Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012) 468, 891–912
doi:10.1098/rspa.2011.0590
Published online 7 December 2011
Art and science in the design of physically large
and complex systems
BY D. J. ANDREWS*
Marine Research Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
College London, Torrington Place, London WC1E 7JE, UK
Designs of physically large and complex (PL&C) systems, nowadays, are achieved through
the use of evermore capable digital computer-based techniques. Thus, the process of such
designs might be characterized as the practice of science rather than that of an art. The
article commences with a consideration of art and science in design. It then addresses
the particular nature of the design of such systems and how this is not just an issue of
complexity, but also a consequence of large physical size. How computer-aided design is
applied early in the designing of such systems, the crucial aspect of the choice of style
by the initial designer and the advent of computer-based simulation techniques, applied
early in design, are all considered pertinent to the role of art and science in design. A
series of high-level fundamental issues are discussed in the belief that they are changing
the nature of the design of PL&C systems and ought to be considered by practitioners of
such designs. In this way, the power of computer-based techniques, both numerical and
graphical, can then enhance the scope of design innovation, given designers’ increasing
dependency on digitally based practice.
Keywords: design of physically large and complex systems; art and science;
design building block approach
1. Introduction
This article follows an earlier article on design methodology for ships and
other complex systems (Andrews 1998). A subsequent article then addressed
the manner in which simulation could now be undertaken very much earlier
in such designs than is currently generally practiced (Andrews 2006a). The
latter proposal was seen to be possible because of the realization of the earlier
methodology emphasizing the physical architecture of such systems in their
initial design. The methodology has been demonstrated through this ‘Design
Building Block’ approach to such designs over the last decade and so provides an
opportunity to take stock. In particular, there is seen to be a series of issues
fundamental to the practice of designing such physically large and complex
(PL&C) systems. These issues typically encompass the nature of design synthesis,
the use of the techniques of simulation and optimization and how best to exploit
*[email protected]
Received 29 September 2011
Accepted 7 November 2011
891
This journal is © 2011 The Royal Society
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
892
D. J. Andrews
the graphical as well as the computational power of digital computers in design.
It is considered convenient to address such issues by exploring the nature of art
and science in the design of these PL&C systems.
In considering the nature of science and art in design, all three terms need
some clarification. It is ‘often said that engineering is as much an art as a science’
(Rogers 1983). In addressing creativity and engineering design, Rogers noted that
the Greeks had no word for ‘art’ considering the range of craft practice to include
the arts. By the Enlightenment, a distinction existed between the ‘fine arts’
and the ‘useful arts’, raising artists above mere craftsmen and women. Rogers
further clarified that ‘craft is the power to produce a preconceived result by
consciously controlled action’, whereas ‘art is seen as more than pure technique’.
Conversely, it has been recognized that there is an aesthetic or artistic element in
general creativity, which can include the creation of a scientific or mathematical
breakthrough. This insight was caught by Miller, in considering imagery and
creativity in science and art, such that ‘Artists as well as scientists seek aesthetic
representations of nature and at the nascent moment of creativity, boundaries
between art and science dissolve’ (Miller 1996, p. 442).
Turning to art in design, Lawson (1997) sees the distinction from science as
‘rather hazy and easily blurred’. Yet, Archer (1979), as the Royal College of Art
(and Design) Professor of Design, sought to distinguish design from both the
sciences and the humanities. Thus he saw design, with modelling as its mode of
communication, contrasted with the sciences having distinct notations and with
the humanities, having their languages. His iconic representation of ‘the three
cultures’, each at an apex of a triangle, led to placing technology (and hence
engineering design) on the triangle side linking design and science and placed
between the ‘useful arts’ and the physical sciences. He makes a clear distinction
between the fine arts (on the design-humanities side nearer the humanities apex)
and the useful arts, which is reinforced by Lawson’s emphasis that ‘designers
unlike artists cannot devote themselves exclusively to problems which are of
interest to themselves personally’. However, among the design community, while
architects have to nominally satisfy clients, they still retain a strong sense of
artistic freedom. This is something that engineering designers—like craftsmen—
do not see they have the luxury in which to indulge. For engineering designers,
this is due to the constraints arising from the appropriate engineering sciences,
together with the imperative to achieve cost-effectiveness in their designs.
In the author’s field of designing ships, which can be seen to be archetypically
complex and physically large, the characteristics of science and art have
traditionally been associated with the application of those engineering sciences
and with the ‘art of ship design’, respectively. Thus, the naval architect applies
fluid mechanics, whole body dynamics and structural mechanics to analyse the
ship’s resistance and propulsion, its motions and structural response. In contrast,
the art of producing a new ship design has been seen as a creative act, akin to
that of the artist or, at least, an architect of the terrestrial built environment.
Both these facets of ship design practice have been considerably enhanced in
recent decades by digital computation. However, it is considered that the ability
provided by graphical representation of design information, owing to very recent
advances in computer graphics, continues to substantially change the art and
science of the design of such large systems, in particular, and it is that change
which this article explores.
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
893
That the impact of computer graphics on initial ship design has parallels
in the design of other large-scale systems has been confirmed by various
architectural theorists. Oxman (2006, 2008) and McCullough (2004) see digital
design as altering the manner in which the designers of such large systems
‘represent, present, communicate and materialize’ their designs. Oxman considers
it increasingly important ‘to conceptualise this emergent field’ (of digital design
thinking) and sees there to be an effect on conceptualization and materialization,
as well as in form and material (Oxman 2008). Even the traditional art
of the architect to hand-sketch ideas is being questioned as to whether it
is still appropriate, given the creative resources provided by digital media
(Edwards 2008).
Section 2 addresses the nature of designing PL&C systems, of which ships are
only one manifestation. This is followed by consideration of the impact made by
advances in computer-aided design (CAD) on such design practice. The specific
issue of the choice of design style is seen as a crucial early designator in such
designs, with a relevance to the science and art of design. Finally, the future
course of such design is addressed through discussion of several fundamental
issues drawing on the theme of the role science and art play in the design of
PL&C systems.
2. Physically large and complex systems
In considering some fundamental questions germane to the practice of engineering
design, the author has drawn a clear distinction with regard to not just complex
but also physically large systems and their design (Andrews 2010). Given Bruce
Archer’s distinct ‘third culture’ for design, it might seem perverse to start
distinguishing between different types of designs. However, in recent design
studies, distinctions have been made such as in ‘primary classes of design’
(e.g. ‘original’, ‘adaptive’ and ‘variant’ referring to different design outputs
(Howard et al. 2008)) and in describing the design process (see table 1 of Howard
et al. (2008) with 24 examples, each summarizing the process across a wide set of
applications). Joseph (1996) pointed out that standard texts on design ‘advocate
their own approaches, based on the practice of their authors’, which seems to
confirm the acceptance of distinctly different approaches. These can be said to be
applicable to a diverse set of products ranging from the design of mass-produced
consumer products (such as that addressed by Howard et al. and, for example,
Pahl & Beitz (1984)) through to the views of a wealth of architectural design
theorists (such as Hillier et al. 1972; Broadbent 1988; Brawne 2003). Even so,
Visser (2009) insists that design is one type of cognitive activity, albeit with
different forms.
So, it is considered appropriate not just to draw the distinction between
the design of consumer products and of complex major projects (such as is
the remit of the Major Projects Association (http://www.majorprojects.org)),
but also between generally complex systems and those that have the added
dimension of being physically large. This then distinguishes such large systems
from both complex software and hardware products. Thus, the latter complex
systems can be said to encompass extensive electronic-based systems (such as air
traffic control and military command systems) as well as (say) high-performance
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
894
D. J. Andrews
aircraft. However, both these examples of complex systems lack the further
aspect of being physically large to the extent that generally applies to ‘made
to order’ or ‘bespoke’-designed systems (Hills et al. 1993). The latter systems,
typically, consist of civil engineering constructions, large chemical process plant,
ships and offshore facilities. Given that such products are very large and often
one-off, they do not have prototypes. Secondly, the facilities to manufacture
and assemble them are not factories, which are extensively redesigned for each
new product run, rather the end-product is made or assembled on site or in
a piecemeal manner. This has significant consequences for the design task,
especially if, in addition, the product also has to provide extensive human
habitation for considerable periods. This habitational need is considered to pose
quite a different design problem to accommodating personnel for short-term
transportation, as for example in cars and planes. In producing such artificial
environments, the design of PL&C systems can therefore be seen to approach
that of designing a whole system and not just the main artefact within it
(Levander 2009).
The Royal Academy of Engineering recently published a report, produced
by a committee of senior systems engineers (Elliott & Deasley 2007). This
largely focused on complex systems, such that the six principles for integrated
system design detailed in the report were seen to be both most applicable
and necessary, when managing projects costing billions of pounds. Such
projects have to be designed to achieve satisfactory performance, within a
cost ceiling and to meet a specified timescale for introduction into service.
Systems engineering can be seen as essentially a project management discipline,
with its origins in post Second World War defence acquisition. Such largescale projects, with applications beyond defence into civil construction, the
process industry and space exploration, now also have significant software
complexity (often heightened by safety critical consequences). However, the issue
of the end-product being of a physically large nature is seen to be a further
complication beyond just the computational magnitude required to achieve their
design description.
Because few initial designs of PL&C systems are finally realized and the endproducts are also immensely expensive, they are designed to have long operational
lives. So adaptability, to uncertain future roles, often figures as a design objective,
along with a desire to accommodate already perceived multiple roles. Thus, at
the front-end of the design process, without the comfort blanket of at least
one full-sized prototype before production commences, working out what is
wanted and what is affordable is also complicated. Design theorists have coined
the term ‘the wicked problem’ to encapsulate this issue, namely, determining
the requirements can actually be more challenging than the subsequent design
work to meet those emergent requirements (Rittel & Webber 1973). That this
is often unrecognized is perhaps not surprising as the critical early stages
of design, which then become a process of working out what are the ‘right’
requirements, are quite often not considered to be truly ‘design’. This is because
many non-designers are inclined to reserve the term ‘design’ to describe the
large-scale multi-disciplinary team effort of subsequently detailing the design for
manufacture, yet it is in the early stages of design that the great majority of the
commitment of future cost is made, as this is the only phase when major changes
can be made quickly and cheaply. Nowadays, the large-scale design required
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
895
downstream is managed and executed through Integrated Product Models and
Integrated Product Data Environments (IPMs/IPDEs). Thus, for very complex
products, managing such detailed design tasks involves ensuring integration and
concurrent development is achieved through an alliance of sub-system vendors
(Martin 2009).
Despite large-scale investment in IPM/IPDE systems, it remains the case that
it is the front end of the process which really distinguishes the design of PL&C
systems from that which is described by the many more general descriptions of
the design method. This is because such descriptions show that the engineering
design process commences with a clear need or a precise set of requirements
(Hubka 1982). Rather, for the design of PL&C systems, the initial design phase
is characterized by the need to elucidate what the requirements should be, as
has been extensively argued elsewhere (Andrews 2011). The initial design phase
then consists of a trial-and-error dialogue between the customer/owner/end-user
and the designer, who produces prospective solutions (and the plural is very
important here). So, both parties are involved in trying to reveal what is really
wanted and, vitally, what is realistically achievable in terms of cost, time and
risk (Elliott & Deasley 2007). Thus, the design process is problem-dependent
with complex design requiring strategies that depend on the problem structure,
designer experience and understanding the problem context (Joseph 1996). Also,
this more realistic emphasis on requirements elucidation can then seen to be
consistent with the approach of deferred commitment or set-based design, based
on Toyota’s Product Development System and recently introduced into US Navy
ship procurement (Singer et al. 2009).
The traditional view of the preliminary design of the PL&C systems was to
see the use of the engineering sciences as assisting in the initially creative ‘art’ of
design synthesis. However, the author has suggested that the issue of ‘art versus
science’, when applied to ship design, is inherently misleading (Andrews 2007).
This is because there is both an art in the choice and application of the engineering
sciences, when applied to ship design at the analytical level, and also a rational
or scientific basis underlying the most artistic aspect of design, that of aesthetics.
This can be seen in the ‘rules’ propounded to achieve visual balance in ship design
(Guiton 1971). Furthermore, there is considerable ‘art’ in the initial ship design
synthesis, to an extent usually unacknowledged. Yet, science is clearly invoked in
initial design, in the sense of undertaking a rational and coherent approach. This is
in contrast not just to the art of the artist, who does not need to be conventionally
rational, but also to the art of the craftsman making traditional buildings and
boats. However, in an era of CAD, for ships and large-scale buildings, it could be
argued that the craftsman’s art is all but a memory. So, it would seem that what
traditionally has been considered to be subjective, both in ship aesthetics and in
synthesizing a new PL&C system design, is now amenable to a rational scientific
approach. Despite this, art, at least in the artisan sense, can be seen to still exist
throughout the practice of engineering design through to detailed design. This
is argued by Ferguson, who asserts that there are ‘dozens of small decisions and
hundreds of tiny ones’ that every designer makes throughout the whole process
of engineering design (Ferguson 1993), even when in front of a computer screen.
Furthermore, an additional facet of the designer’s art, associated with the creative
(synthesis) element, can now be restored to initial design by the facility provided
by computer graphics.
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
896
D. J. Andrews
3. Computer-aided design applied to physically large and complex systems
Taking ship design as representative of the design of PL&C systems and
considering the applicability of CAD, Gallin, as early as 1973, pointed out that
‘ship design without the computer is no longer imaginable’ (Gallin 1973). Six
years later, at the first international review of marine technology, Benford saw
the changing scene as being driven by both economics and the computer (Benford
1979). Thirty years on Nowacki, one of the principal researchers in computer-aided
ship design throughout this period, in reviewing five decades of developments in
marine design methodology from five aspects (namely, economic efficiency, safety
and risk assessment, rationality, optimality and versatility), saw trends in four
fields. He considered those to be economy and safety; the systems approach;
parametrization of design variables; and design as learning, where he highlighted
simulation and visualization (Nowacki 2009). These last two design topics have
clearly been facilitated by recent advances in computer-aided graphics, especially
when applied to spatial or architecturally driven ship design. They also echo
the specific design approach propounded in the author’s previous articles in the
proceedings (Andrews 1998, 2006a).
Over the last 50 years covering the existence of CAD, Nowacki’s topic of
rationality in the design of maritime PL&C systems has been demonstrated
through an emphasis on developing appropriate tools and methods, often under
the term ‘design methodology’. This can be seen in the three sets of state-ofart reports presented to the tri-annual International Marine Design Conference
(IMDC) (Sen & Birmingham 1997; Parsons 2006; Erikstad 2009). Of those
reports, the ones specifically addressing design methodology were edited by
this article’s author. In particular, the 2009 IMDC Design Methodology Report
presented some 26 iconographic representations of the ship-design process, which
have been proposed over the last 50 years and range across the spectrum of ship
types. This selection particularly focused on the early or preliminary stages of
the process, given the crucial impact of these stages on requirement elucidation
and, thus, the eventual built definition (Andrews 2009).
An example of ship-design process representation is given in figure 1. This is
an updated version of the process flow model, incorporating the architectural
element in initial design synthesis that was given in the 1998 proceedings
(Andrews 1998). Importantly, this sequence shows the major choices that a ship
designer or design organization, not a CAD toolset, has to make in order to
proceed to the later phases of the design. Those phases have been summarized
as evermore detailed design iterations, in the last three steps of figure 1. It is
worth highlighting that this is a top level representation and that while designer
decisions (‘Selection’) have to be made before their related step in the process,
sometimes the sequence of the steps may be different when specific aspects drive a
particular design.
Prior to each computational and configurational design activity, the decisionmaking steps in figure 1 are themselves design activities, which the designer
makes, hopefully, in a conscious manner. Incorporating these selection choices
distinguishes this diagram from most representations of the design process, which
just sequence the direct designer’s activities, such as synthesis and exploration of
features. Among the designer’s choices is the selection of the ‘style’ of the design
solution (an issue discussed more fully in §4) and selection of the synthesis model
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
897
perceived need
outline of initial requirements
selection of style of emerging ship design
selection of major equipment and
operational sub-systems
selection of whole ship performance
characteristics
selection of synthesis model type
selection of basis for decision-making in
initial synthesis
synthesis of ship gross size and architecture
exploration of impact of style, major items and
performance characteristics
selection of criteria for acceptance of
emerging design
analysis of size and form characteristics
architectural and engineering synthesis design and
analysis
evaluation of design to meet
criteria of acceptability
evolution of design by iterative stages
acceptable design solution
technical description of the design
Figure 1. A representation of the overall ship-design process emphasizing key decisions.
(or often just a sizing model). Such choices are often not questioned by designers
or, worse, by their design organization and end customer, yet they are likely to
have major impact on the eventual solution.
Other decision points, shown in figure 1, such as the basis for decision-making
on an initial synthesis output, criteria for acceptance of the design and evaluation
(against a selected set of criteria of acceptability), might be considered, to
some degree, by the design organization. However, all too often, they are laid
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
898
D. J. Andrews
down by the customer or an acceptance agency, or, yet again, just adopted
from previous practice. Such acquiescence was, perhaps, understandable before
computers enabled a more scientific approach both to analysis and synthesis,
even though the latter may just be numerically based. However, this now can
be seen to be an unacceptable stance, given Nowacki’s justifiable emphasis on
rationality in the development of ship-design practice (Nowacki 2009). It is
important that the facility of option exploration through computation is also tied
to graphically modelling the design, if innovative options are to be investigated
more comprehensively in early design (McDonald et al. 2011).
Having said that the initial stages of the design of PL&C systems constitute
the most vital phase in the design process, this section concludes with a recent
architecturally or graphically descriptive example of a set of preliminary shipdesign studies. These studies adopted the design approach outlined in the
1998 proceedings article (Andrews 1998), which as the Design Building Block
(DBB) approach was subsequently incorporated, via the SURFCON module,
into QinetiQ GRC’s PARAMARINE CASD system (http://www2.qinetiq.
com/home_grc.html), which is now widely used for ship design worldwide.
(a) The UK mothership studies
The UCL design research team used the PARAMARINE–SURFCON tool to
produce a series of novel ship concepts. These concepts had different means of
deploying relatively small naval combatants, which resulted in several distinct
ship configurations to meet the same operational concept of a fast ‘mothership’
to carry small combatants. It was intended to transport the combatants over
long distances so that they could then be deployed in a littoral environment,
avoiding the need to provide large and costly ocean going combatants. Each of
the ‘mothership’ configurations addressed a different deployment and recovery
method, namely, well dock; heavy lift; crane; stern ramp; and stern gantry. The
origin and management of this set of studies was comprehensively described by
Andrews & Pawling (2004) and so, for the purposes of this exposition, what
is relevant is whether such a range of concept designs could be investigated,
to such a level of design fidelity, without an architecturally driven design
approach. The range of design solutions produced can be appreciated from
the three-dimensional representations shown in figure 2 of the seven vessel
types conceived, with summary characteristics of each technically balanced
design provided in table 1. Each new ship concept was driven not just by the
carriage and deployment of the small combatants but also, in most instances,
by the extensive water-ballasting arrangements required and the considerable
bunkerage for the stowage of fuel, necessary to propel the vessel at speed for
some 10 000 nmiles. It was found that the architecturally based synthesis gave
a higher degree of confidence in the realism of each of the distinct solution
types, compared with an approach using just a conventional numerical synthesis.
In particular, the integrated representation of ship architecture and the usual
technical/numerical aspects of naval architecture were found to mitigate errors in
the modelling. This was particularly relevant to the interface between the spatial
and numerical representations, which in any subsequent design development
might otherwise have been shown to be sufficiently erroneous to render a
configuration unworkable.
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
899
Design of large and complex systems
Figure 2. The set of mothership options (Andrews & Pawling 2004). (Online version in colour.)
Table 1. Comparison of particulars for the set of mothership options (Andrews & Pawling 2004).
study
deep
displacement (te)
ballast
capacity (te)
speed
(knots)
accommodation
crew numbers
dock ship
command variant
support variant
heavy lift ship
crane ship
fast crane ship
gantry ship
deep draught ship
SSK dock ship
32 000
32 200
34 000
38 000
25 500
46 200
25 500
45 700
20 650
25 100
25 100
27 000
49 300
4000
6900
1650
18 800
35 500
18/25
18/25
18/25
18/25
18/25
40
18/25
18/25
18/25
368
368
412
368
257
257
247
247
172
The physical complexity of combining the architectural and engineering science
in initial design required the facility of computer graphics, alongside analytical
modules, for the designer to adequately explore configurationally diverse potential
solutions. This demonstration effectively unified the art of spatially based
inventiveness with the necessary engineering sciences to achieve a range of novel
and balanced design concepts.
4. The issue of style in large and complex system design
The mothership studies outlined above can be seen as investigations of
different design solutions, which nevertheless essentially adopted the same design
standards and style. The latter characteristic is the first design decision shown
in figure 1. The term design style was proposed to distinguish a host of disparate
issues distinct from the classical engineering sciences, such that many of them
could be seen to be on the ‘softer’ end of the scientific spectrum drawing on
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
900
D. J. Andrews
Table 2. Listing of style topics relevant to a naval combatant design.
stealth
protection
acoustic
collision
signature
resistance
radar
fire-fighting
cross-section
infrared
above water
signature
weapon
effect
magnetic
underwater
signature
weapon
effect/shock
visual
contaminants
signature
protection
damage control
corrosion
control
human factors
sustainability
accommodation mission
standards
duration
access policy
crew watch
policy
maintenance
stores level
levels
margins
design issues
space
robustness
weight
commercial
standards
modularity
vertical centre
of gravity
operation
automation
maintenance
cycles
hotel power
operational
serviceability
ergonomics
refit
philosophy
upkeep by
exchange
replenishment
at sea
ship services
producibility
design point
(growth)
board margin
(upgrades)
adaptability
aesthetics
the arts and humanities. When the nature of ship costs was being considered,
the term ‘S5 ’ was coined to denote the naval architectural aspects of Speed,
Stability, Strength, Seakeeping and Style (Brown & Andrews 1980). While the
first four terms are, historically, the principal naval architectural (engineering
sciences) disciplines associated with a ship’s technical behaviour, the term ‘Style’
was devised to summarize those other design concerns, which for the example
of the naval ship are listed in table 2. The overall term of Style was adopted to
cover this very disparate range of issues, which table 2 then seeks to categorize
under some six headings that (ship) designers understand. Thus, for example,
concurrent engineering concerns (or Agile design, in software terms (Brooks
2010)) are encompassed by the topics under Design Issues in table 2.
Importantly, these style issues can make a substantial difference to the final
outcome of a design, so that their relative impact ought, in the case of a
complex system, to emerge from a proper dialogue between the designer and
the client (or in the naval ship-design case, the operational requirements owner).
Furthermore, most of these issues have been difficult to take into account early
in the design process because, usually, initial design exploration is undertaken
with very simple and, largely, numerical models summarizing the likely eventual
design definition (Andrews 1994). That dialogue can now be informed by also
having a graphical representation of the system’s configuration and internal
architecture (figure 2). At the critical early design stages, this can then enable
the designer to take account of many of the significant issues, such as those listed
in table 2.
The nature of PL&C systems and the need to emphasize the importance
and difficulty of early representation of ‘style’ issues is seen to be a further
complication. This is due, additionally, to there being a wide range of design
practice arising from the degree of design novelty, as is indicated by table 3. This
shows a set of examples, not exclusively taken from the field of ship design, where
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
901
Table 3. PL&C system design categorized by increasing design novelty (see Andrews (1998) for a
full set of ship examples).
type
example
second batch
simple type ship
evolutionary design
simple synthesis
architectural synthesis
radical configuration
radical technology
a stretched airbus
most commercial vessels
Petroski’s examples of bridge evolution (Petroski 1994)
Type 23 RN Frigate concepts (Hyde & Andrews 1992)
UCL mothership studies (see figure 2 and table 1)
The London Millennium Bridge
the space station (see figure 3 for the UCL design study)
the sophistication in the design undertaken ranges from a simple modification of
an existing product, through evermore extensive variations in design practice,
to designs adopting, firstly, radical configurations and, beyond that, radical
technologies. Although in first of the latter two categories current technology
is often adopted, such options are still rarely attempted, owing to the risk of
unknowns (usually exacerbated by the lack of a real prototype), while radical
technology solutions are even more rarely pursued. In part, this rarity arises
because such radical technology solutions require recourse to design practice much
more akin to the aerospace approach. Thus, new major aircraft projects, typically,
require massive development costs (including full-scale physical prototypes, some
tested to destruction) and additionally need tooling and manufacturing facilities
to also be specifically designed and then built, before extensive series production
can commence. Such distinctions as those of table 3 for PL&C systems design
practice suggest any attempt to systematize general engineering design practice
needs, at least, to recognize that there is a spectrum, not just from component
and consumer product design right through to PL&C system design but that
there is also a range of design practice for the latter, as is proposed in table 3.
This again has a bearing on the art and science issue, where the relative
balance can be seen to differ for different points on this spectrum for PL&C
system design.
Also of relevance to the nature of art and science in PL&C system design and
the importance of style to this are recent insights from incorporating simulation
techniques early in design. Such simulations have only recently been able to be
addressed in initial design through the facility provided by computer graphics.
The latter has expanded the depth of the representation of the PL&C systems
possible in initial synthesis, while integrating that with the traditional numerical
representation. The graphical facility directly fosters a creative and exploratory
approach to initial PL&C design, which it has been argued marries art and science
in the design process for such complex systems (Andrews 2007). Having said the
early three-dimensional description of the configuration can now enable many of
the design style aspects to be considered early in the design of PL&C systems,
an example of this needs to be briefly outlined.
The wider design impetus behind recent research in simulation-based design
was covered in the 2006 proceedings article (Andrews 2006a) and the eventual
results and implications of a major demonstration of integrating personnel
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
902
D. J. Andrews
passenger
floor
crew
floor
services attached
to ceiling
Figure 3. A feasibility study of an Earth orbiting Space Hotel using the Design Building Block
approach (Bowditch 2011). (Online version in colour.)
movement simulation were subsequently published (Andrews et al. 2008). That
exercise showed that in concept design, such simulations could inform specific
style issues, such as access and damage control (table 2). There were some
significant lessons acquired in this demonstration, not least being the two issues
of the level of design granularity, needed to support a given simulation technique
at the early exploratory level of design description, and the presentation of the
output of simulation data to the designer (Casarosa 2011). One example of
the form the latter might take is shown in figure 4. It is hoped that further
developments in digital media will help to resolve both these issues, while still
leaving the designer able to creatively explore options and their technical and
style implications.
5. Managing the explosion in computational capability
The above example, of simulation integration in the preliminary design of
PL&C systems, is further evidence that the designer can exploit the evergreater computational and graphical capability of modern computer systems.
A leading initiative in assessing the likely impact of further developments in highperformance computing (HPC) applied to engineering is the US Department of
Defense’s CREATE programme (Arevelo et al. 2008). In a comprehensive review
of the challenges and risks in large-scale computational simulation, Post et al.
(2006) consider that such simulation tools are currently at the third of Petroski’s
four steps in the maturity process of ‘Design Paradigms’ (Petroski 1994), namely
‘continually more ambitious designs that pushed to the limits of the existing
technologies until large-scale failures occurred’. Thus, the pure speed and capacity
of computational devices, or more likely multiple platforms comprising such
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
903
NTOC
02_deck
01_deck
doo_ _N2_4-number of times opened & closed: 13 times
na
ri
de
m
on
str
ati
on
s
ce
no_1 deck
no_2_deck
no_3_d
eck
(sec)-simulati
scenario: 1234
time to complete
on no.99-code:3
03_deck
o—
no
. ti
me
so
pe
ne
d
an
dc
los
ed
Design of large and complex systems
Figure 4. UCL developed interactive visualization tool, showing congestion areas and comparative
durations for watertight doors remaining open in a given personnel movement scenario (see
Andrews et al. (2008) for details). (Online version in colour.)
devices, will continue to grow, assuming that some major advances will occur
to maintain the growth rate seen to date (Barrett 2006). However, translating
this into appropriate analytical and simulation tools is seen by Post et al. to
be problematic. Such tools will have to possess the rigour to be usable by
engineering designers, without substantial time lags in their application, and this
is considered to require considerably more systems engineering practice than has
been seen to date. Post et al. (2006) identify three challenges in this regard: those
associated with development efficiency, programme accuracy, and application
focus and resourcing.
Historically, engineers have been prepared to use the available computational
tools without an adequate verification and validation process, which to some
extent has been justified by recourse to traditional experimental benchmarking.
Such benchmarking is less likely to be available in the future, both owing to
cost pressures and to the limits of empirical capability to match the growing
computational sophistication. In the case of PL&C systems, this is seen to be a
further justification for enhanced use of simulation techniques early in the design
process. Given the implications and risks of a growing reliance on computational
tools, which are either not validated or even not capable of being validated,
then some risk reduction could be achieved through as early an assessment as
possible in the design process. Such early identification would then highlight the
potential consequences and enable any mitigating action be taken before too great
a design commitment has been made. This can be seen as a further example of
the ‘art’ of applying science to PL&C systems, in particular, given the scale of
their inherent complexity.
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
904
D. J. Andrews
In addition, the issue of design-sketching is one that, with computational
power becoming ever more available to engineering designers, could make a
further substantial difference in the practice of the preliminary design of PL&C
systems. This issue is particularly relevant, along with the use of simulation
tools, to the style-related issues, identified in §3, and hence to broadening
both the practice and scope for creativity or art in preliminary design. It has
been recognized by architectural practitioners and theorists that ‘sketching’ is
primarily a means of design communication ‘nearly always three-dimensional
doodles … as a clarification for oneself and for spreading the notions’ (Brawne
2003). In design theory, the traditional view has been that sketching is ‘simply
as a way to externalise images thought to be already present in the mind of
the designer’ (Fallman 2003). However, it has been proposed that the concept of
sketching, when termed ‘prototyping’ in the field of human–computer interaction,
is more fundamental to design work, in typifying design as ‘a kind of dialogue; a
reflective conversation’ (Fallman 2003).
Given this extension of the traditional ‘pen and paper’ into computer-generated
visualization is still seen to be essentially ‘sketching’, then the question arises,
in the field of PL&C systems design, as to whether both the architect’s and
industrial designer’s traditional view of sketching can be facilitated in future
engineering CAD tools. These would then need to be ‘flexible, visually rich tool(s)
with integrated technical analysis’ (Pawling 2007). What this would then give
designers of PL&C systems is a direct sketching capability, alongside the growing
availability of decision-making techniques (such as genetic algorithms, Pareto
plots and data-management systems (see Vasudevan (2008) and McDonald et al.
(2012))). This would then integrate a creative sketching ability and decisionmaking techniques, through the medium of computer graphical interfaces already
allied to the existing synthesis tools used for designing PL&C systems (Pawling
2007), and thus integrate the elements of art and science in such design. A future
possibility of a sketching-based approach for preliminary ship design was recently
proposed and an indicative concept, suggesting how rapid ‘sketching on the
screen’ might be employed, is reproduced as figure 5.
6. The future of physically large and complex system design
The integration possibilities suggested in the previous section, as a realization of
an amalgam of art and science in design, lead on to a broader set of fundamental
questions raised by the manner in which digital media continue to alter design
practice. These issues have emerged in part from an awareness of a wider
philosophical debate, which was presented to the maritime engineering design
community (Andrews 2006b). From several approaches attempting to scope
design philosophy, Galle justified the study of the philosophy of design by seeing
it as ‘helping, guiding, suggesting how the [designer] comes to understand what
he is doing and not simply how he comes to do what he is doing’ (Galle 2002).
The relevance of all this to PL&C system design is that it leads to questioning
the belief held by many engineers that an extensive abstract functional analysis
is all that is required before any materially descriptive synthesis can commence
(Andrews 2011).
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
(a)
905
(b)
autofill:
127mm Magazine
yes
reflect P/S
no
snap
(c)
(d)
selected:
aviation group
showing links:
defined
implied
assign relationship:
relative position
relationship needs:
personnel access
Figure 5. Indicative mock-ups of a possible future design-sketching capability (Pawling & Andrews
2011). (Online version in colour.)
In summary, the following issues are seen to be pertinent to the future practice
of general engineering design and to PL&C system design in particular. They are
also pertinent to the nature of art and science in such design practice:
— How, at least for complex and large products, can designers best synthesize
new designs?
— Should future engineering designers see enhanced techniques applied to
optimization in engineering design, primarily, as a means of informing
solution search rather than the means of decision-making for solution
selection?
— Do most engineers have a mistaken belief in a Functionalist philosophy
(given that it is argued below that, contrariwise, ‘Form does not follow
function’)? Rather this Functionalist belief can be seen as just another
design style and, furthermore, is one that ignores the ‘wicked’ nature of
requirement elucidation.
— How can it be ensured that computer-based techniques enable designers
to adequately tackle the integration task in complex design?
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
906
D. J. Andrews
— With the advent of simulation-based design and virtual reality tools, how
can engineering designers ensure that the key word in CAD remains ‘Aided’
rather than potentially ‘Automatic’ as the latter is seen to be unobtainable
for safe and efficient PL&C systems for the foreseeable future?
The first of these questions addresses, at least for complex large products, the
process of synthesizing a new design. It was recently pointed out by a philosopher
of science that even Karl Popper saw the nearest scientific equivalent to design
synthesis, namely the creative process to produce a scientific conjecture, as being
more an issue of metaphysics than philosophy (Lipton 2010). Furthermore, the
endeavours of design researchers to study design synthesis seem largely to be so
artificial, small-scale and hence irrelevant to the practice of complex design, given
such attempts to represent the real world are generally through the environment
of a student design exercise. Consequently, such investigations are seen to provide
very little in the way of insight on design practice for PL&C systems.
However, it is still useful to draw on two studies of design synthesis that were
done in the early days of general design research. The first was by Darke (1979),
who quizzed architects, rather than design engineers, on how they came up with
new designs. Darke suggested that an architect searches for a key design feature
or generator to provide the basis of getting the new concept. Interestingly, some
parallels have been found from comments by designers of post-Second World War
British naval ships (Brown 1983), where a similar approach appears to have been
adopted: in each case, some key aspect was identified by the lead designer as
driving the style of the new design (Andrews 1984).
The other study was by Daley (1980) whose insight into the creative process
suggested that individual designers bring to the process a set of schema to achieve
a design creation. The schemas Daley identified were, firstly (unsurprisingly)
the visual; next the verbal, acknowledged to be crucial in communicating
engineering design, for PL&C systems in particular (Betts 1993); and, finally,
a designer’s value system, which might explain certain style-related choices. If
the conclusions of Darke and Daley can be considered plausible, then both have
some quite profound implications given the accelerating impact of computers on
engineering design.
Next, there would seem to be a fundamental issue associated with the ever
greater sophistication in the variety of numerical optimization techniques in
engineering design. Even if the appropriate measure of performance or costeffectiveness can be identified, a better stance would seem to be to see such
optimization techniques as a very powerful means to search for solutions. This
can then be achieved by providing clearer insights but not necessarily the results
being seen to directly provide the design decision. Such pragmatism is considered
essential if engineers are to avoid compounding the quantification of disparate
quantities and, often, resorting to specific techniques, such as genetic algorithms,
without necessarily questioning the applicability of the specific technique to the
specific problem in hand (Andrews 2004). Here, the visualization of alternative
design solutions can help in clarifying the insights obtained through different
computationally derived data (figure 4).
Something that many advocates of systems engineering, in using simplistic
models of the design process, seem to assume is an essentially Functionalist
philosophy, despite the fact it has long been recognized by architects as just
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
907
another style (Jencks 1971). Rather, form does not follow function, to the
extent that Mies van der Rohe even reversed Sullivan’s functionalist epigram,
in his justification for the concept of adaptable, open plan layouts in highrise offices (Jencks 1971). Furthermore, it is not possible to have a dialogue
to solve the ‘wicked problem’ of requirement elucidation through a process
that describes requirements in ‘functional’ (i.e. non-material solution) capability
statements (John 2002). Given that the major concern of the customer is bound
to be affordability and that affordability is accessible only through prospective
material solutions, this means that Requirement Engineering’s focus on deriving
(seemingly abstract) functional statements is flawed (Andrews 2011). Rather, a
fundamental design choice is the style of the prospective solution and this should
be part of any design methodology, as is caught by the third step in figure 1 and
the initial bubble of the ‘V’ diagram of Elliott & Deasley (2007) guide to complex
systems design. That choice can best be addressed through more information-rich
trial solutions, exploring style and marrying numerics and graphics, which can
then inform the dialogue with the client/requirements owner.
Two other related issues, arising from the inevitable reliance on the computer
for complex product design, are associated with the need to tackle the integration
task and the ability to judge the output of complex computer software. Integration
requires an understanding of the total system, as well as the correctness of the
individual sub-systems. Of course, there is the engineering truism that the ‘devil
is in the detail’ and most engineers recognize that this is crucial, because they
know that is where failure is likely to occur, even if the source of failure may
originate in choices made through the overall decision process. So, the PL&C
system designer should be able to see the totality to comprehend the integration
issues. Computers can now provide extensive detailed output as part of (say)
a finite-element analysis, but how representative of the material reality is the
input to a given computer analysis? How appropriate is the predicted response
to that of the actual system’s likely behaviour? Such questions raise significant
philosophical and educational implications.
So, what do these fundamental or philosophically oriented issues mean
for engineering design practice, given the ubiquitous presence of electronic
computation, not just for number-crunching analysis but, thanks to computer
graphics, also the growing reliance on CAD, simulation-based design and virtual
reality? From direct experience in the practice of ship design and more recent
involvement in the research and development of computer-aided preliminary shipdesign tools, there is seen to be a need to emphasize that the crucial word in CAD
is aided. Thus, any recourse to ‘black box’ CAD systems or optimization routines
that leave the engineering designer dependent on opaque computer codes and
data limitations, often unaware of the basis of the specific synthesis process or
the decision-making that may be built into design tool they are using, has to be
strenuously avoided, as poor value for money (Andrews 2004).
There seem to be two facets in considering the scope of a philosophy of
engineering design: those related to design and those to engineering. Design
methodologists for several decades have considered the philosophy of design. The
2002 exercise referred to at the beginning of this section seemed to conclude that
the philosophy of design was an immature union of philosophy and design research
in ‘the pursuit of insights about design by philosophical means’ (Galle 2002).
So, if philosophical practice is concerned with ‘the principles underlying any
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
908
D. J. Andrews
Figure 6. An example of the Design Building Block ship description using the SURFCON design
tool and showing the graphical screen, the object-oriented hierarchy and examples of initial shipdesign analysis to achieve a balanced ship design. (Online version in colour.)
sphere of knowledge’ (Chambers 1971), this would all seem to come down to
investigating the principles that lie behind the practice of (engineering) design,
and hence the relevance of key issues, such as those listed above. Given Galle’s
cautionary remark, it would seem unwise to expect an early consensus to emerge
from current philosophical considerations of design and this then cautions against
prescriptive approaches to the design of complex engineering systems. Rather
practitioners and researchers in the design field should focus on approaches that
reveal understanding and enlightenment, not least with regard to the nature of
science and art in the practice of the various domains of design.
The second element in a philosophically oriented consideration of engineering
design is the engineering dimension, where again the principles behind engineering
practice are pertinent. The topics listed above were raised at the 2007 Royal
Academy of Engineering seminar (Andrews 2010) as they were regarded as highly
relevant to the future practice of the engineering discipline and, specifically,
engineering design. Given that engineering, in the UK in particular, still lacks the
status it ought to have and fails to attract and retain the brightest young people in
sufficient numbers, it is considered that one element in that situation is a certain
feeling or belief that engineering practice is inherently intellectually inferior to the
‘pure’ sciences. Understanding what engineering practice is and articulating this
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
909
with an intellectual rigour, which conveys the worth and creativity of its art and
science, could go some way to counter this misapprehension. Such an endeavour
needs to be done without simplifying and straitjacketing that practice, and hence
the emphasis on the need to recognize clear distinctions across the spectrum of
engineering design, as has been articulated in this article.
So what might be the emergent constituents of a philosophy of engineering
design? Without being prescriptive and trying to reflect the creativity and
sophistication of that practice, it is argued that the earliest stages of complex
engineering design need a more inclusive approach to the computer-aided practice
of design. Thus, the basis for the initial design synthesis of PL&C systems should
itself be a synthesis of the physical architecture of the artefact, as a set of
three-dimensional building blocks (Andrews & Pawling 2006), together with the
existing numerically based synthesis, which itself was summarized (for ships) by
figure 5 of the 1998 Proceedings article (Andrews 1998). This integration of a
PL&C system’s architecture and of the engineering science, describing its physical
performance, is a way of fostering a designer-led approach that is creative and
holistic in terms of engineering design. The approach recognizes the complexity of
the initial design of such engineering products, as can be discerned from figure 6
and exemplified by the mothership design examples summarized in §3. Like most
engineering practices, producing such designs requires domain knowledge and
experience; it is thus a challenge to ensure that the development of design tools,
to be used in the early stages of the design of PL&C systems, produces tools
that truly assist the designer in dealing with complexity. This then will provide
a more philosophically robust approach to complex design, sensibly marrying its
art and science.
7. Conclusion
This article commenced with the issue as to whether, with the dominance of
computational-based tools and methods, the current design practice for PL&C
systems was no longer an art but had become a science. The article has argued
not just that numerical computation but also CAD and, now, computer graphical
methods have changed the nature of such design, so that it can either become
more ‘black box’ like or, preferably, use computer graphics to open up early design
synthesis to the use of simulation and visualization. The issue of art and science in
design can be seen to be explained in that the scientific approach assists the ‘art
of designing’ to enable creative ideas to be produced alongside obtaining rational
decisions, which are themselves consistent with a scientific approach. Simulation
in initial design will then change the nature of the design of PL&C systems
enabling the designer to be more innovative and exploratory. If this approach is
grasped by the engineering design discipline, then art and science can be seen to
be complementary in design.
Archer’s vision of visual representation or modelling as design’s medium,
supports the view in this article, that with spatial modelling at the heart
of the design of PL&C systems, the creative art in design can be sensibly
integrated with the science provided by growing computational power. However,
this can only be achieved through an approach that makes engineering design
both more visibly rational and fosters an innovative milieu, such as the CAD
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
910
D. J. Andrews
sketching proposal, at figure 5, would provide. Given that engineering design
is already the most scientifically based of the design disciplines, it is argued
that the computer-based graphical integration of an architectural synthesis with
the engineering science-based numerical description, at the earliest stages of
design, would ensure a fundamental clarity. This article has been motivated
by a belief that there are shared features in arts and science, given that
‘the visual very often has the central role’ (Kemp 2000). This is seen to be
most pertinent to large and complex design, since ‘Having a visual, geometric
representation of a design process is crucial, for designers are spatial thinkers’
(Brooks 2010).
The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of the late Emeritus Professor Louis Rydill
to his three proceedings articles on complex design and to Charles Betts, FREng, for comments
on the current article. The very helpful input provided by the reviewers has also greatly aided
achieving the final form of the current article; however; the views expressed remain solely those of
the author.
References
Andrews, D. J. 1984 Synthesis in ship design. pp. 1–589. PhD thesis, University of London,
London, UK.
Andrews, D. J. 1994 Preliminary warship design. Trans. RINA 136, 37–55.
Andrews, D. J. 1998 A comprehensive methodology for the design of ships (and other complex
systems). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 454, 187–211. (doi:10.1098/rspa.1998.0154)
Andrews, D. J. 2004 A creative approach to ship architecture. Trans. RINA 146, 69–92.
Andrews, D. J. 2006a Simulation and the design building block approach in the design of ships
and other complex systems. Proc. R. Soc. A 462, 3407–3433. (doi:10.1098/rspa.2006.1728)
Andrews, D. J. 2006b State of the art report: design methodology. In Proc. Int. Mar. Des. Conf.,
Ann Arbor, MI, May 2009 (ed. M. Parsons). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Andrews, D. J. 2007 The art and science of ship design. IJME 149 (Pt A1), 1–13.
(doi:10.3940/rina.ijme.2007.a1.8507)
Andrews, D. J. 2009 State of the art report: design methodology. In Proc. Int. Mar. Des. Conf.
Trondheim, Norway, May 2009 (ed. S. O. Erikstad). Trondheim, Norway: NTNU.
Andrews, D. J. 2010 Philosophical issues in the practice of engineering design. Proc. Phil. Eng. 1,
35–44.
Andrews, D. J. 2011 Marine requirements elucidation and the nature of preliminary ship design.
IJME 153 (Pt A1), A23–A39.
Andrews, D. J. & Pawling, R. G. 2004 Fast motherships: a design challenge. In Int. Conf. ‘Warship
2004: Littoral Warfare and the Expeditionary Force’ RINA, London, June 2004.
Andrews, D. J. & Pawling, R. G. 2006 The application of computer graphics to preliminary ship
design. In Proc. Int. Mar. Des. Conf., Ann Arbor, MN, May 2006.
Andrews, D. J. & Pawling, R. G. 2009 The impact of simulation on preliminary ship design. In Proc.
Int. Mar. Des. Conf. (ed. S. O. Erikstad). Trondheim, May 2009.
Andrews, D., Casarosa, L., Pawling, R., Galea, E., Deere, S. & Lawrence, S. 2008 Integrating
personnel movement simulation into preliminary ship design. IJME 150 (Pt A1), 19–34.
Archer, B. 1979 Design as a discipline—whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies,
1, 17–20. (doi:10.1016/0142-694X(79)90023-1)
Arevalo, S. et al. 2008 A new DoD initiative: the CREATE program. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 125,
1–11. (doi:10.1088/1742-6596/125/1/012090)
Barrett, C. 2006 Future technology horizons. London, UK: Lecture to The Royal Academy of
Engineering.
Betts, C. V. 1993 Written discussion to Andrews. D. J. The management of warship design. Trans.
RINA 135, 17.
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Design of large and complex systems
911
Benford, H. 1979 The changing scene in marine design techniques. Symposium on Advances in
Marine Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 1979, pp. 1–12. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU.
Bowditch, A. 2011 Design of a low orbiting space station using the design building block approach.
Third Year Project Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UCL, May 2011.
Brawne, M. 2003 Architectural thought: the design process and the expectant eye. Oxford, UK:
The Architectural Press.
Broadbent 1988 Design in Architecture. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.
Brooks, F. P. 2010 The design of design—essays from a computer scientist. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education Inc.
Brown, D. K. 1983 A century of naval construction. London, UK: Conway Maritime Press.
Brown, D. K. & Andrews, D. J. 1980 The design of cheap warship. In Proc. Int. Naval Technology
Expo 80, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 1980. (Reprinted in Journal of Naval Science 1981
7, 81–95.)
Casarosa 2011 The integration of human factors, operability and personnel movement simulation
into the design of ships utilising the Design Building Block. PhD Thesis, University College
London.
Chambers. 1971 Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary (ed. W. Geddie). Edinburgh, UK: W &
R Chambers.
Daley, J. 1982 Design creativity and the understanding of objects. Design Studies 3, 133–137.
(doi:10.1016/0142-694X(82)90005-9)
Darke, J. 1979 The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies 1, 36–44.
(doi:10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9)
Edwards, B. 2008 Understanding architecture through drawing, 2nd edn. Abingdon, Oxford, UK:
Taylor & Francis.
Elliott, C. & Deasley, P. 2007 Creating systems that work: principles of engineering systems for the
21st century. London, UK: Royal Academy of Engineering.
Erikstad, S. O. (ed.) 2009 Proc. Int. Mar. Des. Conf. Trondheim, Norway, May 2009. Trondheim,
Norway: NTNU.
Fallman, D. 2003 Design-oriented human–computer interaction. CHI — New horizons 5, Fort
Lauderdale FL, April 2003. Fort Lauderdale, FL, 225–232. (doi:10.1145/642611.642652)
Ferguson, E. S. 1993 Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Galle, P. 2002 Philosophy of design: an editorial introduction. Design Studies 23, 211–218.
(doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00034-5)
Gallin, C. 1973 Which way computer aided preliminary ship design and optimisation. In Proc.
ICCAS, Tokyo, Japan, September 1973. Tokyo, Japan: ICCAS.
Guiton, J. 1971 Aesthetic aspects of ship and yacht design. London, UK: Granada Publishing.
Hillier, W., Musgrove, L. & O’Sullivan, P. 1972 Knowledge and design. In Environmental design:
research and practice (ed. W. J. Mitchell). CA: University of California.
Hills, W., Barlow, M. & Cleland, G. 1993 Layout design of large made-to-order products using a
knowledge based system. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, The Hague, The Netherlands, August, 1993,
pp. 431–436. London, UK: Institute of Mechanical Engineers.
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, 160–
180. (doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001)
Hubka, V. 1982 Principles of engineering design [transl. by W. E. Eder]. London, UK: Butterworth
Scientific.
Hyde, M. & Andrews, D. J. 1992 CONDES: a preliminary design tool to aid customer decision
making. PRADS 92, Newcastle, UK, May 1992 (eds J. Caldwell & G. Ward), pp. 1295–1310.
Jencks, C. 1971 Architecture 2000: predictions and methods. London, UK: Studio Vista.
John, P. 2002 Acquiring capability through solution independent requirements—a help or a hindrance? Defence Capability Analysis Conference, RMCS Shrivenham, UK, April 2002. London,
UK: MoD.
Joseph, S. 1996 Design systems and paradigms. Design Studies 17, 227–239. (doi:10.1016/
0142-694X(95)00041-O)
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
912
D. J. Andrews
Kemp, M. 2000 Visualizations: the nature book of art and science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Lawson, B. 1997 How designers think—the design process demystified, 3rd edn. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Levander, K. 2009 Cruise ships—success factors for design. Tenth International Marine Design
Conference (IMDC’09). Trondheim, May 2009, pp. 16–35.
Lipton, P. 2010 Engineering and truth. Proc. Phil. Eng. 1, 7–13.
Martin, J. L. 2009 Data modelling: its use and contribution to ship design, manufacture, building
and operation. In Proc. ICCAS 2009, Shanghai, China, September 2009, vol. 1, pp. 1–10. London,
UK: RINA.
McCullough, M. 2004 Digital ground: architecture, pervasive computing and environmental knowing.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McDonald, T. P., Andrews, D. J. & Pawling, R. G. 2012 A demonstration of an advanced library
based approach to the initial design exploration of different hullform configurations. J. CAD
44, 209–223. (doi:10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.004)
Miller, A. I. 1996 Insights of genius: imagery and creativity in science and art. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Nowacki, H. 2009 Developments in marine design methodology: roots, results and future trends.
Tenth Int. Marine Design Conf. (IMDC’09), Trondheim, Norway, May 2009. Trondheim,
Norway: NTNU.
Oxman, R. 2006 Editorial special issue of design studies on digital design. Design Studies 27,
225–227.
Oxman, R. 2008 Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models
and medium. Design Studies 29, 95–120. (doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.003)
Pahl, D. G. & Beitz, W. 1984 Engineering design: a systematic approach. London, UK: Design
Council.
Parsons, M. (ed.) 2006 Proc. Int. Mar. Des. Conf., Ann Arbor, MI, May 2006. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
Pawling, R. G. 2007 The application of the design building block approach to innovative ship design.
PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UCL, July 2007.
Pawling, R. & Andrews, D. 2011 Design sketching: the next advance in computer aided preliminary
ship design. COMPIT 2011, Berlin, Germany, May 2011 (ed. V. Bertram), pp. 426–441.
Hamburg, Germany: TUHH.
Petroski, H. 1994 Design paradigms: case histories of error and judgement in engineering.
Cambridge, UK: CUP.
Post, D. E., Kendall, R. P. & Lucas, R. F. 2006 The opportunities, challenges and risks of high
performance computing in computational science and engineering. Adv. Computers 66, 239–301.
(doi:10.1016/S0065-2458(05)66006-8)
Rittel, H. W. & Webber, M. W. 1973 Dilemmas in the general theory of planning policy sciences.
Policy Sciences, 4, Reprinted in Man-Made Futures (eds Cross, N. et al., Hutchinson Educ
London 1974), pp. 272–280.
Rogers, G. F. C. 1983 The nature of engineering. London, UK: The MacMillan Press.
Sen, P. & Birmingham, R. 1997 (eds) Proc. Int. Mar. Des. Conf. Newcastle, UK, June 1997.
Newcastle, UK: University of Newcastle.
Singer, D. J., Doerry, N. & Buckley, M. E. 2009 What is set-based design? US Naval Eng. J. 121,
31–43. (doi:10.1111/j.1559-3584.2009.00226.x)
Vasudevan, S. 2008 Utility of the pareto-front approach to elucidating ship requirements during
concept design. PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UCL, 2008.
Visser, W. 2009 Design: one, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30, 187–223. (doi:10.1016/
j.destud.2008.11.004)
Proc. R. Soc. A (2012)