In property development there is a dominant theoretical method for implementing designs in relation to products. This theory is one that has been tried and tested and has come to form an established norm in the construction of developing property. However, as is very often the case with property, the requirement of developing such a product is often not standardised and requires more than an established method of doing things, which naturally requires artistic innovation. In line with existing theories, the notion of creating a new direction and scope of invention within a pre-existing process involves a change in design. This has an impact throughout the entire range of departments associated with the development, running from the architects, through manufacturing incorporating knowledge from economic viability to practical ability. This in itself is a vast process that requires a change in the pre-existing system guided by a theory that has been tried and tested. Along the chain of development, this implements itself into the existing procedure by way of a brief. That is to say, that the customer or client or possibly even a supervisor active within the process requests or identifies a problem within the existing development that needs solving. The significance of this is that it has a potential effect upon the entire development, ranging from the structural or foundational integrity of the development to the superficial exponents of the development. This means that when a problem is identified within the process, a brief is then written and sent to a design team or designer, which initiates the design phase of the procedure of development. In this instance, the established conceptual theory is an integral part of the established knowledge system of the design process. From the identification of a problem or idea relating to the introduction of a different system, the design solution begins before it can be transferred to the manufacturing phase of the development procedure. This is therefore viewed as a problem in relation to established theories (Amacchino, 2007). It is here where we address the notion of implementing the integration of solar power within property redevelopment in relation to this design phase.
The process involved in developing a design solution is integral to the process of the design outcome and ultimate success of a new design being adapted to a product. In this case, it is the introduction of solar power within the development of property or a property. This process can be seen throughout the domain of art and design and is significant to property development in which a product (the property) is already existent. The methodology used is similar, yet distinct from the scientific method, in that it combines the elements associated with formulaic positivist research with empirical testing (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). However, this is always seen in relation to a governing and constant directive norm, similar to that of a natural law in the sciences. This ‘law’ is particular to the product itself and the underlying components to the product that the consumer demands and that are deemed integral to the identity of the product. In the case of property, we can see this generally as the notion of a house or building.
After having established the norms and the theoretical design component integral to the design of the house or building, the new design incorporating solar power can begin its process of construction and testing in line with requirements and the norms already in place. However, this must begin with a brief, in which a requirement put forward by the client is made (Phillips, 2004). This equally has an effect upon the norm as it constitutes a new approach or ‘hypothesis’; to talk in purely scientific terms (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). The brief then starts a process of testing the pre-existent theories as by way of test, which has itself been tested successfully in relation to other norms (Amacchino, 2007). This leads to the development of certain methods of testing. The theoretical components that have been tested are determined by two overriding categories associated with positivist and empirical analysis. In studies performed upon the implementation of solar power into property development in this stage of design, Chen et al outline these two approaches in their rationale;
We achieve mathematical rigor by using, as a foundation, principles from the design of experiments and optimisation. Specifically, we integrate the Response Surface Method (RSM) with the compromise Decision Support Problem (DSP). Our approach is especially useful for design problems where there are no closed-form solutions and system performance is computationally expensive to evaluate. (Chen et al, 1995)
In this, we see the two options available in terms of testing current design theories in relation to the proposed brief. These are integral to the next phases of the design phase. The strength of testing the theory in positivist hypothesis terms is given by Chen et al in another study, who state that significance in relation to their example product, stating that investigated the benefits and limitations of using the Taguchi method in the early stages of design by applying it to concurrent concept selection and system synthesis of a solar powered irrigation system (Chen, et al., 1994). However, the specific method being used is not essential as other quantitative methods can be used in the same setting. A rationale for this is provided by Ignizio, who states that this stage is that,
Which enables a designer to determine values of design variables which satisfy a set of constraints to achieve a set of goals. The objective is to minimize the deviations of different goals from target values using lexicographic minimization (Ignizio, 1985)
In this we see the significance of robust design in relation to implementing a solar powered system into the development of the property. It is at this stage dominant or existing design theories come to be tested before new cognitive strategies can be applied to develop and establish new integrated theories. This extension to a quantifiable testing of existent design theory is given further validity by Otto and Antonsson, who highlight the necessity of incorporating constraints within robust design so as to rigidly examine its validity and potential flaw (Otto & Antonsson, 1991). After this process of positivist theory testing and quantitative analysis, the identifiable problematic components of the theory in relation to the brief are then handed over to the design stage for eventual qualitative analysis. Essentially, this is the point at which the new design is developed in relation to the findings of the theory analysis.
The next phase is given in a series of cognitive associations. That is to say, that mind mapping, brain storming, conceptualising, sketching and other cognitive based strategies take president in the process of solving the problems arising from the findings of the quantitative analysis (Temple, 1994). This is a highly cognitive strategy, in which the categories, procedures and possibilities regarding the perception of an object or product are brought out using something akin to a stream of consciousness in relation to the designers (Olofsson, n.d.). Essentially, the procedural framework of the existing theory is filled in relation to the brief due to the categories associated with the gaps in probability. For instance, Chen et al state the rationale for this process ‘as there are multiple objectives to be satisfied in design it follows that there must be multiple aspects to quality’ (Chen et al, 1995).
Through conceptualisation and cognitive strategies, sketches and other such emerging theoretical components to new design can be given possible scope in relation to certain outcomes made solid in the briefs put forward by the clients. This then configures the conceptualisation process into three distinctive stages. The first of these stages can be identified by the use of brainstorming, mind mapping, sketching and is known as the generation of the concept (Olofsson, n.d.). The next part of the conceptualisation stage is development. In the development stage, the ideas generated in the prior stage are processed through the governing norms, such as policy, capability, practical realities and perhaps most significantly, the findings from the robust testing and subsequent finings of the qualitative analysis. This shapes the emerging theory by crediting and de-meriting the possibilities put forward by the generated possibilities of the brief so as to move forward. The third stage in the conceptualisation stage is the phase in which presentation of the concept occurs highlighting the empirical nature. This includes putting forward the concepts that have been credited against the many governing normalised constraints in the design of the product. The process of presentation thrives upon new technologies, such as advancing and emergent forms of modelling. For instance, 2-D and 3-D designs are essential to presentation, especially in relation to property development as the miniaturised physical reality must be observed in some tangible way by incorporating the implemented solar power system (KALAY, n.d.). However, with the introduction of 4-D reality, a degree of perceptions can be presented and observed in a fluid life like way rather than being dependent on a static miniaturised representation (KALAY, n.d).
Further factors are accredited to the overall solution development of the manufacturing process at this point. Essentially, this is seen alongside the process of testing the concept designs. It is through the process of testing the design that the relevance of the new concept can be deemed successful or unsuccessful in relation to its creation of a new theory that incorporates the implementation of solar power. However, rather than this being a simple cognitive process of acceptance and rejection, the requirement of this procedure is to ascertain the certain strengths and weaknesses at this stage (Baxter, 1995). This means that the process can be amended or the specifically flawed components involved be addressed so as to re-align the overall concept to design to fit the failings in certain tests. This final process in devising a design theory in relation to the brief can be seen as beginning in the presentation phase, though this is in a more dynamic and scientifically led domain (Belliveau, 2002). That is to say, that the testing is done through various rationales and hypotheses put forward by the design team. For example, the presentation of a new design theory incorporating the implementation of solar power systems will be delivered via the findings of both robust and empirical analysis. This is given through both verbal and textual rationale (Belliveau, 2002).
The verbal delivery of the rationale therefore requires information gathered from the three stages of the design process following the brief and is put together through taking in the elements of the product norms, the design theory before being cast against the new theoretic components. This is set up alongside the textual rationale. The textual rationale offers the written analysis of the product design by highlighting in both positivist and empirical terms what has gone into the specific design theory. Within this final process the outcomes are assessed by way of feedback and coordinated via the manufacturing potentials and requirements (Belliveau, 2002). In essence, the feedback is the test data for the success of the solar design taken from the delivery of the concept theory and can perhaps be viewed as theory testing. That is to say, that the validity of the concept is tested against the manufacturing processes and given the viability for production, such as factoring cots and capabilities within the manufacturing constraint (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). This also aligns itself with the brief requirements that if passed will reconcile itself as being amicable to move onto the next stage of property development thereby constituting itself as a new design theory and in turn overcoming the problem. Essentially, the process of design concept will have been completed and the next stage of product delivery can be undergone as the solution has been ascertained meaning the successful integration of a system of solar power within the development of the property.