CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE

Professor Dr. Imre Horváth

Section of Computer Aided Design and Engineering
Department of Design Engineering
Faculty of Design, Engineering and Production
Delft University of Technology
e-mail: i.horvath@io.tudelft.nl

ABSTRACT
This paper gives an insight to some of the intrinsic issues related to the understanding and the
computer support of conceptual design. On the one hand, the academic research and
development have produced innumerable methods and techniques to support product
conceptualization. Reasonable progress has been achieved in (a) the understanding of the
fundamental reasoning mechanisms, (b) the development of dedicated aspect models, (c) the
application of artificial intelligence techniques in computer support, and (d) clarifying the role
of conceptualization in the global product development process. On the other hand, the
industry still follows intuitive methodologies and applies less-sophisticated techniques to
solve conceptualization problems. With a few exceptions, it is rare when a company uses
computer aided conceptual design methods and tools from the academia as a daily routine.
The author has tried to explore the reasons of this phenomenon. He has become convinced
that the problems originate in the endeavor of the academia to introduce abstract models, to
develop highly specialized non-integral tools, and to give preference to automated, rather than
highly interactive means. He finds the solution in the development of methods, tools and
representations that feature very low level of abstraction, but high level of knowledge-
intensiveness. The chunks of knowledge of designers have to be taken into account as patterns
of conceptualization that describe the design and other concepts as well as the associations
among concepts. Any model created in the course of conceptual design should be transferable
to CAD/E systems without any loss of data, and without the need for extreme user
involvement. Natural communication means (e.g., speaking, gesturing) have to be used to
exteriorize the concepts. In handling, manipulation and further elaboration of concepts, we
need smart, knowledge-intensive software agents.

KEYWORDS
Conceptualization, conceptual design, creativity, classification of techniques, computer-aided
conceptual design (CACD)

THE INTENT OF THIS PAPER

This paper elaborates on the topic of development of computer tools and methods to support
conceptual design as well as on a dilemma relating to the industrial application of these
means. The dilemma, discovered not only by the author, can be explained in the following
way. In the last three decades, the academic research achieved remarkable progress in the
understanding of conceptual design as well as in the exploration of its fundamental reasoning
mechanisms (Horváth, I., 1998). Important issues such as the mental activities related to
conceptualization, the process and activities of conceptualization, the aspects of
conceptualization, the potential application of artificial intelligence, and the development of
incomplete conceptual models have been studied. The development accompanying the
research has produced innumerable specific methods and techniques to support product
conceptualization. Thus, the academics offer a wealth of specific techniques for the solution
of particular conceptual design problems.
At the same time, product conceptualization has been a mystery for the industry for long time.
The comprehension of emergence, exteriorization and manipulation of ideas and concepts are
not considered important for an average company. They are profit orientated, therefore,
pragmatic in thinking and making. The overwhelming majority of the product developer
companies have typically delegated the task and responsibility of conceptualization as well as
the conversion of the human ideas to representations to the designers. That is why they are
still following intuitive methodologies and applying less-sophisticated, sometimes primitive,
techniques to solve conceptualization problems. With a few exceptions, it is rare when a
company makes use of the computer aided conceptual design methods and tools developed by
the academia as a daily routine. The challenge that the companies have to face is that the
serendipity cannot be forced or stimulated. Though its importance is recognized, computer
support of conceptual design has not yet received proper attention so far. Even the software
tool distributors are not exerting sufficient push to get the companies thinking about all
possible applications. This paper tries to explore and elaborate on the reasons of these
phenomena …

WHAT IS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN?

The author is fully aware of the fact that a paper discussing issues related to conceptual design
is supposed to start with an explanation about what conceptual design is? It would be an easy
solution to refer to an already accepted definition and to start the reasoning based on this
definition. However, there exists nothing like an unambiguous definition for what we call
conceptual design. Of course, several definitions have been published in books and papers
dealing with the topic. Taking into account that these typically circumscribe what conceptual
design is from given aspects, the author is in trouble now. Although he feels that the existing
definitions are not the ultimate ones, he also finds it to be difficult to provide an all-embracing
universal definition of the substance of
conceptualization. Even if he constructs one,
Market
which he believes to be the real solution, it might analysis
Motivation
not be of higher value than the others.
Consequently, he takes the easier way, that is, he Product ideas
tries to explain his ideas about the concerned generation
issues without any form of axiomatization. He
believes that it does not reduce the contribution of Requirements
exploration
the paper. Conceptual
design
From a methodological point of view, the very Product
embodiement
early phase of a product development process that
succeeds MPT (market-product-technology)
Detail
investigation, product idea generation and some design
sort of requirement exploration is called
conceptual design. It is shown in Figure 1, Manufacturing
Production planning
together with the subsequent steps. Conceptual
design is a multi-faceted creative process, which
Figure 1 The environment of conceptual
relies on many roots, as it is presented in Figure 2.
design process
Conceptual design of product technology
technology resource
resource
provides abstract, sometimes platform
platform sustainability
market
market allocation
allocation plan sustainability
plan
incomplete, solutions that are investigation life
lifecycle
cycle
plan
plan
expected to satisfy the
requirements of the consumers business product
and users from all functional, plan
plan conceptualization
economy, technology, and competitor competitor
servicing and another points of evaluation artifact
modeling
views. The intention of product
product
human
human product
product
conceptual design to explore history
history
capacities
capacities ideas
ideas
the best alternatives comes
from the desire of high quality Figure 2 The roots of product conceptualization
products, which are of good
value to customers. The output of conceptual design is one or more new design concepts that
can be used as a basis for embodiment and detail design. Since it more or less determines the
achievable technical merit of the product and its encountered costs, this early phase of design
is the most crucial part of the whole product design process.
In addition to the methodological interpretations, there are ontological ones, which typically
go back to the epistemological roots. The term concept originates in Latin word conceptus. In
epistemology ‘conceptus’ (i.e., a concept) means several things, for instance, (a) a general
notion related to cognitive knowledge, (b) a mental impression or image of human mind, and
(c) an abstract or generalized idea of a class of objects. The term ‘conception’ in epistemology
indicates (a) beginning of a process of existence, and (b) deriving or forming an idea of
something. The notion of ‘concept’ in knowledge processing denotes (a) an individual logical
unit of reasoning, (b) an informal representation of a mental image, (c) a chunk of human
cognitive knowledge, and (d) a new invention to help create a commodity. To give a proper
circumscription of what a concept is, we have to take into account each interpretation.
Research explored that conceptual design is not only supported by, but also depends on
human cognitive capabilities such as (a) conjectures, (b) hypothesizing, (c) ideation, (d)
generalization, (e) abstraction, (f) creativity, and (g) analysis. It is not known how the ideas
happen, but imagination definitely triggers conceiving of design concepts. Based on these
aforementioned fundamental notions, psychological and artificial intelligence research
suggests that conceptualization is a blend of (a) creating contextual associations between
intuitive and learnt concepts represented by some chunks of knowledge, (b) application of
intuitions and heuristics in quasi-rational problem solving in a target area, (c) exteriorization
of human mental images for observable representations, and (d) creative composition driven
by human intuitions, conjectures, experiences and reasoning.
For the time being, conceptual design is the least understood and therefore the less formalized
field of activities in designing of artifacts. Apparently, many things influence the
manifestation of conceptual design. First, its focus and orientation depend on the field of
application (e.g. mechanical engineering, industrial design, electronics, etc.), although there
are common principles, tasks and procedures (French, M, J., 1985). In addition, it depends on
the type of the conceptualized product (e.g., hardware products, software products, or
servicing products). Conceptual design is also influenced by the extent of the requested
conceptualization (i.e., new design, redesign, or modification). Finally, the practical
manifestation depends on the way of implementation of the conceptualization activities (i.e.,
intuitive, computer aided, or artificial intelligence supported).
The per se conceptual design set off with a specification, which circumscribes the requested
product, the technical and other requirements, the conditions of realization and the
constraints/opportunities (Polak, P., 1976). The requirements are converted to ideas about
functions, first principles, structural arrangements, materialization and forms. All these
happen simultaneously, in a hard to analyze synergy. There are still uncertainties about the
intrinsic rules of product conceptualization. There is no scientific understanding on, for
instance, (a) how can requirements be mapped onto a system of functions or potential
operations, (b) how can the best matching between the targeted functions and the first
principles and physical processes be achieved, (c) how can the constituents of the
conceptualized artifact be identified, (d) how can a structure be derived from first principles,
(e) how can the potential operations be transferred to shape, (f) how can an arrangement of
functions be mapped to a structural arrangement, (g) how can the syntagmatic and
paradigmatic aspects of shape definition be integrated, (h) how does the materialization
influence the contextual aspects of conceptualization, (i) how is the morphology determined
by the operation and the structure, (j) how can the modality be treated in idea generation and
elaboration, (k) how can the behavioral processes be modeled together with the morphology
of the artifact, and (l) how can we cope with the abstraction, incompleteness, and uncertainties
in conceptual modeling?
Progress has been achieved, but we are still far from the ultimate explanation of how the
humans’ physical, mental and sensory capabilities collaborate to enable us to conceptualize?
It also needs further efforts to scrutinize how do the social, scientific, technological, financial
and intellectual conditions authorize us to define products. These essential concerns are
reflected in the perception of the phenomenon of conceptual design. Namely, there are two
faculties of thoughts, which start out from different platforms of apprehension. One
apprehends conceptual design as a specific problem solving methodology. The other
understands conceptual design as an engineering activity. In the specific problem-solving
framework, the original intuitive and creative capabilities of the human beings play more
dominant role (Osborn, A. F., 1963). This is claimed, for instant, in architectural design,
industrial design and graphics design. The other school considers systematized decision
making as the key element, and therefore, even computer automation of conceptual design has
been considered. Representatives can be found in electronics design, mechanical design and
mechatronics. According to the understanding of the author, observable conceptual design is a
combination of the two things.

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AS A HEURISTIC PROBLEM SOLVING ACTIVITY

As a specific problem solving methodology, conceptual design is exclusively based on the
inherent human capabilities such as intuition, creativity, analysis and synthesis. Psychological
and AI research suggests that the cognitive mechanisms that support conceptualization are
imagination and associations (Madanshetty, S. I., 1995). Imagination gives an unscripted
glimpse of the subject and together with a subconscious selection leads to auto-serendipity.
Association makes it possible to relate various chunks of knowledge in problem solving and
helps finding insight by bisociation (Koestler, A., 1964). It also plays an important role in
auto-serendipity. In principle, all types of concepts can be associated. In reality, however only
those, whose form and other details of appearance are somewhat compatible. The objective of
conceptualization by heuristic problem solving is to provide a representation of the solution,
which condenses concepts, speculations and feelings.
It is difficult to provide a formal model for a conceptualization that is based on an intuition
triggered problem solving. The author has proposed a vague model that identifies overlapping
 focuses of attention (Figure 3). The
vagueness of the model comes
Shape
concepts Materialization from the fact that it does not
Product
generation concepts specify any scenario for the
generation
idea execution of the process. It only
generation
Life cycle indicates the contextual domains
concepts
Functional Presentation generation
on which the intuitive problem
concepts concepts Production solving process is supposed to
generation generation concepts
generation zigzag through. Nevertheless,
conceptualization progresses
through the contextual domains
Figure 3 A model identifying the problem solving driven by an internal logic,
domains in conceptual design depending on the application field.
For instance, shape concept
generation precedes the other activities in industrial design, while mechanical
conceptualization typically gives priority to functional concept generation. In general, the
problem solving process is accompanied by another process, called creative composition that
selects and arranges the concepts instinctively with a view to the possible contextual
associations. Heuristics plays a very important role in this process, since it facilitates sudden
perception of matching concepts, and inclusion of novel concepts. Although articulates
creative awareness, the vague model is weak from a cognitive point of view, because it does
not elaborate on the creative leap (Frinke, R. A., Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., 1992). It does not
introduce a methodology that could give us certainty in the generation of ideas during
conceptual design and could guide us towards learning cycles of ideation. Advantage is that it
does not impede the thinking effort by an invasive framework.

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AS A SYSTEMATIC ENGINEERING ACTIVITY

A problem not mentioned above is that cognition-driven problem solving may restrict itself to
singular definitive solution principles to solve the problem at hand. From an industrial point
of view, it is better solution to convert the requirements for a product to more than one design
concept. Consequently, conceptual design of products is seen as the process of systematized
exploration and composition of applicable concepts, i.e., the sub-solutions. Interpreted as an
engineering activity,
conceptual design becomes Product idea
forming
the front-end of the other
Requirement
Product idea
downstream processes of forming
specification
product development Functional
Requirement
(Andersson, K., Makkonen, specification

P., Persson, J. G., 1995). The Exploration of

physical principles
process of conceptual design
Structural
produces the input for the specification
other design activities, such Morphological
as embodiment, detailing specification

and documentation (Sturges, Materialistic

specification
R. H., O’Shaughnessy, K.,
Geometric
Reed, R., 1993). specification

To express the architectural Attributes

specification
basis of the systematic
Figure 4 The waterfall model of conceptual design
composition, typically the waterfall model is used (Figure 4). The origins of the waterfall
model are in the German school of systematic design thinking (Roth, K. H., 1979). This
process model arranges the activities in an order that reflects the epistemological way of
acquiring and processing knowledge about concepts and concept structures. The sequence of
activities that must be fulfilled during product conceptualization corresponds to the one
indicated by the vague cognitive model. The power and soundness of this process model can
be best judged for an artifact, which has never existed before.
The creative composition appears in the waterfall model as an activity framework, i.e., as a set
of logically arranged actions towards the intended goals. The goals are set by the time,
quality, cost and function (TQCF) requirements of pruduction. During systematic conceptual
design, we look for conceptual solutions in standardized catalogues at all milestones of the
waterfall model. An important element of a systematized conceptual design is reasoning about
the functions and structures of functions. The concepts providing the needed functionality are
composed into promising configurations based on morphological charts (Zwicky, F., 1969).
An advantage of systematic conceptual design is that it increases the level of knowledge
intensiveness. In addition to it, a systematic conceptual design methodology facilitates the
inclusion of computer-based support tools. However, as a critique of the conceptual design
methodology implied by the waterfall model we have to mention that it arranges the activities
in a pure sequential order, which is to some extent against the practice. It has already been
clarified that it makes no sense to give preference or privilege to any aspect of
conceptualization. Consequently, the activities are supposed to appear simultaneously. The
reason is that finding the solutions from a given aspect needs a weighted comprehension of all
related aspects.

WHAT HAS THE ACADEMIA DONE FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Conceptual design has been in the focus of academic design research for many decades
(Horváth, I., Vergeest, J. S. M., 2000). Many efforts has been devoted to epistemological and

Techniques for conceptual design

Functional Grammars- Qualitative Quantitative Symbolic Preliminary Specific

modeling based process process structural geometric ideation
techniques techniques techniques techniques modeling modeling techniques

Multi-level Modeling Mathematical Attributed Computer Case-based

Bond graph
functional by shape process graph-based aided conceptual
modeling grammars modeling modeling modeling sketching modeling

Process-based Modeling Physical Spatial Skeleton Constraint-based

Petri-net
Petri-net
functional by principle relationship based conceptual
modeling simulation
modeling catalogues modeling modeling modeling

Information flow Modeling Qualitative Symbolic Fast Feature-based

based by solution physics based scheme surface conceptual
modeling catalogues modeling modeling modeling modeling

Aspect-related Analogy-based
Patent based Kinematic Virtual
functional conceptual
ideation modeling claying
modeling modeling

Physical Physical
concept
claying modeling

Oriented
particle
modeling

Figure 5 A classification of the conceptual modeling techniques

ontological understanding as well as to exploration of the intellectual and creative
mechanisms that enable human beings to be successful in conceptual design. The early
research intended to explore some sort of comprehensive theory of product conceptualization
and conceptual design. Later on, the issues of developing abstract, schematic and/or
simplified representations got into the focus. A realistic picture has been formed about the
potential of applied artificial intelligence and the necessity of using incomplete models.
Pragmatism became governing and many researchers started to develop dedicated methods
and techniques for well-formed problems of conceptual design.
During the years, the academia produced enormous number of tools for conceptual design.
Examples are tools for requirement specification, functional representation and synthesis,
structural and morphological modeling, symbol to form mapping, shape conceptualization,
and qualitative behavioral simulation (Forbus, K. D., 1996). Conceptualization of mechanical
systems proved to be one of the most fertile grounds. Nevertheless, it was found that only
partial models could be generated for conceptual mechanical design. Each of them has their
advantages and shortcomings. Figure 5 shows a classification of the techniques dedicated to
this field of application. The techniques are classified based on the activities they are aiming
at. Some of the techniques support representation of concepts; the others enable reasoning
about and with concepts. Note this classification is merely a methodological one, that is, it has
nothing to do with the actual process. Nevertheless, the techniques can be arranged in a
structure, which follows the typical flow of activities in conceptual design. This structure
gives a surprisingly good covering of a common conceptual design process. There are
however hidden problems as discussed below.
By a deeper investigation of these techniques we can reveal some specific characteristics. For
instance, almost all techniques embed a given level of abstraction. The models that capture
some scientifically recognizable properties of the artifact to be conceptualized are in general
of lower level of abstraction, that the ones that operate on scientifically non-recognizable
properties. We can see it by comparing, for instance, a hierarchical function modeling scheme
with a fast surface modeling technique. The outputs of the techniques are usually symbolic,
procedural and/or physical representations that are difficult to convert to the typical input of
the commercialized computer aided design and manufacturing systems. Therefore, whenever
the results of conceptualization have to be transferred to embodiment or detailing, further
information and efforts are needed from the designer. The problem of automatic conversion
seems to be unsolvable in this case. Again an example; a shape grammar scheme can hardly
be automatically converted to the input to a feature oriented assembly and part modeler due to
the lack of semantic information about the features.
It is also very challenging to integrate the mentioned techniques, because they are based on
incompatible theoretical platforms and the used representations are significantly different. For
example, it is difficult to connect a Petri-net-based process model to virtual claying, or
combine a bond-graph model with a physical concept modeling. Though in principle the
complete product conceptualization process could be covered with the available specific
techniques, the difference in the supporting theories and representations practically prevents
it. It is obvious that all pieces of knowledge needed for conceptual design cannot be included
in any single model at the same level of abstraction. That is the reason why the issue of
metamodels has come into the scene of many researchers (Kiriyama, T., Kurumatani, K.,
Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawa, H., 1989). A metamodel is a qualitative model of causal
relationships among all concepts used for representation of, and reasoning about artifacts. The
problem with metamodels is that they further increase the level of abstraction. Furthermore,
there is no enough resolution in non-quantitative representations to reason about functions,
principles, structure, morphology, materialization and behavior simultaneously and
qualitatively.

HOW DOES THE INDUSTRY PERFORM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN?

The relationship of the industry to conceptual design is completely different. In the industry,
product conceptualization and conceptual design are simply reduced to, but supported
seemingly successfully by, creative group meetings, activation of experiences, and using the
analogies from existing products. Usually, it is rare when a typical company uses computer
aided conceptual design methods and tools from the academia on a daily basis. It happens
even more seldom when the industry asks for the development and/or implementation of a
particular conceptual design tool based on their ideation. As opposed to the market of
computer aided design systems, the market of the computer aided conceptual design (CACD)
tools is dormant. The industry considers conceptual design as a stepchild and simply discards
using the conceptual design tools developed by the academia. Most of the chief technology
officers are still willing to pay for an excellent human ‘ideator’ more than for the most
sophisticated AI-based conceptual design tool. Of course, there are exceptions and success-
stories as always, but the global picture of application of dedicated tools is rather
questionable.
Are there any reasons of the things mentioned above, or they just have happened to be this
way? The author claims that there are three obvious reasons of this kind of behavior of the
industry. First, almost all of the presently offered conceptual design tools are based on
abstract reasoning models or representations. However, the models and representations
typically needed by the industry are concrete, since the ultimate goal is manufacturing and
assembly. Furthermore, average designers usually have different opinion about abstract
representations than scientists. Abstraction facilitates capturing the essence by
representations, but needs conventions to make the interpretation unambiguous. The
proliferation of CACD tools is also hindered by the fact that there are tailored to specific
products or to specific aspects of conceptualization. Second, the output of the available
conceptual design tools cannot be directly used as input of the commercialized CAD/E
systems. Handling and semantic conversion of incomplete, underdefined or imprecise product
data are not solved. Designers are not keen on accepting the overhead that which comes from
the manual conversions and/or remodeling. Third, the offered conceptual design techniques
are generally sophisticated, but synthetic solutions, which are not in harmony with the natural
thinking and working of the designers in the course of conceptualization. The goal of
conceptual designers is to produce concept variants, rather than polishing their minds by
solving tricky application problems.

WHAT WOULD BE BETTER TO DO?

In spite of the richness of the choice of computer supported conceptualization tools, there is
still a long way to go. Namely, in order to achieve better results in conceptual design, we have
to bring the academic developments closer to the industry needs. We have to strive after
developing methods, tools and representations without unnecessary abstraction. In order to
achieve seamless integration, we have to be able to convert abstract representations to
concrete ones, and vice versa. At the same time, it seems to be inevitable to implement
knowledge-intensiveness in computer-supported conceptualization (Albers, L. K., 1994).
Computer systems have to be involved in conceptualization on a higher level of semantics and
synergism. The patterns of conceptualization followed by designers have to appear as chunks
of knowledge that describe the concepts as well as the associations among them (Horváth, I.,
Kuczogi, Gy., Vergeest, J. S. M., 1998). Smooth transition has to be achieved from mental
ideation models to comprehensive initial modeling. Since the global concept for products
appear as a totality, artifact and process representations have to be integrated in common
models. To achieve it, efforts have to be made towards unifying representations and reasoning
frameworks that enable us to consider the aspects of conceptualization concurrently.
We need computational models that can equally well be interpreted by humans and computers
and, at the same time, facilitate the transition from conceptual phase to system and geometry
modeling phases of design. The possible ways of application of incomplete, but knowledge-
intensive models have to be explored, A conceptual model created as a composition of
concepts should be transferable to CAD/E systems without the loss of data and the need for
extreme user involvement. Transfer of the techniques from template applications to real-life
problems has to be made possible too. Some of the techniques that can be easily applied to
small scale problems fail to be applicable for cases of high complexity.
We have to reconsider using natural communication means to exteriorize concepts. As a
matter of fact, even the opportunities offered by the joint use of speaking, gesturing and
making in conceptualization of functions and shapes are not explored yet. Also, new system
architectures are waited to come. In addition to it, the complex reasoning might be assisted by
smart agents in the knowledge-intensive CACD software. It can be foreseen that advances in
such fields as knowledge mining based on hypermedia representation will significantly
contribute to solving some of the problems of knowledge management in conceptual design.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper tried to investigate conceptual design from inside and outside. Inside the realm of
conceptual design significant progress has been achieved, but there are still many unsolved
issues originating in the insufficiency of the available knowledge. Having recognized its
possible contribution to a successful product development, the academic research is putting
more and more emphasis to both the cognitive and engineering aspects of conceptual design.
For a more capable conceptualization both aspects have to be explored much deeper. On the
one hand, the industry has mystified and therefore somewhat neglected conceptual design so
far. On the other hand, it is struggling with the problems caused by the immature and non-
integral tools. It can be predicted that the attitude of the industry will change in the near future
for the reason of the ever-increasing competition on the product market.
It can also be seen that the academia faces some urgent tasks to keep up with the conceivable
progress and tendencies in the industry. Among the tasks of highest priority, the following
ones can be mentioned: (a) more natural ways exteriorization of ideas have to be explored, (b)
computer systems have to be involved in conceptualization on a higher level of semantics and
synergism, (c) smooth transition has to be achieved from mental ideation models to
comprehensive initial modeling, (d) the possible ways of application of incomplete, but
knowledge-intensive models have to be explored, and (e) artifact and process representations
have to be integrated in common models.

REFERENCES
Albers, L. K.: YMIR: A Sharable Ontology for the Formal Representation of Engineering
Design Knowledge, IFIP Transactions: Computer Application in Technology, Vol. B-18,
1994, pp. 3-32.
Andersson, K., Makkonen, P., Persson, J. G.: A Proposal to a Product Modeling Language to
Support Conceptual Design, Annals of CIRP, Vol. 44, 1995, pp. 129-132.
Forbus, K. D.: Qualitative Reasoning, Draft Chapter for the CRC Handbook of Computer
Science, 1996, pp. 1-29.
French, M, J.: Conceptual Design for Engineers, Design Council, London, 1985.
Frinke, R. A., Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M.: Creative Cognition - Theory, Research and
Application, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
Horváth, I., Kuczogi, Gy., Vergeest, J. S. M.: Development and Application of Design
Concept Ontologies for Contextual Conceptualization, in Proceedings of 1998 ASME Design
Engineering Technical Conferences DETC’98, September 13-16, 1998 - Atlanta, Georgia,
CD-ROM: DETC98/CIE-5701, ASME, New York, 1998.
Horváth, I., Vergeest, J. S. M.: Engineering Design Research: Anno 2000, in Proceedings of
the 6th International Design Conference, May 23-26, 2000, Cavtat, Dubrovnik, Croatia, ed.
by Marjanovic, D., CTT-FSB-WDK, Zagreb-Zürich, 2000, pp. 23-28.
Horváth, I.: Shifting Paradigms of Computer Aided Design, Delft University Press, Delft,
1998, pp. 1-36, ISBN 90-407-1724-9.
Kiriyama, T., Kurumatani, K., Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawa, H.: Metamodel: An Intelligent
Framework for Intelligent CAD, in Artificial Intelligence in Design, Springer, London, 1989,
pp. 429-449.
Koestler, A.: The Act of Creation, Dell Publisher, New York, 1964.
Madanshetty, S. I., (), Cognitive Basis of Conceptual Design; Research in Engineering
Design, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1995, pp. 232-240.
Osborn, A. F.: Applied Imagination, Scribner’s Publisher, New York, 1963.
Polak, P.: A Background to Engineering Design, Macmillan Publisher, New York, 1976.
Roth, K.¨H.: Neue Modelle zur rehnerunterstützten Synthese mechanischer Konstruktrionen,
Konstruktion, Vol.34, No. 7, pp. 283-289.
Sturges, R. H., O’Shaughnessy, K., Reed, R.: A Systematic Approach to Conceptual Design,
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 93-105.
Zwicky, F.: Discovery, Invention, Research-Through the Morphological Approach,
Macmillan Publisher, New York, 1969.