�山����

Written by: Alexandra “Sascha” Fowler

Have you ever thought about how and why something was designed? Who was considered a “stakeholder” for the design? And what biases are baked within the process of designing something?

These are some of the questions that I have asked ever since learning about the Engineering Design process and starting to design and build projects myself. As an Integrated Design Engineering student, I have had a lot of experiences building and designing projects. In each one of my project courses there has been some sort of explanation of the engineering design process and its use to engineers.��Oftentimes during the experience of designing, these explanations felt simplified. The complete process of creating a new product is often convoluted with no clear solutions, but a variety of choices each with their own positives and drawbacks. Needless to say, the experience of imaging, planning, and designing something from scratch is not a straightforward process that can be explained simply.

However, before we delve into the design process, it is important to go over several concepts and ideas that influenced my thought process for this paper.��First, I will discuss how we will be analyzing the engineering design process as an artifact. Afterwards, I will discuss the identification of biases within engineering culture as these ideologies impact how engineers interact and design for a larger population.

What are artifacts and why are they being discussed?

In 1980, Landon Winner published his article: “Do Artifacts have Politics?” which discussed how “specific features in the design or arrangement of a device or system could provide a convenient means of establishing patterns of power or authority”��[1]. By identifying the basis for how an object or process is created and interacted with, the impact of these objects on society can be understood and eventually biases and social inequalities can be identified. As a social process, the engineering design process acts as a methodology for engineers to follow as they design different technologies. Therefore, it is important to analyze what biases are integrated into the artifact of the engineering design process to see how it established patterns of power and authority within the field of engineering and societies at large.��

These concepts are especially important as once a piece of technology is introduced to society, designers and engineers lose control over how that piece of technology is used and to what aims. For example, could the initial designers of the internet anticipate the creation of social media and its integration with the smartphone? Technology evolves so quickly and once deployed into a larger audience, the designer loses control of the direction of technology. This fear of technology’s development has been posed by many people including Francis Bacon in two of his works, The New Atlantis��and Great Instauration��[2]. In these writings he poses a universe where technology is held in the hand of a few and a limited amount is given to the public. While I do not necessarily agree with his solution to this problem of technology’s limitations, his work still begs the question about why engineers are motivated to design and how these designs impact society.

Biases and Limits in Engineering Circles

In the first chapter of their book, Engineering Justice: Transforming Engineering Education and Practice,��by Jon A. Leydens and Juan C. Lucena first published in 2017, they discuss the intersection between ethics, social justice, and technology. Specifically, in their book they investigate the intercept between engineering and society. By identifying how engineers are educated and the cultural norms of engineering, they sought to understand how societal factors impact engineering and vice versa. In their work, they found several factors that increase engineers’ sense of distance from society. The main ones I will be discussing in this piece are the ideologies and mentality. For ideologies they identified: techno-social dualism, depoliticization, and meritocracy. For mentalities the identified: centrality of military and corporate organizations, uncritical acceptance of authority, technical narrowness, positivism and the myth of objectivity, and willingness to help and persistence.

The central to this paper are the concepts of techno-social dualism and centrality of military and corporate organizations. Leydens and Lucena determined that techno-social dualism within engineering culture as technology “occurs not in a social vacuum but always in social contexts” yet “technical dimensions are highly valued and social ones are far less valued or even irrelevant”��[3]. This can be seen in discussion of soft versus hard skills and even the salaries of different positions. The centrality of military and corporate organizations heightens the preference towards technical prowess as the main funders for engineering projects are typically based upon military and corporate needs. In other words, social impacts of technology are not made prevalent within the design process. The “corporate and military rules, norms, and practices shape engineers’ behaviors and ways of thinking” since engineers have to follow the rules and guidelines of their projects [3]. Due to the enforcement of various policies mixed with the implicit bias of production over social impact, engineers often create without considering social impacts of their technology. This is partly due to the ethics of controlling the technology often being given over to funders and therefore engineers becoming displaced from ownership over their labor. The culture of these principles is found in the current engineering design process. Not only is there a split from engineers’ understanding of their impact on society, but the actual creation of the design process originated in��the United States’ and United Kingdom’s need for new technology during the Cold War.

What is the Engineering Design Process in Detail?

The engineering design process in the modern day typically consists of a diagram or a list of steps that is recommended for different industries to use to create new products or ideas. Generally, this process encapsulates (1) an initial “asking sequence” where designers inquire about an issue and ask questions from stakeholders, (2) a research and brainstorming step to determine possible product options, (3) a prototyping and building step where the object is created, and then (4) a final testing plan to determine if the product has met all of the requirements created earlier. These examples of the design process are often taught to engineers in school, which is why it is so normalized within industry and engineering fields.��

In the United States, a linearized format of the design process has become very popular with companies such as IDEO publicizing their design process on broadcast television. The US government has supported design process initiatives within education, so agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) allocated funding to spur on integrating design classes with engineering education��[4]. The effects of this shift in engineering education have been numerous, especially with how the design process was originally created.

The Design Process and Its Origination

In 1993, Professors J. W. Dally and G. M. Zhang from the Department of Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland published “A Freshman Engineering Design Course” in the Journal of Engineering Education. As a pilot study, this new course was tested on Freshman within the Mechanical Engineering Major to “introduce design through a project approach”��[5]. Similar to the GEEN 1400 “Engineering Projects” course at the University of Colorado, �山����, this course had students design, manufacture, and assemble a product. Students were given the project to “redesign” a playground seesaw. “Design Phase” formats (Figure 1) such as the one used in this course became popularized within engineering education to simulate the “product realization process” and inherently integrate a design process into students as they begin their engineering career [5]. Due to this, this design method process has permeated much of engineering education and other STEM-related fields. This has resulted in many engineers utilizing this approach in their engineering designs.

The most popular modern formats of this “design process” have utilized a circular process which connects different phases together. Monday is a popular work platform utilized to “streamline workflows” within companies such as Coca-Cola, Lionsgate, and Holt CAT. In their guide to starting a new project, they identify that all teams should begin with the design process in Figure 2��[6]. This diagram has been used in a lot of engineering educational courses as a way to easily convey the process to a large audience quickly.��

However, the original conception of the creation of a graphic or list to design started in the 1950s and 1960s. The “Design Methods Movement” became popularized within states of the Western Bloc during the Cold War. Most notably, the United States and the United Kingdom were at the forefront of this movement. With the end of World War II and the political push of the Cold War and the space race, “the launch of the first satellite, the Soviet Union's 'Sputnik'…seemed to convince American scientists and engineers that they lacked creativity” and pushed Western Bloc countries to find innovative methods and create a “scientific method” for development of products��[7]. Streamlining the process of design was to increase military and political standing of individual countries and shows how engineering of are deeply connected to the “Centrality of the Military” in its product development��[8]. In the first mentions about the design process, the evaluations for the design were concerned with “operation, manufacture, and sales” of the product��[9].

Due to the creative, new technology emerging around space travel in the Soviet Union initial conceptualists of the design movement wanted to integrate true creativity within the design process. The first major discussion of creating a design process methodology or formalized steps starts in 1962 with the Conference on Design Methods.��In the “Review of the Papers Presented at the Conference” by Professor John Page, the chairman for the conference, he identifies that the two main individuals who thought up this process were Christopher Jones and Peter Slann��[10]. Both of these individuals are identified as being from the Manchester College of Science & Technology and the Imperial College of Science and Technology respectively. In his Foreword, Slann states repeatedly that they want to create a new “system that allows, and indeed encourages, the fullest use of all the critical and creative faculties” when designing��[11]. However,��in Jones’s submission to the conference, he discusses how the “systematic” nature of design was motivated through the creation of computers and automatic controls while politics pushed to make designs more “creative” and competitive��[12]. Therefore, this conference was aimed at bridging this gap in design methodology to “resolve a conflict that exists between logical analysis and creative thought” [11].

However, throughout the paper Jones utilizes figures that look similar to how computer scientists diagram neural networks or linked lists (Figure 3). Linked lists are often used as a way to store and find data within computers and were initially used as an equivalent concept in design to see the interactions between different components of a product. Additionally, the language used in the conference incorporated very STEM focused words such as “limits,” “interaction matrixes,” and “engineering designs” despite trying to incorporate creativity in the process through “brainstorming.” In addition, a majority of Jones’s references are from Industrial Design, Machine Design, and Product Engineering publications. From this analysis, overwhelmingly it seems that the design process started as a way to increase the productivity and creativity of engineers but reinforces biases within techno-social dualism. This is because, as seen in the processes above, often the design is tested and understood separately from society or non-engineers. This creates a larger disjunction between engineers and the larger community.��

This beginning of the design process from this conference became very influential with the eventual creation of the Design Research Society (DRS) in 1966. Since then, the DRS has been the longest established society related to anything within the design discipline��[13]. The leading academic journal Design Studies had its first issue in 1979 and contained works from early pioneers such as Christopher Jones and Bruce Archer. The editorial board also included some members of the DRS and the board was majority based within the United Kingdom��[14]. However, soon critics of the popularized design process voiced concerns of the exclusion of the aspects of design related to the “living parts” or human aspects of design.��

Altogether it is clear that the start of the engineering design process used within many engineering classrooms and exterior fields actually had a deep connection with military and corporation’s needs to produce products quickly. By creating a framework, many of these initial design pioneers believed that they would alleviate workload and allow for product designers (engineers) to create more products to keep up with industry demands. However, while trying to bridge the gaps between creativity and formalizing a process, they seem to have hidden the social issues that are incorporated within designs. The formalized process allows for a greater amount of distance between and engineer and social problem and heightens the technical-social dualism that we can currently find in engineering today. The profiters in the end from this design are the industries who required a large amount of product design in the 1960s and 1970s, namely, the Western Bloc governments and large Western corporations who were interested in capitalizing on the influx of money for the Allied Powers after World War II and creating products for people to purchase.

Who Uses the Design Process?

Through preferencing methodologies and thought processes conventional in technical fields within the design process,��these biases preference what styles and methods of designs are accepted and practiced in STEM fields. However, the design process was supposed to be used by individuals in all fields and there is a clear divide in the origination of the design process and its intended users. In the Conference on Design Methods, there is the addition of multiple editors and participants from institutions such as the Royal College of Art, however, when looking at the presented papers the majority are from STEM or engineering disciplines. This focuses the users to be from engineering or STEM-related fields especially when trying to incorporate design evaluation through metrics such as specifications and engineering tests.��The focusing of STEM principles in design can limit the designer’s mentalities by conforming them to a system which promotes progress over creative exploration. The question is: what could STEM-based designers create if they were not introduced to this systematic way of thinking when initially introduced to the design process?

Unintended Consequences of the Design Process

In the 1970s, right after the design process was formalized, critics in the design science field arose rejecting the idea that designs utilized in the real world could be formalized into a design process with a series of steps. These critics identified that be formalizing the process the social aspects of design could be hidden – similar to the techno-social dualism identified within engineering disciplines. The hiding of technology’s relation to social structures additionally makes it more difficult to understand how a new technology might impact society (with all of its ramifications). In times before the design process, many inventors and designers would simply think of how to solve a problem and create a design. It was inherently understood that designs interacted with people and were utilized in real life. This being said, the main pioneers of the design process refused to��foresee this issue��of creating a techno-social disjunction and continued with development of the large design models they believed were required for the design discipline. This has impacted design today with newer books published today discussing the “universal principles” or “underlying laws…concern[ing] the design of design” where formalized processes are valued and believed to be needed in order to teach and understand design��[17].��

At the end of the day, how the design process was created allowed for many corporations and defense companies within the West to benefit by utilizing engineers’ technical narrowness to create certain technologies. This mixed with the minimal amount of education in ethics for engineers means that engineers have stopped thinking about how their designs and design process can affect the everyday consumer. Bruce Archer, one of the original pioneers of the design process methodology, actually ended up regretting the amount of work they had completed in this field. In 1979, he noted that he had “wasted a lot of time trying to bend the methods of operational research and management techniques to design purposes”��[18]. By the end of his life, Archer disliked how his methodology had impacted the overall engineering design process by minimizing the complexity that is necessary for a good design. He remarked that there was a third component missing from the process and later “championed research into prototypes” created in real-world environments [15].

Conclusions

So why do we still use the engineering design process (Figure 2) so often? The real answer is that it is easy. It is an easy way to teach someone how they can build something and build it quickly. Especially within K-12 STEM educational courses, this method is a simple way to explain how to create something. But as designers and engineers know, the actually process of design is extremely messy and complicated, especially when you include social and “real life” factors that impact designs. Not only are these just design issues, but inherently they are ethical issues where engineers should be forced to understand their impact on engineering and society as a whole.��

Technology is often accepted easily into consumer’s daily lives without regard to the biases and reasons for why something was created. Instead of viewing technology and products critically, they are often accepted for what they are on the surface level. It is in this way that I ask you, reader, to look a little deeper into the products that you use daily and if you can see the engineering design biases engrained in the world around you.

And if you’re an engineer, I encourage you to explore and understand your own personal biases and impacts when designing something. Without��the inclusion of social aspects of engineering throughout the process and introspection on what is actually being designed, eventual products created do not incorporate the amount of complexity needed to accomplish their goals. By understanding the complexity of design, engineers and other disciplines could understand the ethics and social impacts related directly to their work.

Overall, the original engineering design process was created with good intentions to help make people’s lives easier. However, throughout their design they lost sight of what the actual goal of the product was and the eventual users. In recent years, more designers and researchers have noted this use of the design process and sought to change it to be more socially focused. So when you next see (or use) a design process, just remind yourself of the biases and powers that originally were values when creating it.��[CA14]��As we all know, knowledge is power especially when understanding technology.��

Reference List

[1] L. Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Daedalus, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 121–136, 1980.

[2]��F. Bacon, New Atlantis and The Great Instauration, 2nd ed. Wiley, 2016. Accessed: Jun. 13, 2025.

[3] J. A. Leydens and J. C. Lucena, Engineering Justice: Transforming Engineering Education and Practice | Wiley. 2017. Accessed: Jun. 13, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Engineering+Justice%3A+Transforming+Engineering+Education+and+Practice-p-9781118757307

[4] “Supplemental Funding Opportunity to Support Student Design Projects Directly Related to NSF Research | NSF - National Science Foundation.” Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dcl-supplemental-funding-opportunity-support-student-design/nsf19-078

[5] J. W. Dally and G. M. Zhang, “A Freshman Engineering Design Course,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 83–91, 1993, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb00081.x.

[6]��monday.com, “A simple guide to the design process: kick-start your next project,” monday.com Blog. Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://monday.com/blog/project-management/design-process/

[7]��N. Cross, “A History of Design Methodology,” in Design Methodology and Relationships with Science, Springer, Dordrecht, 1993, pp. 15–27. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8220-9_2.

[8]��“Social Justice is Often Invisible in Engineering Education and Practice,” in Engineering Justice: Transforming Engineering Education and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017, pp. 45–66. doi: 10.1002/9781118757369.ch1.

[9]��J. C. Jones and D. G. Thornley, “Conference on Design Methods,” Mater. Relat. 1962 Des. Methods Conf., Jan. 1963, [Online]. Available: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/design_methods_conference_1962/1

[10] J. Page, “A Review of the Papers Presented at the Conference,” 1962, pp. 205–216. [Online]. Available: Portal.prod.cu.edu/psc/epprod/UCB2/ENTP/s/WEBLIB_PTBR.ISCRIPT1.FieldFormula.IScript_StartPage

[11] P. A. Slann, “Foreword,” presented at the Conference on Design Methods, 1962, pp. xi–xii. [Online]. Available: Portal.prod.cu.edu/psc/epprod/UCB2/ENTP/s/WEBLIB_PTBR.ISCRIPT1.FieldFormula.IScript_StartPage

[12] J. C. Jones, “Method of Systematic Design,” presented at the Conference on Design Methods, 1962, pp. 54–73. [Online]. Available: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=design_methods_conference_1962

[13] “About Institutional Repositories | Design Research Society Digital Library.” Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/about.html

[14]��“Editorial Board,” Des. Stud., vol. 1, no. 1, p. IFC, Jul. 1979, doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(79)90017-6.

[15]��“Commentary,” Des. Stud., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–4, Jul. 1979, doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(79)90019-X.

[16]��M. A. Baytaş, “Research through Design explained.” Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.designdisciplin.com/p/rtd-origin

[17]��G. L. Glegg, The Design of Design, 1st edition. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

[18]��Royal College of Art, S. Boyd Davis, and S. Gristwood, “The Structure of Design Processes: ideal and reality in Bruce Archer’s 1968 doctoral thesis,” presented at the Design Research Society Conference 2016, Jun. 2016. doi: 10.21606/drs.2016.240.

[19]��A. Iouguina, “The Origin of Design: Designing the future by understanding the past,” Medium. Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@alenaiouguina/the-origin-of-design-designing-the-future-by-understanding-the-past-295045e9384e

[20]��M. Authors, Search and Rescue Robotics: From Theory to Practice. BoD – Books on Demand, 2017.

��