SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Wood Industry and Engineering / 2020 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

COLLABORATION AND SCOPE AREAS OF CHANGING CO-DESIGN APPROACHES IN THE FORMATION OF DESIGN CRITERIA

Esin FAKIBABA DEDEOĞLU
Meryem YALCİN
Pages
80–90
Publication Date
2020-12-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In line with the purpose of the study, one of the qualitative data collection tools, “document analysis” technique was used.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Nowadays, new trends see design education not as a discipline shaped by a perfectionist form approach; but as a collaborative holistic, sharing, and exploratory approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to develop a perspective on Furniture development and formation in today’s world within the innovative, collaborative holistic, ever-evolving process design approaches that have been developing and diversifying since the 90s. (Burnett 2009; Rylander 2009; Sanders & Stappers, 2008).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In line with the purpose of the study, one of the qualitative data collection tools, “document analysis” technique was used.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Co-Design · İnnovative Furniture · Multiple Design Collaboration

Abstract

Nowadays, new trends see design education not as a discipline shaped by a perfectionist form approach; but as a collaborative holistic, sharing, and exploratory approach. The aim of this study is to develop a perspective on Furniture development and formation in today’s world within the innovative, collaborative holistic, ever-evolving process design approaches that have been developing and diversifying since the 90s. (Burnett 2009; Rylander 2009; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). It is not possible for a single design discipline to answer the scale or complexity of the design problems we face today and seek to provide solutions. Considering that experimental, virtual and real mixed areas will be designed in the future; it is not possible to ignore the fact that areas that work in collaboration with integrated disciplines in the field of design and work with an understanding of common gain will spread. Co-Design expertise/disciplines are involved in the design and production of furniture; many design disciplines such as Communication design, interface design, brand design, graphic design, digital design, system design, transformation design, organizational design and space design require simultaneous/joint/integrated work because of the effort to create the holistic values of design. By proposing a roadmap for the development of design-based professions, these forms of expansion create new areas of design activity where designers facilitate creative collaborations. The research method in the study in which qualitative research method is used can be defined as “explanatory case study”. In line with the purpose of the study, one of the qualitative data collection tools, “document analysis” technique was used.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEDEOĞLU, E. F., YALCİN, M. (2020). COLLABORATION AND SCOPE AREAS OF CHANGING CO-DESIGN APPROACHES IN THE FORMATION OF DESIGN CRITERIA. Wood Industry and Engineering, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 80–90. https://ajindex.com/articles/217088

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Altınok, M. (1987). Industrial Design in Furniture Production. Master Thesis. Ankara:
  2. Gazi University, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Andarood, H. G., (2014). In the field of interior design, the analysis of visual communication based on graphic design. Master Thesis. Ankara:
  3. Hacettepe University Arnheim, R. (1966). Dynamics of Shape: Design Quarterly. Berkeley: Uni. California Press Asatekin, M. (1997). Product-User Relations in Industrial Design. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayın Kurulu, Ankara Baird, F., Moore, C.J., and Jagodzinski, A.P., (2000). An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at Rolls-Royce Aerospace. Design Studies, 21, 333-355
  4. Bilgin, N. (1991).
  5. Goods and People, Gündoğan Yayınları,
  6. Ankara Bucciarelli, L.L., (1996).
  7. Designing Engineers. The MIT Press,
  8. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England Burnett, B. (2009). Building New Knowledge and the Role of Synthesis in Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 13-27
  9. Carpman, J. R., Grant, M. A., (1993). Design That Cares: Planning Health Facilities for Patients and Visitors, American Hospital Publishing, Chicago Chiu, M.L., (2002). An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design Studies, 23 (2), pp.187-210
  10. Cooper, R.G., and Kleinschmidt, E.J., (1994). Determinants of Timeliness in Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, pp. 381- 396 Cooper, R.G., (1999). The invisible Success Factors in Product Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, pp. 115-133
  11. Forlizzi, J. & Ford, S. (2000). The Building Blocks of Experience: An Early Framework for Interaction Designers. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 419–423
  12. Fregonara, E., Giordano, R., Rolando, D. & Tulliani, J.M., (2016) Integrating Environmental and Economic Sustainability in New Building Construction and Retrofits, Journal of Urban Technology, 23(4), 3-28
  13. Hamilton, D. K. (2003). The four levels of evidence based design practice. Healthcare Design, 3, 18-29
  14. Hamilton, D.K, Watkins, D.H., (2009). Evidence-Based Design for Multiple Building Types, John Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey İlisulu, T. İ. (2015). A New Dimension in Design: Service Design. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 5(4), 98-111
  15. İpek, Y. (2014). Computational Design Approaches: An Integrated Design Proposal. Master Thesis. İstanbul:
  16. İTÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü İzgi, U. (1999).
  17. Process, Concep