br Redesigning the rational design process br Conclusions Wh

Redesigning the rational design process
Conclusions While many have recognized that rationality and creativity co-exist in the design process, Grout and Wang (2002) found an inherent divide between the two values in the mind of many designers and researchers. This statement indicates that the use of the word “design” to mean form making or the activity concerned with product appearance is common among designers and writers. Friedman et al. (1982) expressed similar views. They argued, “Design decisions are of two kinds. One kind of design decision is concerned with making things work better. The other kind of design decision is concerned with how things will look…Some people choose to use the word design for only one of the two kinds…”. The first kind clearly involves rational-based decisions about space arrangements. The other kind of design decisions are concerned with form making. They noted that the word “designer” is used in many different senses in the English language and that all usages consider the designer as the person who chooses the form for something to be made (Friedman et al., 1982). In another viewpoint, Hill (2006) sees rationality and creativity as two inseparable parts of design activity. He builds his ideas on the principle that “…reasoning and creativity actually employ each other.” He explains this latrunculin a principle, “…good reasoning might have a creative aspect, and on parallel creative work grows out of reasoning as we knowingly deviate from the rules”.
Introduction Technological advancement of the new technology has the potential to improve design and productivity dramatically. However, related literature shows that substantial technical and organizational barriers exist, which inhibit the effective adoption of these technologies (Leach and Guo, 2007; Johnson and Laepple, 2004; Inchachoto, 2002). Despite the availability of digital technologies, innovation does not occur because limited knowledge and resources are transferred from one project to another. This concern occurs when projects have dissimilar objectives or exclude members of the previous team with relevant skills or knowledge. Cory and Bozell (2001) found that although architects and designers have acknowledged the advent of computers as an aid in architectural design, particularly in saving time and energy, these tools have not been fully utilized. The benefits of intelligent modeling to the design process are increased productivity, reduced cycle time, and better work flow and life cycle applications (Fallon, 2004). Innovation implies a new process or way of doing certain tasks, which exposes businesses to the risk of failure (Davila et al., 2006). Generally, innovation adds value, but it may have a negative or destructive effect because new developments eliminate or change old organizational forms and practices. The negative effect varies depending on the size of the organization (Davila et al., 2006). The need to fully explore this research area highlights the purpose of this paper.
Understanding digital innovation in architecture Digital innovation in the area of information science refers to new combinations of digital and physical components to produce novel products or services or to embed digital computer and communication technology into a traditionally non-digital product or service (Yoo et al., 2010; Henfridsson et al., 2009; Svensson, 2012). As mentioned, innovation is a new way of doing certain tasks more effectively. This term may also refer to incremental, emergent, or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations. Innovation is defined as the introduction of new elements or a new combination of old elements into industrial organizations (Schumpeter, 1934). Innovations are not represented solely by breakthroughs. Generally, innovation is the process in which a good idea or the creation of new knowledge about a product or process begins to affect its context.