Constraints and Criteria in the Conceptual Design Process Kamalini Martin Bangalore 1.

Introduction Design is a purposeful human activity and an integral part of human nature. Engineering Design vitally affects the well being and safety of human lives in a variety of ways. It covers a wide range of responses to human needs in a large number of disciplines, such as product design, design of industrial processes, architecture, graphic arts, engineering systems etc. These responses include activities that exhibit varying degrees of sophistication, and using tools which themselves need different skills and expertise. For example, some design activities may be simply selection among alternatives in a clearly defined catalogue, or slightly modifying a well-understood pattern. At the other extreme, design may involve human creativity to produce an entirely new product, and this is the context of the paper. Creativity implies that the created product carries the unique signature of the creator. Such a design is the physical realisation of an original idea, a tangible expression of the mind. When the product is physical, the process can be and is usually purely human; when the product is human, the process is a cooperative effort of human and divine action. Human activity impacts not only the external environment, it also impacts consciously or not, the content of the inner self. The proportion of commitment to divine purpose within a design process is entirely under human control and can range from an entirely static provision of a framework i.e., boundary conditions for activity right up to a profound, dynamic and pervasive force directing every aspect. That is to say, a physical product could also be the result of human activity controlled and focussed in terms of the divine values. Not surprisingly, this transfusion of divine through human values is most difficult as it is a realisation of deliberately conscious, continuous commitment. This is explored in this paper. 2. Engineering background: the human design activity Conceptual designs are in general based on non specific, qualitative goals and few design constraints and the resulting concepts define and restrict the design space from which the final design specifications will be derived. This initial phase involves global search, introduces new constraints and results in discarding many design concepts as infeasible or suboptimal. Later a local search takes place over one or two designs to home in on a final product. The transition between global and local search is dynamic, very dependent on the state of the design process (as distinct from the state of the design) and considers numerous criteria. The preliminary stages of design of complex systems require sequences of engineering and management decisions to transform the initial goal requirements into a feasible set of specifications of the target product. In this paper, we consider the engineering decisions to be strictly domain dependent, while the management decisions guide the design process and are independent of the domain. The engineering decisions need reasoning methods that are knowledge rich, domain-specific, process independent, and provide individual viewpoints. The management decisions need reasoning methods that are knowledge poor, domain independent, dynamic (situation dependent) and provide for the integrated viewpoints and criteria. This design activity is explored here as model for understanding human development. The designing process should accept variations in user inputs such as design requirements, constraints, and guidelines at any time- such inputs may be incomplete, inconsistent and specified at different levels of detail. It must then perform appropriate sequences of actions to evolve suitable sets of design specifications. In this process, the human designer must deliberately examine subproblem alternatives or options, and assess the feasibilities, by merit ordering. An ideal designer would examine normally overlooked impacts which could result as the choice of an option and highlight conflicts which might not be visible unless time-consuming analyses are done. The process yields not only a product solution, but also should evaluate margins and confidence levels and bring out constraints. The conceptual design process is an activity that can be understood in many ways, for instance, as : Problem solving activity Hierarchical Tree of tasks iteration Process Recursive process by designing a product into sub parts down to component level Trial and error process or Learning process Process of transformation - descriptions of objectives into functional specifications Process of refinement of an object definition under increasing constraints. However in all cases, there is a key element, a selection mechanism or decision making which occurs at various points, at various level of specification and certainty. An integrative and dynamic methodology provides scope for flexibility and innovation as well as guiding the process along effective, standardized paths. Complexity while managing a design process arises mainly from lack of strategic control knowledge. An expert in this area, although knowing how-to solve the problem, is yet usually only able to specify to the level of what the solution looks like. There process appears to consist of a very large number of tiny design decisions which are very situation dependent, rather than a few outstanding, definable decisions. But this how is crucial knowledge as it seems to embody the method by which the initial goal / concepts is somehow transformed into a realizable product. The rest of this paper confines the design process to discussing this transformation. Constraints and criteria occur within and between the engineering and management tasks. The overall method being to explore the design space thoroughly, all feasible and infeasible combinations of design parameters must be assessed against the design goals. There is therefore a continuous generation and examination of alternatives and selection of options and values. If a brute force method is adopted, the number of design parameters and the options of values for each, along with the examination of all possible combinations of parameters would be beyond human intellect. This is not how a human designs. However this paper emphasizes the decision making aspect .Thus, to produce the best possible parts of the design product, input parameters include constraints which enforce limits and criteria which guide focal points for fixing parameters. Eg., the design of the container of a cup may explored by selection of material using volume and weight criteria (measurable standard, different materials, shapes and sizes can be selected for a given ideal volume), while it is limited by cost consideration. Typically these constraints and criteria have been derived from specific technical knowledge, and represent explicit limits of exploration. The control functions too work with

constraints and criteria and these relate directly to the process goal, i.e, to globally evaluate the integrated product. Thus in a cup, an excellent container may be offset by a poor handle or a shaky base (note that the handle or base design might have been enforced due to a particular container shape). Thus constraints may either increase or decrease the number of alternatives by relaxation and tightening respectively. Criteria give focus to the decision making. Apart from the such direct guidelines, constraints and criteria in control functions actively direct the design process in integrating the decision making. They are used in selection of the most optimal option from many, equally feasible options which result from the engineering analysis. Constraints and criteria are alsoneeded when the design is halted due to mismatch and conflicts and dead-ends (wrong knowledge or lack of knowledge). Typically, they are used in selection of a search method/backtrack path/ schedule generation method/ parameter relaxation method in the recovery process. Many times, global constraints and criteria conflict with one another. Eg., minimize cost vs maximize utility is a familiar conflict, biggest volume against smallest weight is another. And so on. These are derived from the management perspective of design. Human intellect translates strategies in terms of global constraints and criteria, into explicit methods for control selection of tasks, options, direction of search etc. The selection of the master criterion and the most rigid constraint comes from the value system of the designer, which is the most reliable global guideline i.e., the one that epitomizes the purpose within the designers mind. Unfortunately, the value system may not be invariable during a design process. Eg., if a designer is happy with the aesthetics of design and an innovative approach, cost may be relaxed from a rigid upper limit into minimize cost as far as possible criterion. Equally, a nonnegotiable limit on cost/availability may drive the product utility into limited conditions of use (eg., material deciding temperature limits of operation) . No designer has explicitly stated the strict conditions under which constraints and criteria change. In effect, the change may be subjective, and the designer indeed insists on his/her freedom to choose, particularly in an innovative process. In spite of this freedom, non negotiable values do exist deep within the designers mind. The rigid fixation is sometimes covered and not admitted. Eg., no wants to admit to giving highest priority for money. The process may summarized, in the context of this paper into the following sequence: 1. Engineering analysis assessment and grouping of parameters (typically in thousands) 2. Alternative generation assessment and grouping of combinations of parameters (feasible options), typically in tens or hundreds 3. Focussing with criteria and constraints (both relaxation and tightening possible) to select a few optimal candidates 4. Decision and selection of most optimal set of specifications with appropriate criteria 5. Meta control guides the above 4 steps with the designers core value system (evaluation of appropriateness of criteria under different conditions) the deepest priorities. The key questions in the design process now becomes: When (in what conditions) do the design guidelines themselves change? Eg., when does the designer give priority to minimizing cost of production over that of say, using materials that will significantly increase pollution? Or give priority to service in under privileged location over a hot market potential? Is the change for better or worse? i.e., how to evaluate the maintenance/ generation of guidelines? From the preceding description it should be evident that the power and flexibility of the design process arises not only from well analysed procedures encapsulating technical and management knowledge, but by the human choice of what is critical and fixed and what is not. This indicates a commitment to the priorities, and it is easy to extrapolate this to a higher layer of abstraction When or why does the commitment itself change? 2. Value reference We now shift the level of consciousness into another plane altogether. The design process outlined above is an accurate reflection to an activity within the human self. Human activity can be imaged in analogy to the above sequence as follows: Engineering world 1. Design specifications 2 Design product 3. design parametric interactions 4. opportunistic incremental control 5. strategic control with constraints & criteria 6. core values : goals & purposes reference point human commitment and driving force : self vs God - potential and fulfillment corresponding mental world states, events, objects in the physical environment Action hierarchies of (simple) response-reactions to triggers and stimuli reasoned action deliberated purposeful action

All human activity impacts the external physical world. There is also an unseen, un sensed impact on the human self. The above procedure of steps in realization of an engineering product is thus used as a model in the designing (i.e, growth and transformation) of the human self. The ongoing realization of a human being is unique and special enough to be termed creation. The speciality and uniqueness is indefinable but unmistakable.

The human prototype has components loosely categorized into body, mind and spirit (the last being that which does not belong to either body or mind, thinking or feeling). Component modules of a mind are capabilities for beliefs, desires, perceptions, memory, imagination, reasoning tools of all kinds. A reasoning or intellectual mind is rich in scientific/analytical knowledge which is easy to acquire and proven against external standards. An intuitive mind is rich in strategic or situational knowledge which is difficult to explicate and measure. An emotional mind is difficult to control, the emotional values outweighing all others, and bypassing reason to override all decisions. The development of an effective human being can be described in part by the mental characteristics and abilities which translate core purposes into valid action through the levels listed above. Each human being is conscious of his or her own growth and transformation, a process activity, even when not consciously and actively guiding it. Each human being is free to set up any value system (beliefs, goals and priorities) that characterizes the core of being.. The core values are translated through levels of awareness in the self until it is visible as an expression of the mind, typically in acts of communication, action and design. It is (or should be) easy to see that the designing of a technical product is driven by the core values and priorities of the human designer. Similarly every action produces an interactive event within the self, either a cause or an effect, sometimes both. Typically the deep inner human drive is to reinforce the core values. The core values are prized above physical health, well being and sometimes life itself. When attacked, there is a violent reaction from all parts of the mind to safeguard the status quo. Under adverse circumstances, human being struggles to rationalize and defend his/her stance or activity. Under normal circumstances, the core values are hardened and fixed. But how and where are these values themselves fixed? Self management principles have stated in no uncertain terms that core values can be changed at any time but only by the self itself. That is, there is no way that external circumstances can directly influence these unless the self permits it. Thus we could say that each self is a co-creator with God. When God is rejected, the human being is fully responsible for his/her own creation, however passive s/he is. However even the presence and power of God is acknowledged, it is not easy for the core values to be derived from the kingdom of Heaven However it is also possible that core values can be suddenly and completely reversed. This reversal of values is termed new birth in the Bible when it is thorough. It could also be called repentance at the early stage. 3. Location of core values The above description shows that design is a reasoned and purposeful activity that realizes a mental idea into a physical/tangible product. An innovative or creative product bears the stamp of unique human character. The character is typically recognized by the purposes (utility and functioning of the product) and the method of realization through commitment to core values and priorities. The success or achievement of purpose is measured by evaluating the properties of the product against the conceptual idea. The evaluation of a creative design product appears to be entirely subjective. Satisfaction is an internal measure of fulfillment of the human potential. The fulfillment is not only achieved when the original purpose is successfully realized even when the purpose is infeasible, there is a subtle but strong satisfaction when the core values and commitments are preserved and strengthened. In essence, the source/prime drive/ latent potential as well as the destination/ end goal/fulfillment of every human action is the self. The self can be considered to be a reference point for all activity. When the reference point is the self, no matter how idealistic or good the motive and goal is, all activity is judged on relative not absolute merit, and is therefore imperfect. The imperfection of the self is clearly reflected in the imperfections of the process and the product. What is an imperfection? It is something that is not wholly good a combination of good and evil that is recognizable as human, as against the perfect goodness of God. ( Mk 10:18 - And Jesus said unto him, Why do you call me good? there is no one good but one, that is, God.) Thus although the intention is relatively good (against human standards) the results are both good and bad. Distorts, faults and shortcomings are inherent in the activity and the result of activity. It is not sufficient therefore, to commit to good purposes and even to do good. The decisive factor of the worth of the activity lies in the location of the reference point. Where then is the reference point? From the clearly explicated Christian idea of absolute goodness, it lies only in the sovereignty of God, in other words the kingdom of Heaven. What does all this discussion lead upto? It is a profound conviction that the deepest human choice is not and never has been between good and evil. In fact it is not very easy to identify good against evil when we inspect ourselves. The rationalization of every action produces feasible excuses (Adam and Eve, Gen 3: 12, 13) in every circumstance so that man convinces himself that his motive was always good or that there was no other alternative. The choice present at every instant of human decision is at the deepest level, a choice between self and God. Obedience to God means giving priority to His will, His values. Every justification, reasoning and proof of absence of God, lack of Gods goodness/justice/love, etc leads only to this one result, that self is judged supreme. Such an obedience explicitly stated to be essential (Matt 7:21- Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. ) . The values of the kingdom can only be assimilated by denial i.e., rejection of the values of the self. At this point, there is a peculiar and characteristic reversal of meaning: when operated correctly, defeat in the self means victory in the kingdom of Heaven, weakness in self means strength. (Matt 10:39, Mark 8:34, Luke 17:33, John 12:25). The ability to root and ground values outside of ourselves is given only by a continual, constant dependence on Gods word and the holy Spirit. Commitment, consistency and determination in pursuing such value references result in strengthening of the new self. (John 15: 4-6 - Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. ) When God is acknowledged in every way as the Alpha and Omega (Prov. 6: 5-10, Rev. 1:8, 22:13, Is. 48:12) of all thought, feeling and action, such thought feeling and action becomes hallowed and cannot fail to produce anything but good.

A special and wonderful by product is that the self being now located in the kingdom of Heaven (here and now), is now out of reach of external material or physical circumstance. There is no fear or threat to the core values and hence no need for rationalization of action. This is one interpretation of the truth that sets us free (John 8:32 - And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ) We are no longer bound to act, but free to choose our goals without fear.(2 Cor. 3:17, Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Gal. 5:1-Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. In conclusion I must admit that this discussion is academic in that I certainly cannot claim experience of perfect choice of God over self. However this has been my understanding in study of the gospel that was proclaimed by Jesus (Mk 1:15, Matt. 4:17, 10:7, Luke 4:18, 43), and His deliberate selection of the Way of the Cross (Luke 22:42, John 5:30). I pray that error on my part will be rectified by His grace and goodness.