Morphological Overviews and Tectonic Design

Full text

Co-Auteur
MORPHOLOGICAL OVERVIEWS AND
TECTONIC DESIGN
Wim Zeiler
Building Physics and Systems, Faculty of Architecture, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Perica Savanovic
Building Physics and Systems, Building and Planning, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Emile Quanjel
Building Physics and Systems, Building Services, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
To p ic: Tectonic strategies in ecological and sustainable design
ABSTRACT
Te c tonics is an important parameter of quality within the
building world. Tectonics covers the co-evolution of the de-
sign and production. The technology employed in the making
involves multi-disciplinary design teams in order to integrate
the contributions from different disciplines. The information
exchange between participants within the design process is
increasingly becoming more and more intense. In our recent
work we aim to support design activities within this highly
complex process with a framework for structuring the de-
sign process - the ID (Integral Design). This method is based
on working with Morphological Overviews (MO) and forms
the basis for supporting the generation of conceptual ideas by
structuring ever increasing communication between design
team members and stimulating multi-disciplinary knowledge
exchange to be implemented in the design results. Testing
this theoretical idea in practice was done through workshops
for professionals from the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects
(BNA) and the Dutch Association of Consulting Engineers
(ONRI), wherein over the last 5 years more than 250 pro-
fessionals have participated. By discussing the concept and
results of some of these workshops and showing how some
of the elements of this approach are (implicitly) used in archi-
tectural practice, the paper focuses on how other disciplines
than architecture can add their knowledge and experience to
tectonics.
1. Introduction
“Unless an architect is able to listen to people and understand
them, he may simply be someone who creates architecture
for his own fame and self-glorification, instead of doing the
real work he has to do.” ( Renzo Piano 1992)
Architecture is as old as civilization itself. From generation to
generation an evolutionary design approach to architecture
has been passed on. In this tradition the design process was
learned through experience and from actually building the
design. The way a building is crafted has always determined
much of its image and its mood, and has even suggested its
possible uses. Tectonics involving design and making is meant
to meet the needs of its users and their esthetic wishes. The
term tectonics comes from antique Greek term tekton, sig-
nifying carpenter or builder. It later evolved to include the
meaning for process of creation artistic works (Liu and Lim
2006). The role of crafting in the built environment of today is
subject to radical change. This change is the central theme of
the conference; TECTONICS - making meaning.
For architects it may seem clear what is meant by Tectonics,
but for most of the people from other disciplines involved in
the design process this is not clear. In this case it is useful to
start with a clarification from a dictionary (Merriam-Webster
2007);
- Making: the basic elements from which something
can be developed
- Meaning: 1 the idea that is conveyed or intended to
be conveyed to the mind by language, symbol, or action
2 something that one hopes or intends to accomplish
These clarifications teach us that tectonics is about taking
basic elements and form them into a more complex yet co-
herent whole. In order to make this happen, first the ideas
of the architect have to be conveyed into the minds of the
other designers representing different disciplines involved in
the design process.

Looking further into the present meaning of tectonics in prac-
tice, literature reveled the publication of Semper. Semper
(1851), a German architect, art critic, and professor of ar-
chitecture, who wrote extensively about the origins of archi-
tecture, divided architecture into four elements based upon
the method of construction. He published Die vier Elemente
der Baukunst (The Four Elements of Architecture) in 1851
in which he explained the origins of architecture through the
lense of anthropology. Semper states that the origins of each
element can be found in the traditional crafts of ancient ‘bar-
barians’ and how barbarians exploited and combined basic el-
ements to built up their basic built environment. They started
building a fire place ( hearth) and than took actions to protect
the fire against rain (roof) and wind (enclosure). Thus ac-
cording to Semper, the four elements of Architecture are;
• hearth - fire, ceramics
• roof - carpentry
• enclosure - weaving
• mound - stone masonry
Furthermore, he emphasized the ‘joint’ as the most funda-
mental factor of tectonics and suggested construction meth-
ods for various materials: wood and steel for the tectonics of
the frame; and stone, earth, and concrete for the foundation
of the earthwork. Frampton (1995) extended Semper’s theo-
ry and stated that the ‘joint’ in a structure is the most essential
and smallest element of architectural construction. The joint
is regarded as the generator of construction as in various hier-
archies, the joint links parts, and materials, and structures of
the whole architecture. The designer can employ a hierarchi-
cal concept of the joint from the hierarchical transformation
of the mass, skin, floor and structure (Liu and Lim 2006). Tec-
tonics, the transformation of the mass, is closely related to
product development in the built environment, some name
it even product architecture. Product architect Mick Eek-
hout (1996) explained the process of product development,
in which design and making are combined (Eekhout 1996).
Eekhout showed the importance of new technical develop-
ments for the designing architect and refered to the process
as ‘Zappi’. Zappi, a term for a new building material to be
developed with superior qualities, came to symbolize the ad-
venturous quest itself;
“ It stands for the unknown, the mysterious and the chal-
lenging. It is both material and idea, it is both concrete and
abstract. It is the unknown results the process leads you to.
In Eekhout’s opinion the searching for Zappi may take an en-
tire lifetime; “Even though the ultimate goal which Zappi rep-
resents always remains, like the horizon, just one day ahead,
it is noble a goal as the Grail was for King Arthur’s Knights of
the round Table.”
Although having a quest might be a useful thing for some,
the building industry foremost needs (tectonic) solutions. To
reach these solutions a better understanding of all the aspects
connected to tectonics is necessary.
Environmental, economic and social issues all have their
own demands on the way buildings are designed and mod-
ern building techniques, used. These concerns have created
a context of continuous development in which building de-
sign, the physics of the built environment, building service
technology, and structural innovation must operate. Due to
the rise in complexity and scale of building design processes,
as well as the demands on these processes with respect to
costs, throughput time and quality, traditional approaches to
organize and plan these processes ceased to be sufficient (van
Aken 2003). It is essential to reach a synthesis different dis-
ciplines’ knowledge to solve all aspects of the complex and
sometimes contradicting demands.
At present there are gaps between theory and practice, and
between design and making, as a result of overlooking the
context of the design process itself. We think that the archi-
tect, both as orchestrator and as form-giver of new tectonic
design solutions, must play a crucial role in the necessary
change in the design process approach and the structure of
design teams that belongs to that approach. This paper looks
specifically at how to improve the interaction between and
input from members of different disciplines within a design
team to arrive at a tectonic concept to meet all demands. We
present a design methodology as a route to a solution.
2.METHODOLOGY
“A theory is exactly like a box of tools” (Deleuze 1972)
2.1 Starting; Methodical design as basis
As stated by Cross, design methodology includes the study
of how designers work and think, the establishment of ap-
propriate structures for the design process, the development
and application of new design methods, techniques and pro-
cedures, and reflection on the nature and extent of design
knowledge and its applications to design problems ( 2001).
In the Netherlands in the early nineteen seventies a method-
ology was developed to teach design to mechanical engineers
at the faculty of Mechanical Engineering of Technical Univer-
sity Twente at Enschede; Methodical Design (MD) model
from van den Kroonenberg. Methodical Design is based on
the combination of the German design school and the An-
glo-American school.. Several course books were written
and articles published in Dutch professional periodicals (van
den Kroonenberg 1974a , van den Kroonenberg 1978, van
den Kroonenberg & Siers 1992). From the start Methodical
Design facilitated teaching and transfer of design methods to
industry. The Dutch Royal Society of Engineers, Kivi, had its
own course for professionals in 1974 (van den Kroonenberg
1974b).
This model is exceptional as it is the only model that com-
bines the following characteristics; it is problem oriented and
distinguishes, based on functional hierarchy, various abstrac-
tions or complexity levels during different design phase activi-
ties. Methodical Design makes it possible to link these levels
of abstraction with the phases in the design process itself.
Starting from the prescriptive model of Methodical Design,
we developed our design process model: Integral Design
(ID). In the ID-methodology matrix the cycle (define/ana-
lyze, generate/synthesize, evaluate/select, implement/shape)
forms an integral part in the sequence of design activities that
take place. The ID-methodology matrix provides an overall
structure that renders the basic design steps recognizable.
The cycle/abstraction matrix represents the recursion of the
design steps of a design process cycle from higher abstraction
level to lower abstraction level.
By introducing different levels of abstraction the designer can
limit the complex design question to smaller sub-questions.
The design task can be viewed on each individual level of ab-
straction. The emphasis at higher levels of abstraction lies on
the problem definition phase and generation, while at lower
levels of abstraction the emphasis is on developing details of
the design product.
Design takes place in an environment that influences the pro-
cess and as such it is contextually situated (Dorst & Hendriks
2000, de Vries 1994). The context of a model of design is
composed of a “world view”. The contents of the different
views are based on the technical vocabularies in use, tech-
nology-based layers (Alberts 1993). The technology-based
layers can be combined with the abstraction levels from the
Integral Design methodology. In fig.1 the relation between
the technology layers are represented in relation to the con-
ceptual abstraction levels of the built environment according
to MD.

Figure 1. Hierarchical abstraction levels and the technology layer with the
built environment
The technology-based abstraction layers can be interpreted
as an integral design model. Models are useful because their
visualization leads to a reduction of complexity and to im-
proved communication. A model as an abstraction helps the
selective examination of certain aspects of the design task.
The goal of abstraction is to isolate those aspects that are
important and suppress those aspects that are unimportant.
2.2 Morphological overviews
The term morphology comes from antique Greek and means
the study of shape, form or pattern, i.e. the shape and ar-
rangement of parts of an object, and how these “conform”
to create a whole or Gestalt (Ritchey 2002). Morphology as a
classical approach used by designers already can be found in
the textbooks of the Ecole Polytechnique and the Ecole des
Beaux-Arts during the 19th century (Wang 1995). The first
to use the term morphology as an explicitly defined method
seems to be J.W. von Goethe (1749-1832), especially in his
“comparative morphology” in botany. General Morphologi-
cal analysis was developed by Fritz Zwicky (Zwicky & Wilson
1967) as a method for investigating the totality of relation-
ships contained in multi-dimensional, usually non-quantifiable
problem complexes (Ritchey 2002). Jones (1992) defined
morphological overviews as a design method “intended to
force divergent thinking and to safeguard against overlooking
novel solutions to a design problem”. Based on definition of
functions, morphological overviews make it possible to as-
sess client’s needs on higher abstraction levels than what a
program of requirements (which is often too detailed) pro-
vides. The main aim of this method is to widen the search
area for possible new solutions (Cross 1994). The morpho-
logical approach has several advantages over less structured
methods: it gives a complete overview of functions/aspects
and sub-solutions that can be combined together to form a
design concept as overall solution proposal. During the design
process, and depending on the focus of the designer, func-
tions are defined at the different levels of abstraction. For the
analysis and evaluation the possible solutions related to de-
fined functions/aspects can be organized in a morphological
overview, see fig.2.
Using this method new configurations, which during standard
design process may not be so evident and/or could have been
overlooked, can be discovered. The purpose of the vertical
list (figure 2) is to try to establish those essential aspects and
functions that must be incorporated in the product, or that
the design has to fulfill. These are often expressed in rather
abstract terms of product requirements or functions.
The morphological approach also allows various design com-
plexity levels to be separately discussed and, subsequently,
Figure 2 The morphological overview
generated (sub)solutions to be transparently presented
(Fricke 1993). This facilitates interaction among the partici-
pants in the design process, and at the same time structures
the information exchange within it (Savanovic et.al.2006). We
share the view of Ritchey (2002) that the morphological ap-
proach has definite advantages for communication and for
group work. The Morphological Overview is a key method
that can improve the effectiveness of the concept generation
phase of the design process (Weber and Condoor 1998). It is
this conceptual phase which we focus on in our research.
3 CONCEPTS AND PRACTICE
3.1 Experiments
“……theory does not express, translate, or serve to apply
practice: it is practice” (Deleuze 1972)
When verifying a new methodological concept, it is not com-
mon to work with experienced designers from different dis-
ciplines. This is mostly done by experiments with student
groups (Seegers 2002) or with design groups within one com-
pany (Blessing 1994). However, the relevance of research for
the daily design practice improves by using experienced de-
signers, as there is a major difference in approach between
novice and experienced designers (Ahmed et.al 2003, Kavakli
& Gero 2003). We believe that a suitable environment for
integration activities in building design teams is a workshop
setting. The workshops are used as experimental settings for
research on design teams during the conceptual design phase.
In 2001 a first series of preliminary workshops were orga-
nized during the ‘Integral Design’ project (Quanjel & Zeiler
2003) which was conducted by the Dutch Society for Build-
ing Services (TVVL), BNA( Society of Dutch Architects) and
Delft University of Technology (TUD). In 2004, 2005, 2006
and 2007 different workshops were organized to tests ID
methodology with the focus on MO. These workshops were
conducted in a series of workshops for experienced profes-
sionals from BNA and ONRI ( Organization of Dutch Consul-
tants). This was done in order to explore the possibilities to
improve on design attitude and capabilities in practice. The
design teams during the BNA-ONRI workshops consisted of
experienced professionals who voluntarily applied via their
respective organizations for “learning-by-doing ‘Integral de-
sign’ workshop course”. The selection criterion for partici-
pants we use is the requirement to be a member of either
BNA or ONRI. The participants are randomly assigned to de-
sign teams, which ideally would consist out of one architect,
one building physics consultant, one building services consul-
tant and one structural engineer. Ideally, the team line-up was
not to change during the course of three days. This situation
could not always be achieved, something that also in prac-
tice is usually not the case. Therefore the rules were set that
(Sub)functions or aspects
Solutions to (Sub)functions or aspects

the particular representatives of different disciplines could
change, as well as their number within one team, and only the
presence of the discipline itself was treated as crucial.
In this paper we will present the results of the BNA-ONRI
workshop of 2005, as this series of workshops were the
starting point of a PhD research trajectory (Savanović et al
2005). The workshops consist of three half-day sessions that
take place once a week, meaning that there is a gap of seven
days between each session. This configuration is the result
of the experiences gained in the previous tryouts. In the first
workshop series 24 professionals participated: 5 architects,
6 structural engineers, 5 building physics consultants and 8
building services consultants. In the second workshop se-
ries 19 professionals participated: 6 architects, 1 structural
engineer, 5 building physics consultants, 6 building services
consultants and one manager. In total 43 participants were
separated in 9 design teams. The first BNA-ONRI workshop
series of 2005 took place on 31 May, 7 and 14 June, and the
second series on 24, 31 October and 7 November. Four dif-
ferent subjects were treated;
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
interpretation generation selection and integration
Table 1. Workshop series main subjects
The first workshop day can be seen as a team building session
and at the same time as training for the use of methodical de-
sign aspects. The same assignment, to design a small ‘pavilion
for sustainable architecture’ on the building the workshops
were taking place in, was given to all design teams during all
three workshop series. After the assignment presentation the
design process was only observed and no further intervention
took place. At the end of the first half-day session the teams
had to give short presentations to each other about their con-
ceptual ideas. The second day the same design teams were
given a larger design assignment. The task was to design a
zero-energy multifunctional office building on a standard lo-
cation. The focus was on the generation of the possibilities,
as anticipated by different disciplines, using the morphologi-
cal overviews. In contrast to the first day, at the end of the
second day the teams did not have to present the provisional
results. Instead, the whole design session was used for the
generation of possibilities. During the third and last day the
design teams had to integrate the proposed sub solutions into
an integral office building design. At the end of the session the
design teams had to present their final integral design propos-
als to the other design teams.
3.2 Observations and results workshops
“A theory is exactly like a box of tools………..It must be use-
ful. It must function.” (Deleuze 1972)
Observations were conducted in four different ways:
(1) through direct observations of design teams’ activities
(from within teams themselves, using observation forms;
(2) by taking photographs of design team’s work (in 10min
intervals);
(3) through analysis of design teams’ produced materials;
(4) by asking participants to fill in a number of questionnaires
(one after each ½-day session).
The general communication patterns and use of morphologi-
cal overviews during the design process were evaluated. Two
types of communication patterns were looked at: from one
discipline to the other, and team oriented communication.
Morphological overviews could be used either for communi-
cation or for introduction of design solutions. Putting it sim-
ply, the focus was separately on ‘designing’ and ‘communicat-
ing’, with ‘designing’ being reduced to explicit production of
solutions. The observations were done by students and the
observation results of the two workshop series are shown
in table 2. The general communication patterns and the use
of the proposed morphological overviews during the design
process were measured. The communication could take
place from one discipline to the other, or it could be team ori-
ented. The morphological overviews could be used either for
introducing design solutions or for the communication. Dur-
ing the observations of the two professionals’ workshops in
both cases, for design and for communication, the distinction
between reporting and giving/acquiring insight was made.
During the first series all teams consisted out of four dis-
ciplines, while during the second series most of the teams
consisted out of three disciplines. The evaluation of the two
workshop series indicates that the team configuration does
influence the measured aspects (Savanović et al 2005). The
3-discipline design teams developed some kind of mutual
understanding and agreement faster than 4-discipline design
teams. This was not directly related to the use of morphologi-
cal overviews for communication purposes. On the contrary,
the 4-discipline design teams, who internally communicated
more on a 1-on-1 basis, used morphological overviews more
frequently for communication purposes.
Table 2. Observation results from the two workshop series with profession-
als from BNA and ONRI
The design process was photographically captured each 10
minutes. This way the development in time of the number
of proposed alternatives was registered. Through quantita-
tive changes of the amount of proposed alternatives the gen-
eration activities of the design teams could be followed. The
second day was the most important for measurement of the
use of morphological overviews for the purpose of generating
solution proposals. The first day, because of the non-obliga-
tory approach, is considered a training session, while the fo-
cus during the third day was on the integration of the gener-
ated proposals. The goal was not to determine the quality
of the generated alternatives/proposals, but to see the effect
morphological overviews had on the widening of the field of
possibilities (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Number of produced functions/aspects and alternatives by profes-
sional design teams
Conducting questionnaires helped to further evaluate the use
of morphological overviews. The importance of the proposed
approach for daily practice was confirmed by 61% of par-
ticipants during BNA-ONRI workshops in 2005, 29% were in
doubt, and 10% thought of it as unimportant. These results
were based on the useable reactions of 33 out of 34 par-
ticipating designers. Only 6% of practitioners considered the
use of morphological overviews irrelevant for their discipline,
and 13% thought that it was not positive for communication
within a design team setting. However, the majority was con-
0
5
10
15
20
25
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Amount of functions
Minutespast
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Amount of alternatives
Minutespast

vinced that morphological overviews were beneficial for: the
number of relevant produced alternatives (66% yes-answers
with an average rating of 6.8 out of 10), team design process
(7.2), raising the awareness of contribution from other disci-
plines (7.4) and, of course, communication (7.2), see figure
4.
Morphological overviews are relevant for:
number of alternatives 6.8
team design process 7.2
contribution of ‘others’ 7.4
communication 7.2
Figure 4: Ratings of professionals (on 1-10 scale) regarding the use of mor-
phological overviews
3.3 Examples of Morphologies in the work of architects
“A n architect must be a craftsman. Of course any tools will
do” (Renzo Piano 1992)
Besides working with designers in the professional context of
workshops, it is also interesting to see whether elements of
the applied approach can be seen in the work of famous pres-
ent architects. We looked at the work of Herzog de Meuron
and Ken Yeang, because of our own interest in their way of
working and the beautiful buildings they created.
So they are a good example of what can be reached by there
particular use of MO as structuring tool for the tectonics of
there products.
Herzog de Meuron
The use of morphological overview in their 3-D representa-
tion was clearly demonstrated by Herzog de Meuron in their
exhibition No.250; An exhibition beauty and waste in the ar-
chitecture of Herzog & de Meuron. The exhibition was on
display at the Netherlands Architecture Institute in 2005. Dis-
played were Beauty and Waste arranged per project on tables
with those of recent projects in particular laden down with
study models, samples of materials, and reference images and
assorted other objects ( van der Bergen 2005). They were,
according to Herzog: “Silent witnesses of the intellectual, dy-
namic group process that sometimes leads to buildings.” They
are the by-products, leftovers and traces of a thought process
designed to take the project to the next step or to convince
the client (Sergiler 2005). The relation between the objects
on the table was understandable, even for visitors unfamiliar
with Herzog & de Meuron. The tables are arranged like a
morphological overview containing 3-D objects, see figure 5.
Figure 5: Different morphological overviews by Herzog de Meuron
It showed the architect as a big artist who does not come
up with the perfect form in a burst of creative inspiration. It
revealed the endless process of trial and error that goes into
shaping the definitive form and material.
Ken Yeang
Ken Yeang sees skyscrapers as inevitable because of popula-
tion pressures and site ratios and has spent his career making
tall buildings less destructive to the environment. Yeang pio-
neered the passive low-energy design of skyscrapers; ‘biocli-
matic’ design. Underlying his buildings and projects is a pro-
gram of multi-disciplinary research, development and design,
focusing on a systematic understanding of the role climate can
play in finding forms and technologies that are energy effi-
cient, integrate in the city grid and that enhance the quality
of life of inhabitants in the cities. In the systematic approach
of trying to integrate nature and building within the building
itself and to optimize the energy use, Ken Yeang makes use of
morphological overviews to show possibilities.Yeang’s 1992
Menara Mesiniaga building in Kualar Lumpur is virtually a cata-
logue of his bioclimatic techniques, including daring “vertical
landscaping”, external louvers to reduce solar heat gain, ex-
tensive natural ventilation and lighting, see figure 6.
Figure 6. Morphologic configurations external louvers Ken Yeang Bioclimatic
Skyscraper, Mesiniga
CONCLUSION
“Teamwork is essential if creative projects are to come about.
Te a mwork requires an ability to listen and engage in a dia-
loge.” (Renzo Piano 1992)
Te c tonics, the making of meaning needs the optimal coopera-
tion and understanding of all the member of different disci-
plines involved in the design process. At present there is an
increasing necessity for optimal use of the combined exper-
tise’s of all design team members and to support the commu-
nication between the different team members.
The ID-methodology makes it possible to work in a struc-
tured transparent way and this ads value to the design pro-
cess. Already over 250 professionals participated in these
workshops. Maybe the best prove of the added value of the
presented theoretical approach is the fact that the “Learning
by doing”- ID workshops are implemented by BNA as a part
of the continuous education program offered to their profes-
sional members from 2006 onwards (Savanovic et.al. 2006).
The role of MO’s for Tectonics is emphasized by us. ID should
be a frame of thought with which designers can start, as well
as improve upon, for their communication about all the as-
pects involved to Tectonics. It will result in a design process
with certain expressive qualities which clearly are connected
to the play of form and cannot merely be described in terms
of construction and structure functionality alone. By foster-
ing the practice of its research products within itself and by
constantly reflecting upon these activities to improve them,

design is continuously developing to use all its knowledge re-
sources.
Ongoing research on and tests of ID are being conducted to
further improve the methodology. Analyzing and comparing
the designs and projects of existing and to be constructed
buildings could add important insight in the use and effect of
ID and the role of MO’s. The structured learning by doing,
using ID and especially MO’s, is a good basis for a multi-dis-
ciplinary making of meaning: Tectonics.
Acknowledgements
The project is supported by Knowledge Centre Building and
Systems (TNO-T U/e), Kropman bv, Oxycom bv and the foun-
dation ‘Stichting Promotie Installatietechniek (PIT)’.
REFERENCES
Ahmed S., Wallace K.M., Blessing L.T.M., 2003, Understanding the differenc-
es between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks,
Design in Engineering Design 14 (2003), Springer-Verlag.
Aken J.E. van, 2003, On the design of design processes in architecture and
engineering: technological rules and the principle of minimal specification, In
working paper 03.08, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, June 2003,
Te c hnische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Alberts L.K. ,1993, YMIR: An Ontology for Engineering Design, PhD-thesis,
University of Twente, Enschede.
Bergen M. van der, 2005, An architecture of the senses, Archined, 7 februari
2005
Blessing L.T.M., 1994, A process-based approach to computer supported en-
gineering design. PhD thesis Universiteit Twente.
Boer S.J. de, 1989, Decision Methods and Techniques in Methodical Engi-
neering Design, PhD-thesis, University Twente, ISBN 90-72015-3210
Cross N., 1994, Engineering design methods: strategies for product design,
2nd.ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York
Cross N., 2001, Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus De-
sign Science, Design Issues Volume 17, Number 3 Summer 2001, 49 - 55
Dorst K., Hendriks D., 2000, The Role of the Design Context: In Practice
and in the design Methodology, Proceedings 5th International Design thinking
research Symposium “Designing in Contect”’ DTRS2000, 18-20 December,
Delft
Deleuze G., 1972, in Intellectuals & Power: A conversation between Michel
Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, a transcript of first appeared in English in the
book ‘Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: selected essays and interviews
by Michel Foucault’ edited by Donald F. Bouchard. http://libcom.org/library/
intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michel-foucault-and-gilles-de-
leuze
Eekhout E., 1996, Stressed Glass, Zappi or Product Development for the
NAi, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam
Frampton K., 1995, Studies in tectonic culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Fricke G., 1993, Kostruieren als flexiber Problemlöseprozes – Empirische
Untersuchung über erfolgreiche Strategien und methodische Vorgehens-
weisen. Düsseldorf, VDI-Ver lag.
Hanson J., 2001, Morphology and Design, Reconciling intellect, intuition, and
ethics in the reflective practice of architecture, Proceedings, 3nd Interna-
tional Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta 2001
Hoover S.P., Rinderle J.R., Finger S., 1991, Models and abstractions in design,
Design Studies 12:237-245
Jones J. C., 1992, Design methods, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kavakli M., Gero J.S., 2003, Difference between expert and novice design-
ers: an experimental study, in U. Lindeman et al (eds), Human Behaviour in
Design
Kroonenburg H.H. van den, 1974a, Methodisch Ontwerpen, De Ingenieur,
21 november 1974, nr.47 (dutch)
Kroonenburg H.H. van den, 1974, Methodisch Ontwerpen, Kivi leergang
1974, 11 december 1974, Afdeling voor werktuig- en scheepsbouw.(dutch)
Kroonenburg H.H. van den, 1978, Methodisch ontwerpen, TU Twente, WB
78/OC-5883, Enschede (dutch)
Kroonenberg H.H. van den, Siers, F.J., 1992, Methodisch ontwerpen, Educa-
boek BV, Culemborg (dutch).
Liu Y., Lim C., 2006, New tectonics: a preliminary framework involving clas-
sic and digital thinking, Design Studies 27 (2006) 267-307
Mirian-Webster, 2007, http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Quanjel, E.M.C.J., Zeiler, W., 2003, ‘Eindrapportage Onderzoek Integraal
Ontwerpen’ , TUD, The Netherlands. (dutch)
Renzo Piano Workshop, 1992, In Search of Balance (Process Architecture,
No 100) by Renzo Piano Building Workshop (Jan 1992)
Ritchey T., 2002, General Morphological Analysis, A general method for non-
quantified modeling, 16th EURO Conference on Operational Analysis, Brus-
sels 1998.
Savanović P., Zeiler W., Trum H.M.G.J., Borsboom W.A., 2006, Integral build-
ing design methodology in the context of sustainable comfort systems’, CIB
W096 Architectural Management, Technical university of Eindhoven, July
2006.
Semper G., 1851, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings.
Tr a ns. Harry F. Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann, Cambridge, 1989.
Sergiler, 2005, Beauty and waste in the Architecture of Herzog de meuron
http://www.arkitera.com/v1/sektoreletkinlikler/sergi/sergi10218.htm
Vries T.J.A. de, 1994, Conceptual design of controlled electro-mechanical
systems, a modeling perspective, PhD thesis Twente university, Enschede,
ISBN:90-9006876-7
Wang H., 1995, An approach to computer-aides styling, Design Studies 16,
50-61
Weber R.G., Condoor S.S., 1998, Conceptual Design Using a Synergistically
Compatible Morphological Matrix, proceedings 1998 FIE Conference.
Zwicky F., Wilson A.G. (eds.), 1967, New Methods of Thought and Proce-
dure. Contributions to the Symposium on Methodologies, May 22-24, Pasa-
dena, New York Springer Verlag