Driving the Economy through Innovation and Entrepreneurship || Design-Technology and Sustainability

Design-Technology and Sustainability

Sudhir Rama Murthy and Monto Mani

1 Introduction

Sustainability requires diversity in both the natural world and in the idea-space.

To ensure survival in a competitive environment, one needs to constantly adapt and

evolve by being creative. The intellectual capacity to continually innovate has

resulted in the advancement of human skill and ingenuity, effectuating the domi-

nance of the human species (McCrone 1991). Design-technology refers to a tech-

nology used by designers in the design process. These technologies have evolved

over time, and each design-technology has had many common traits with its

predecessors. The topic discussed is design-technology in the context of

sustainability. Relevant to this topic is an understanding of creativity, design-

technology and skills. The introduction section explains these concepts with rele-

vance to the chapter. Based on an understanding of sustainability in the context of

design-technology, broad guidelines for the role of technology in the design process

are formalized, and then, the capability approach is used as a framework of thought

regarding the role of design-technology.

Section 2 details a list of guidelines on the association between technology and

design, based on sustainability considerations. Section 3 explores design morphol-

ogy by employing the capability approach to conceptualize it.

S. Rama Murthy (*)

Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Mani

Centre for Sustainable Technologies and Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing,

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,

Driving the Economy through Innovation and Entrepreneurship,DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0746-7_7, # Springer India 2013

75

mailto:[email protected]



1.1 Creativity

According to Otto Rank, ‘Creativity is an assumptions-breaking process. Creative

ideas are often generated when one discards preconceived assumptions and attempts a

new approach or method that might seem to others unthinkable’. Creativity requires

this freedom from constraints of thought, conformance to standards or adherence to

established paths. It is through people thinking differently from everyone around them

and before them that novelty is achieved. The accommodation of inept, illogical, and

unscientific ideas is also necessary en route to feasible solutions. This perspective on

creativity is particularly relevant in the context of a design-technology as it must

permit such illogicality to occur.

Societies and cultures are diverse, and so are ways of interpretation, communi-

cation, problem-perception, appreciation, thinking and problem-solving. It is also

known that cultural beliefs, values and behaviours affect how people interact with

technologies. This link between cultural diversity and creativity must be acknowl-

edged by design-technology, particularly if it is to be used across cultures.

A further relevant aspect of creativity is its larger role in sustainable develop-

ment. Creativity and diversity are essential for society’s survival and development.

Overspecialization impedes adaptability (Papanek 1984). Sustainable development

is one that promotes quality of life (IUCN 1993), while maintaining, among other

things, further attributes of humanity such as cultural diversity (IUCN 1986).

Human development requires creativity not just for problem-solving but also for

nurturing intellectual diversity. Any technology participating in the design process

must recognize this importance of maintaining creativity so as to not trample upon

intellectual diversity.

1.2 Design-Technology

Design involves a conception in the mind, subsequently externalized through

a medium, the outcome being discernable by one or more of the senses. This

externalization communicates the (mental) design to oneself, a working group,

an audience or client for purposes such as feedback, refinement and appreciation.

These externalizations represent the development of designs – they have an inter-

active role and a crucial effect on the mechanics of the design activity (Bilda

and Gero 2005). While the design initiation, conception and preliminary externa-

lizations have predominantly remained a manual ‘human’ exercise, numerous

design tools are available to support subsequent design synthesis, communication

and refinement.

Conceptualization happens in the mind of the designer (Ferguson 1992). The

design process may involve an individual imagining an idea first, bringing it into

form and then communicating it to others with whom the designer may then

jointly develop it further – such freedom demands that the tool (or medium) used

76 S. Rama Murthy and M. Mani

be flexible. The design-aid must help the person or group communicate readily

and flexibly to generate more and richer ideas, while maintaining the diversity of

those ideas.

Design-aids have been used through the ages to assist designers in the process of

creating new products. Design-technology may assist in all design activities such as

conceptualization, implementation (and manufacturability) and product usage

(Brooks 2010; Sayers 1941). The capabilities of these design-aids have evolved

with progress in technology. The then prevalent sophistication of technology has

determined the nature of tools used by society to meet its needs in that period.

Design-aids or tools were originally physical devices such as a template or a

specialty artefact that designers and artisans relied on for ensuring dexterity,

advancement, extension and mastery over their specialized skill. These tools were

relied upon subsequent to a period of manual engagement with that skill, i.e. the

tools were rarely used at the beginning, but extensively used after a certain level of

skill was manually acquired. In the modern world, however, rapid advancement of

technology in computational power has reorganized the entire spectrum of extended

design-aid and ability available to the designer. This makes the study of design-

technology relevant in recent light. Computer-aided design (CAD) is one such

technology prevalent in design practice.

Design-aids serve three principal purposes: (1) visualization (establishing a

design space where a fleeting idea is captured and externalized), (2) communica-

tion (with a design group, client group or a manufacturer) and (3) documentation

(of the design’s progress and for archiving purposes). The design-aids adopted in

the design process were originally intuitive and indigenous but have gradually

become specialized and professional.

Historically, design-aids have illustrated a strong vibe with prevalent

technology, viz.:

1. Sketching and colouring: These were the rudimentary ways of conceptualizing

in the history of humankind. Early humans used charcoal and plant dyes to

design on cave walls. Even this very first form of design-aid satisfies all the three

requirements, viz., visualization, communication and documentation.

2. Drawing aids – the invention of geometric tools: With advancements in warfare,

architecture and astronomy, new geometric tools were the design-aids. The

emphasis shifted away from visualization and moved towards documentation.

3. Engineering drawing: Here, the goal is to accurately and unambiguously capture

all the geometric features and communicate them to a manufacturer. This

emerged in the time of ship building and mass-production factories. The com-

munication of design to manufacturers became the focus.

4. CAD: The emergence of computer as a design-aid began with the aircraft industry.

The advantages of CAD have helped it spread across the product industry.

CAD is today a dominant design-technology. CAD tools primarily aid the

capture of only the structure while the description of a design involves its

functionality, performance and behaviour as well (Hsu and Woon 1998). Design

attempts to bring order to the natural chaos that develops new products (Brooks

2010). A design-technology must nurture the occurrence of this chaos. As an

Design-Technology and Sustainability 77

integral design tool, CADmust not interfere with the creative manoeuvers at work

by restricting free thinking, which would otherwise lead to stereotypical or

inflexible approaches. It is because CAD does not permit vagueness that it is

today primarily used in the later stages of the design process, only after all the

design parameters are formalized and dimensions are narrowed down with a fair

degree of certainty. It is crucial to arrive at a sustainability-based rationale for

where design-technology (including CAD) presently stands in the design process

and where it should/should not be.

The path of a technology must accommodate diversity, wherein the intention is

not merely to augment human abilities but also to recognize, accommodate and

foster diversity in culture. Cultural identities are crucial to sustainability as these

have evolved in response to local conditions of environment, climate, resources and

spiritual values. A design-technology which creates a common platform must not

create an environment of uniformity. Any design-technology must appreciate

diversity as a trait of the design processes (Leonard-Barton 1995). This requires

that the technology be free of single sequential paths for solutions, preconceived

techniques, assumptions, distinct methodologies (because there are numerous

methodologies and the technology must not vote for or against any model),

constraints or standards. The interface between human and machine must be free

of distractions and hindrances to communication. A technology used in the design

process must be flexible and (a) accommodate effective communication within a

group comprising diverse designers, (b) encourage generation of diverse (even

inept) ideas that carry potential for new and better ideas, (c) retain contradictory

thoughts and unexplored ideas – even those that might appear illogical or unproven

and (d) integrate logic and science to aid in the synthesis of design solutions.

1.3 Technology and Skill

Skill represents an ability acquired by training (WordWeb 2005) and may be

understood as one’s ability to perform a certain task effectively. Humans have

used the skills at their disposal to meet their requirements and, with time, enhanced

these skills. The very purpose of technology is to expand human capabilities

(Oosterlaken 2009), and this plays a central role in the development of skills.

Skills are acquired in the adoption of a technology – say, in handling equipment

such as a lathe or CAD tool. The very existence of technology implies an underlying

existence of skills – the skills to create that technology and the skills to use it

(DeGregori 1989). With the incorporation of a technology into a routine, users

begin to think through that associated technology (Veblen 1961). It is at this

juncture that technology begins to influence the way users think. Designers may

be induced to think in terms of the steps and processes by which desired forms

emerge. These steps and processes are determined by the technology available.

Further, attempts to introduce design-aids at an early design phase have led to the

user describing an idea or solution in terms acceptable by the technology/machine


(Willey 1976; Weinzapfel 1973). Design practice and education are also driven in

part by the technology available (Bilda and Gero 2005) and so are human

capabilities and skills. Technology-intensive skills require time and training for

the user to develop proficiency.

Sustainability lays emphasis on a prosperous self-reliant society amidst a stable

ecosystem. A self-reliant society fundamentally indicates retention of basic human

capabilities and capacity to innovate, be creative and adapt (to ensure survival).

Any technology aiding human creative thinking must not substitute the same,

thus resulting in a dilution of the original human capacity. ‘The best of modern

technology and experience is . . . designed to serve the human person instead of

making him the slave of machines’ (Schumacher 1973). With changing technologies,

some skills will be retained, developed and channelized while few other skills will

become extinct. The loss of skills may be understood as the consequence of technol-

ogy choices and progression (including obsolescence of other technologies). A tech-

nology should ideally enhance human skills and abilities and not inhibit human

capabilities, creativity or innovation. The loss of certain skills and capabilities on

adoption of a certain technology should not adversely affect the survival, stability and

sustainability of future generations.

2 Guidelines for Design-Technology

The role of technology in the design process is only as much as humans permit it to

be. A technology can be most beneficial by being employed in some activities while

kept away in others. Thus, keeping sustainability as the primary criterion, the

authors propose the following guidelines to underlie the association between

design-technology and the designer:

1. Activities truly cerebral must still be done by the human (Papanek 1984). The

human conceives, while the machine computes (Willey 1976), resulting in an

intimate co-operative complex (Coons 1963). It is further possible that the

machine can take over what is monotonous and repetitive, sparing more time

to be devoted towards intellect during the design process. If this help is not

provided, the human may, in order to economize on mental effort, resort to a

habitual response, leading to similar outcomes (Brooks 2010) by which diversity

in design is stunted.

2. The progression and adoption of technology should not inhibit human

capabilities of creative expression, innovation, decision-making or self-reliance.

The technological path will determine which skills are retained and which skills

are lost (e.g. sketching using charcoal, making dyes to paint on cave walls). The

lost skills must not threaten the survival and sustainability of future generations.

3. Technology should permit the designer to learn as the design process carries

forwards. It should be flexible and be adopted in ways desired by its diverse


users. During the design process, problem-learning with the associated realities

and the use of design-aids happens (Hsu and Woon 1998; Willey 1976).

4. Adoption of the same technology (design-aid) should not result in designers

thinking alike and arriving at similar designs. Technology must encourage each

designer to develop his or her own style and preserve cultural diversity.

5. Designers first think of the entire system in terms of its major subsystems. Then,

through finer refinements, more detail gets incrementally added in (Brooks 2010;

Cross and Dorst 1999). CAD tools in use today help us work backwards, while a

true design-aid should help us design forwards – arrive at a final destination as

we move along the design process, with the design-aid aiding us along the path.

This is related to technology permitting the designer to learn aspects of the

problem/design requirement as the design process progresses.

6. Technology must not become central to the design process to the extent that

designers not conversant with that technology are excommunicated from the

design world.

It is important to note that despite advancement in design-aid technologies, the

most fundamental, or archaic, of techniques for idea/design expression/externaliza-

tion such as charcoal, sand and clay have prevailed due to their simplicity and

intuitive (primal) ease. They offer unparalleled dexterity and versatility of expres-

sion only to be matched or amplified by the allied skill and mastery developed by

the artist/designer (e.g. calligraphy).

The following section of this chapter shall concentrate on one particular aspect

of the guidelines, i.e. the human machine co-operative complex, also relevant to

guidelines (1) and (2).

3 Design Morphology and Capability Approach

The quality of the design outcome is determined by the manner in which the

technology enhances the capabilities of designers. This relationship can be explored

in detail using the framework of capability approach (CA). CA is not a theory that

can explain the ‘designer–design-technology’ relationship, but it will help concep-

tualize and evaluate this relationship better. The key idea of CA is to expand human

capabilities – increase the options available to people and their freedom to achieve

valuable activities and states – and then let them choose the path they desire

towards their goals (Alkire 2005). CA is used here as a framework for the evalua-

tion of how a design-technology enhances the outcome of the design process.

This includes people’s ability to represent designs with the technology. CA can

evaluate the design-technology based on its impact on the designers’ capabilities to

innovate or design.

CAD, or any design-technology, must strive to expand human capabilities to

achieve valuable activities or ‘doings’ in CA terminology, such as designing better.

A design-technology must create an enabling environment rather than offer


multitude of resources or options. The distinction between these is where the

strength of the capability approach is evident. An important question to ask is

‘which capabilities will the people who will enjoy them value?’ (Alkire 2005) and‘which capabilities are relevant to the . . . project; which may be affected directly or

indirectly’.

Employing the CA terminology (Alkire 2005) and applying the CA framework

(Robeyns 2005) to the use of a design-technology, it emerges that the artefacts of

the technology (viz., tools, paraphernalia, boards, CAD software, computers) are

all resources (goods/services) or commodities. Users are concerned with what a

technology can do for them – the activities and states (doings and beings togethercalled functionings) that they can achieve with these resources and commodities.

These achievable activities and states represent the capabilities of the users. Thesecapabilities provide the designers with options to choose from and to finally arrive

at the desired design goals. The link between the technological tools (commodity)

and the capabilities of the human is the set of conversion factors. Based on

conversion factors (such as individual skills of the designers), these commodities(artefacts of design-technology) transform into capabilities. Applying Nussbaum’s

(2000) three categories of capabilities (terminology distinct from Amartya Sen’s

capability approach) to the design-technology exercise, basic capabilities (seeing,limb movement, intelligence) mature into internal capabilities (tool-operation skill,professional communication) which then require suitable external conditions

(availability of tools, other material and social environments) to finally result in

combined capabilities. The purpose of this exercise would result in asking the

deeper questions of ‘how does the designer become capable of designing better’

rather than ‘what options should a design-technology, say CAD, show him on the

work space’. As Sen (2004) argues, functionings (valuable activities and states)

relevant to the purpose of the exercise – in this case design-technology usage – will

have to be identified anew for each exercise.

A morphological study permits an overall appreciation of the interactions within

a structure through an articulation of its constituent components and its association

with externalities. Current design literature provides numerous models chara-

cterizing design activity (Pahl and Beitz 1996; Brooks 2010). These models assist

the designer along the process as the clarity on the design that is evolving improves.

However, in this chapter, the focus is not on the entire design process but instead on

the interaction between the designer and the technology when the idea is captured,

worked on and recorded. This is represented by the following four steps (Fig. 1). To

simplify the discussion, we shall focus on the creation of an aesthetically pleasing

form by a designer using a design-technology. The attempt here is to understand

this human-technology nexus through:

1. Ideation

2. Externalization

3. Communication

4. Documentation


The design-technology influences the way designers think in the following two

phases: (1) externalization – dictating the available steps through which a designer

must think in order to arrive at the desired outcome (this is itself interference in

terms of the thought process of the designer), and (2) communication – the final

representation is constrained by what the design-technology permits the designer to

represent (a simplified example would be a designer trying to represent a 3D form

on paper, a 2D medium).

3.1 Ideation

The design-form or idea is always formed in the mind of the designer. This

represents the initiation or seeding of an idea itself and is essentially a mental

faculty/capacity and is usually not identified with any medium (Bilda and Gero

2005; Tovey 1989). Sketches and other 2D and 3D representations (models)

are attempts to reproduce the designer’s mental images (Tovey 1989). An appro-

priate medium is subsequently important as externalizing an idea can reduce

cognitive load (Puttre 1993) and mentally relax the designer to then concentrate

on furthering the idea (Tovey 1989). Designers also employ visual thinking to

visualize forms and images (McKim 1980; Amheim 1969; Ullman et al. 1989) by

devising spatial mental models (Brooks 2010). It is common for designers to first

postulate an idea (solution) and then react to it piece by piece (Willey 1976).

Fig. 1 Role of designer and role of technology


The design thus evolves by successive modification as the details begin to emerge –

looking at what has already been externalized and then improving those ideas.

Externalization is thus an essential requirement for iterative generation and refine-

ment of ideas.

From a CA perspective, the designer’s basic capabilities of intelligence, shape

perception and logical reasoning must be nurtured into internal capabilities such as

having knowledge (of engineering, the purpose of design, usage scenarios, art and

existing solutions) and thinking of forms and functions. The role of technology in

this phase is to readily communicate to the designer what he/she had already

externalized. The design-technology must provide a favourable environment to

convert these internal capabilities into combined capabilities. At a deeper level,

CA highlights that ‘knowledge’ and ‘thinking of forms’ are functionings that must

be enabled and fostered.

3.2 Externalization

Ideation represents a spark or momentary occurrence of an idea/approach and

utilizes short-term memory, which is fleeting and limited in capacity. Externaliza-

tion attempts to capture that fleeting idea onto a medium. The dexterity of the

medium to quickly capture the idea is crucial (Lipson and Shpitalni 2000; Jenkins

and Martin 1993). To be effective, design-aids must accommodate for the nature of

short-term memory and mental imagery in designing (Bilda and Gero 2005) by

being flexible (Puttre 1993).

The designer having performed the vital task of conceptualization in the ideation

stage (Hsu and Woon 1998) needs to now have the idea captured efficiently and

effectively. The conduciveness of a design-medium in receiving and representing

this information determines the success of the technology (Dorta et al. 2008).

For lucid translation, the designer must find it convenient to provide stimulus to

the medium (Buxton and Myers 1986; Brooks 2010). Design-aids are still evolving

to lucidly receive and translate such stimulus.

The description of a product idea may involve the expression of its structure,

function and behaviour. A designer may prefer a combination of these schemes

to best capture and communicate thoughts (Hsu and Woon 1998). The design-aid

must accommodate interoperability by supporting multiple formats freely and

concurrently.

The human wants the idea to be captured in all its aspects before it may be lost.

Basic capabilities such as the designer’s sense organs and limb control are reflected

in her internal capabilities of representing the form as imagined and representing

that idea fluently. But these activities require support to develop over time – access

to the medium for practice and experience, attuned senses for the task, choosing the

design tool from among many and using it appropriately. However, when these

activities of representation are of an intuitive nature, they do not require time to

develop. In either case (trained or intuitive), the role of the design-technology is

to be a receptive medium thereby enabling the functionings mentioned above.


3.3 Communication

This step permits communication and collaboration in the design process, and

modern design-technologies have evolved to network designers across the world.

This represents the idea in terms of what is captured and the attributes of the

concept generated up to the finalization of the concept. It is likely that design

acumen and enthusiasm may shift from one member to another in a group – with

one designer leading a certain phase; the design-technology must accommodate this

(Brooks 2010). Multiple formats need to be accommodated as each (designer-

preferred) format has its own advantages. This provides richness to the information

captured (Larkin and Simon 1987; Jenkins and Martin 1993; Lipson and Shpitalni

2000). In this design stage, technology can increase its relevance by performing the

roles that are repetitive/iterative in nature, if relevant to that task.

The design-technology must serve as a forum for the exchange of information.

This involves the designers’ basic capabilities of speech and logical reasoning

being trained into formal speech, language, access to the forum and professional

protocol for communication. The designer wants to communicate the idea already

captured on the medium to himself/herself and to fellow designers. The material

and social environment to establish and maintain such a forum also become

important when viewed from the perspective of CA.

3.4 Documentation

This represents a final outcome of the design. After the design is deemed satisfac-

tory, this will be the final stage before the design is given to a manufacturer.

The outcome may be in the form of detailed design drawings for manufacture

and subsequent transition for use by a consumer. The delivery usually represents a

protocol for the final design and allied deliverables. The communication of infor-

mation for manufacturability is one of the vital roles of technology.

The designer wants to perform the activities of storing the designs and

instructing the manufacturer. CA then identifies that for instructing, the designer

must have knowledge of the available manufacturing facilities and establish a

communication protocol with the manufacturer. Storage of designs includes choice

of storage formats/methods, authorizations and the resources and skill required to

access the archives. This is crucial as the same designs may be retrieved frequently

for modification and/or reference. The designer must be able to identify what is to

be stored and how. The role of the technology is to not only store the final design

and unambiguously communicate the design to a manufacturer but to also docu-

ment the entire design progress such that this record may help the designer at a

convenient time. To enable the storage of designs, the design-technology must

make available the required options of formats for storage of designs.


4 Conclusion

The chapter explores the purpose and role of a design-technology. Considerations

of diversity, creativity and skill are explained in relevance to this topic. A set of

guidelines on the association between technology and design is established.

The chapter focuses on the role of the designer and the role of design-technology

in imagining, capturing, communicating and storing an idea. With the capability

approach framework, it is seen that the relationship has more depth than the mere

use of a tool for a particular task. With this framework, the chapter attempts to

better understand the design process, in terms of the activities and states of the

designer. Relevant concerns emerging from the capability approach perspective

have been identified in various stages of the design morphology. This entire

research theme would help determine the larger direction in which design-

technologies must progress, along with numerous related societal processes, thus

taking sustainability concerns into consideration.

References

Alkire S (2005) Briefing note-capabilities and functionings: definitions and justification. Human

Development and Capability Association. www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/HDCA_Brie-

fing_Concepts.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2012

Amheim R (1969) Visual thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley

Bilda Z, Gero JS (2005) Do we need CAD during conceptual design? In: Martens B, Brown A

(eds) Computer aided architectural design futures: proceedings of the 11th international CAAD

futures conference held at the Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, 20–22 June

2005, pp 155–164. Springer, Dordrecht

Brooks FP Jr (2010) The design of design: essays from a computer scientist. Addison-Wesley

Professional, Upper Saddle River

Buxton W, Myers BA (1986) A study in two-handed input. In: Mantei M, Orbeton P (eds) CHI ’86

Proceedings of the SIGCHI (Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction)

conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA, 13–17 April 1986.

Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 321–326

Coons SA (1963) An outline of the requirement for a computer aided design system. In: Johnson

EC (ed) AFIPS ’63 (Spring) Proceedings of the May 21–23, 1963, spring joint computer

conference, Detroit, USA. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 299–304

Cross N, Dorst K (1999) Co-evolution of problem and solution spaces in creative design. In: Gero

J, Maher M (eds) Computational models of creative design IV. Key Centre of Design, Sydney

DeGregori TR (1989) A theory of technology: continuity and change in human development.

Affiliated East-West Press, New Delhi

Dorta T, Pe´rez E, Lesage A (2008) The ideation gap: hybrid tools, design flow and practice.

Des Stud 29(2):121–141

Ferguson ES (1992) Engineering and the mind’s eye. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Hsu W, Woon IMY (1998) Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products.

Comput Aided Des 30(5):377–389

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (1986) Tradition, conservation and

development: occasional newsletter of the commission on ecology’s working group on tradi-

tional ecological knowledge. IUCN, Gland


http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/HDCA_Briefing_Concepts.pdf

http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/HDCA_Briefing_Concepts.pdf

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (1993) Guide to preparing and

implementing national sustainable development strategies and other multi-sectoral environ-

ment and development strategies. IUCN, New York

Jenkins DL, Martin RR (1993) The importance of free hand sketching in conceptual design:

automatic sketch input. In: Hight TK, Stauffer LA (eds) Design theory and methodology, DTM

’93: presented at the 1993 ASME design technical conferences, 5th international conference on

design theory and methodology, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 19–22 September 1993, vol 53 of

DE series. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp 115–128

Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognit Sci

11(1):65–99

Leonard-Barton D (1995) Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of

innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Lipson H, Shpitalni M (2000) Conceptual design and analysis by sketching. J AI Des Manuf 14

(5):391–401

McCrone J (1991) The ape that spoke: language and the evolution of the human mind. William

Morrow, New York

McKim RH (1980) Experiences in visual thinking, 2nd edn. Brooks/Cole, Monterey

Nussbaum MC (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge

Oosterlaken I (2009) Design for development: a capability approach. Des Issues 25(4):91–102

Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design – a systematic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, London

Papanek V (1984) Design for the real world: human ecology and social change, 2nd edn. Thames

& Hudson, London

Puttre M (1993) Gearing up for conceptual design. Mech Eng 115:46–50

Robeyns I (2005) The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J Hum Dev 6(1):93–114

Sayers DL (1941) The mind of the maker, 1st edn. Methuen, London

Schumacher EF (1973) Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. Blond & Briggs,

London

Sen A (2004) Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation. Fem Econ 10

(3):77–80

Tovey M (1989) Drawing and CAD in industrial design. Des Stud 10(1):24–39

Ullman DG,Wood S, Graig D (1989) The importance of drawing in the mechanical design process.

Preprints of NSF engineering design research conference, University of Massachusetts,

Dartmouth

Veblen TB (1961) The place of science in modern civilization. The Viking Press, New York

Weinzapfel G (1973) It might work but will it help? In: Proceedings of the design activity

international conference, London

Willey DS (1976) Approaches to computer-aided architectural sketch design. Comput Aided Des 8

(3):181–186

WordWeb software (2005) Version 4. Princeton University, Princeton. Retrieved on July 10, 2009


Documents

Driving the Economy through Innovation and Entrepreneurship || Design-Technology and Sustainability