averaged Percentages of Design Processes for Brainstorming, Scenario, and Synectics

Methods F-Be   Be-S   S-Bs   Be-Bs   S-D   S-S  

Brainstorming 16.3 14.36 9.94 3.59 4.97 26.24
Scenario 11.76 15.09 13.81 3.58 3.32 30.18
Synectics 10.57 17.24 15.17 2.76 2.53 30.8

Figure 3. Bar Charts of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming, Scenario,

Synectics in Terms of FBS Design Processes

The results indicate the following:

 1. Brainstorming had the highest percentage of formulation design process (F-Be);
this provides support for hypothesis P1.

2. Scenario and brainstorming have higher percentages of evaluation design

process (Be-Bs) than Synectics; this provides only partial support for hypothesis
P2.

3. Synectics had the highest percentage of analysis design process (S→Bs); this
provides support for hypothesis P3.

Examining Design Sessions in Detail

In order to obtain a more detailed understanding of the effects of different design

methods on the design process, each design session is divided into three thirds of equal
numbers of segments. This provides the opportunity to observe differences that occur
across time during a design session. The percentages of the design issues of the three
teams using the same design method are plotted as box-charts for each third. Figures 4,
5 and 6 show the results for first, middle and last thirds respectively.

M e th o d s
25 Brainstorming
Scenario
Synetics

20

15
Percent

10

R F Be Bs S D
CodeID

Figure 4. Box Plots of Distribution of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming,

Scenario, Synectics in Terms of FBS Design Issues During the First Third of
Design Sessions

It can be observed that all differences in design issues occur early in the design sessions
and the differences gradually diminish toward the end of the design sessions. The first
one-third of the design sessions showed the biggest differences between different design
methods, where the findings about design issues were observable. The brainstorming
sessions had more function, the scenario sessions had more expected behaviors, and
the synectics sessions had more structure, as shown by their means in Figure 4.

In the middle one-third the differences were smaller. In the last one-third the differences
were no longer observable. Teams using different design methods produced similar
distributions of percentages of design issues except of documentation, as shown in
Figure 5 and 6.
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

Part: 3_2_3seg M e th o d s
20 Brainstorming
Scenario
Synetics

15
Percent

10

R F Be Bs S D
CodeID

Figure 5. Box Plots of Distribution of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming,

Scenario, Synectics in Terms of FBS Design Issues During the Middle Third of
Design Sessions

Part: 3_3_3seg M e th o d s
25 Brainstorming
Scenario
Synetics

20

15
Percent

10

R F Be Bs S D
CodeID

Figure 6. Box Plots of Distribution of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming,

Scenario, Synectics in Terms of FBS Design Issues During the Last Third of
Design Sessions

The differences between different design methods were not observable in terms of the
design processes as a whole. Therefore, the design sessions were divided into three
sections by number of segments and are shown as box plots in Figures 7, 8 and 9. There
were few observable differences except in reformulations: reformulation-1 and
reformulation-3 in the first third, reformulation-1 and reformulation-3 in the middle third,
and reformation-1 and reformulation-2 in the last third.
 M e th o d
20
Brainstorming
Scenario
Synetics

15
percent

10

Fo rm u la tio n Syn th e sis An a lysis Eva lu a tio n Do cu m e n ta tio n Re fo rm u la tio n - Re fo rm u la tio n - Re fo rm u la tio n -
1 2 3
Codeing
Figure 7. Box Plots of Distribution of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming,
Scenario, Synectics in Terms of FBS Design Processes During the First Third
of Design Sessions

M e th o d
14
Brainstorming
Scenario

12 Synetics

10

8
percent

Fo rm u la tio n Syn th e sis An a lysis Eva lu a tio n Do cu m e n ta tio n Re fo rm u la tio n - Re fo rm u la tio n - Re fo rm u la tio n -
1 2 3

Figure 8. Box Plots of Distribution ofCodeing

Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming,
Scenario, Synectics Design Processes in Middle Third of Design Sessions
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

M e th o d
20
Brainstorming
Scenario
Synetics

15
percent

10

Fo rm u la tio n Syn th e sis An a lysis Eva lu a tio n Do cu m e n ta tio n Re fo rm u la tio n - Re fo rm u la tio n - Re fo rm u la tio n -
1 2 3
Codeing
Figure 9. Box Plots of Distribution of Averaged Percentages of Brainstorming,
Scenario, Synectics in Terms of Design Processes During the Last Third of
Design Sessions

These differences in reformulations imply that different design methods affect

reformulation differently. Further research is needed to elaborate this.

Conclusions
Protocol analysis of collaborative design sessions were conducted to examine whether
the use of different design methods influences the design process. Nine collaborative
design sessions using brainstorming, scenario, synectics were analyzed using the
function-behavior-structure ontology.

The main conclusions are the use of design method does influence the design process
and the differences appear early on in design sessions.

Brainstorming was more oriented toward the functional thinking category. Scenario
facilitated the design of customer-oriented products by simulating various expected
behaviors in context. Synectics enhanced the thinking of product structures and their
combination. These findings correspond to our hypotheses about these design methods
from literature reviews and practical experience.

Based on their characteristics, we could arrange these three methods into different
stages of the design process to utilize their abilities best. This may yield a new direction
to apply design methods and to explore the potentials of design methods.

Therefore, a good use of the features of these design methods can help designers to
enhance different aspects of ideation. Assuming the results and protocol analysis data of
this study are supported by a larger study, they can be used as a reference for design
education and design thinking.

Acknowledgments
This work is part of an international collaboration through the US National Science
Foundation, Grant No: CMMI-0926908 and Taiwan National Science Committee, Grant
No: 99-2410-H-011-026-MY3. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the US National Science Foundation.

References
Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective
practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275-294.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation,
Harper Business.

Campbell, R. L. (1992). Will the Real Scenario ,Please Stand up? SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(2), 6-8.

Carroll, J. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 43-60.

Cross, N. (2001). Design Cognition: Results From Protocol and Other Empirical Studies Of Design Activity. In C.
M. Eastman, W. C. Newstetter & W. M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in
Design Education. New York: Elsevier.

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Birkhäuser.

Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. e. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: John Wiley.

Foreman, N., & Gillett, R. (1997). Handbook of Spatial Research Paradigms and Methodologies. Hove, East
Sussex: Psychology Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11, 16-36.

Gero, J. S. Kan, J. W. T., & Pourmohamadi, M. (2011). Analysing design protocols: Development of methods
and tools,” in A Chakrabarti (Ed.), Research into Design, Research Publishing, pp. 3-10.

Gero, J. S.,& Kannengiesser,U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies,
25(4), 373-391.

Gero J. S. & McNeill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design studies, 19(1). 21-61.

Gero, J. S., Pourmohamadi, & Willams, C. (2012). The effect of employing different design methods on the
design cognition of small design teams, DTRS9 (to appear).

Gordon, William J.J. (1961). Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity, New York: Harper and Row.

Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of
engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160-180.

Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2004). The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO, America's leading design
firm. Profile Books.

Kruchten, P. (2005). Casting software design in the function-behavior-structure framework. IEEE Software,
22(2), 52-58.

Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods. (G. T. Houlsby & A. N. Schofield, Eds.) Design (Vol. 1, pp. 58-89). Wiley.

Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies,
16, 237-259.

McDonnell, J. (Ed.). (2005). CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Taylor &
Francis.

McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). About Designing: Analysing Design Meetings, CRC Press.

McNeill, T., Gero, J. S. & Warren, J. (1998). Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol
analysis. Research in Engineering Design, 10 (3), 129-140.

Michel, R. (2007). Design Research Now : Essays and Selected Projects. Basel, Switzerland ; Boston:
Birkhäuser.

Nardi, B. A. (1992). The use of scenarios in design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(2), 13-14.

Nolan, Vincent. (2003). Whatever Happened to Synectics? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 24-27.
 The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process

Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd Rev. Ed.).
New York: Charles Scribner’s Son.

Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley & Sons.

Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication.
Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496.

Tham, K. W., Lee, H. S., & Gero, J.S. (1990). Building envelope design using design prototypes. ASHRAE
Transactions, 96(2), 508-522.

Turner, S., & Turner, P. (2003). Telling tales: understanding the role of narrative in the design of taxonomic
software. Design Studies, 24(6), 537-547.

Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249-271.

van Gundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of Structured Problem Solving (2nd Ed.). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.

van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: a Practical Guide to
Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press Limited.

Vermaas, P.E., & Dorst,C.H. (2007). On the conceptual framework of John Gero’s fbs-model and the
prescriptive aims of design methodology. Design studies, 28(2), 133-157.