# data[].attributes.body
In his paper on changing design styles, the author Cherkasky delves into the issues of technocentric design and emphasizes the benefits of skill-based, high performance design. The paper looks at an example from Cherkasky's own career and experiences with bakery workers, and specifically their feelings towards technocentric design. In the paper, Cherkasky (2004) explains:

The bakery workers, for example, have worked to understand how the dominant technocentric design style in their industry is sustained, and how they might intervene in design to replace it with a "skill-based" or "high performance" design style. (p. 31)

# data[].attributes.body
Block quotation

In a study by Pikas et al., the process used for developing a design process support system was as follows

Inspired  by  the  use  of  (electronic) checklists in the aviation industry, in this section, the main concepts relevant for developing a design (process) support system are addressed. The proposal relies on the premise that building designers use building information modelling. (Pikas et al., 91)

In text quotation,

According to a study from 2019, a design process support system proposal “relies on the premise that building designers use building information modelling” (Pikas et al., 2019).

Reference:

Pikas, E., Koskela, L., Oehmen, J., & Dave, B. (2019). From Checklists to Design Process

Support Systems: Initial Framing. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (pp. 83-96). (Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction). International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). https://doi.org/10.24928/2019/0173

# data[].attributes.body
Block quotation:

The evolution from a focus on products to a focus on solutions is illustrated in Brezet’s (1997) well-known four levels of sustainable design innovation.:

·      Level 1: Product improvement, focused on reducing single environmental impacts and involving partial changes and improvements to products already existing in the market.

·      Level 2: Product redesign, in which the product is fully redeveloped with an environmental life-cycle perspective.

·      Level 3: Functions innovation, which is no longer confined to the existing product concept; in this case, the way the function is fulfilled is changed. The general shift from products to services (development of product-service systems) belongs to this category.

·      Level 4: System innovation, where the entire sociotechnological system (the product, the production chain, infrastructure, economic models, social cultural values and institutions) is replaced by a new system.

The author claims that by broadening the scope to more social-driven approaches, the ecodesign concept evolved into design for sustainability (DfS).

In-text quotation:

Spangenberg et al. (2010) note that “some definitions of ecodesign, derived to distinguish it from mainstream design, go beyond incremental gains. However, these definitions were made in the absence of DfS as an additional category” (p. 1490). These authors systemise the difference between ecodesign and Design for Sustainable Systems (DfS).

# data[].attributes.body
In text quotation:

According to Kosmala, Van der Marel, and Björklund (2019),
“Design thinking activities were present in the entire development process, connected different workflows, aiming at changing the company culture and breaking silos.”

Block quotation:

According to Kosmala, Van der Marel, and Björklund (2019), people described design thinking at different levels.

To recap, levels of abstraction in defining design thinking varied significantly. Lone UX designers were not completely comfortable with describing the term design thinking but highlighted mostly concrete, individual practices, such as testing, simplifying or creating personas. However, since the organization did not have high expectations regarding design, the work was described as “half-doing”. Through individual practices they managed to improve drawbacks in current products and one-on-one interactions. When designers were working with the team, however, they involved users more to change bigger parts of product development process. They concentrated on creating experiences for users by involving them continuously, focusing on real needs, and identifying opportunities. Finally, global-level designers associated design thinking with organizational culture in which opinions of users and the “big picture” are at the forefront. Design thinking activities were present in the entire development process, connected different workflows, aiming at changing the company culture and breaking silos. (p. 3936 )

Kosmala, M., Van der Marel, F., & Björklund, T. (2019). Interpretations of design thinking across a large organization. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1, 3807–3816. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.400

# data[].attributes.body
When considering how to make aid programs more effective and sustainable, one of the central challenges is ensuring that the intended beneficiaries are genuinely involved in the process:

So how to engage the “customer”? Aid experts are usually parachuted in they often have little knowledge of conditions on the ground (even if the experts are country specialists, no expert can claim expertise on every area and sector within that given territory and few experts would have the time to deeply immerse themselves and develop real empathy). Yet local knowledge is crucial to the success of any project. This is hardly a revelation and programmes are now designed with a heavy emphasis on consultation and participation. However, such consultation is, by definition, “quick and dirty” and, given financial and time constraints, can never hope to capture local conditions. A design thinking approach would address this fundamental issue from the outset– aid users would be asked to identify key problems and help identify solutions themselves. (Meyer & Meyer zu Natrup, 2019, p. 213)

# data[].attributes.body
in-text:

The author defines general design theory as “a mathematical formulation of design processes and explains how design is conceptually performed in terms of knowledge manipulation” (Takeda et al., 1990).

Block quotation:

However, general design theory is an ideal presentation of knowledge, and as the author outlines, it differs greatly from real design knowledge:

(imagine indentation)First, design is not a simple mapping process but rather a stepwise refinement process where the designer seeks the solution that satisfies the constraints. Second, the concept of function is difficult to objectively formalize because it includes a sense of value that can vary from person to person. Instead, we use behavior to deal with function. Third, the ideal knowledge does not take physical constraints into consideration, and it can produce design solutions such as perpetual machines. (Takeda et al., 1990)

# data[].attributes.body
Block quotation:

Ahrie and Dreyfus pointed out that:

Although the inherent design of products and processes is important, firms have to ensure a consistent and cost effective attainment of the desired product quality during production. Conformance quality relates to the need for managing production processes to yield products adhering to expected specifications. (Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000).

In-text quotation:

The results show that design and process management have statistically significant, comparable positive effects towards internal and external quality outcomes (Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000).