C hapter 3 the Design Context
48
differences as well. In many ways, differences are more easily characterized than similarities and have to do with factors such as the
markets or target audiences addressed, the product’s physical size
and scale, functional and assembly complexities, the number of
units produced, the nature of the industry that produces the final
objects, and the kind of design, engineering, and manufacturing
or construction teams that bring a design from an idea to final fruition. In terms of similarities, both fields share similar issues about
the need to identify product or project design objectives as well as
ways to translate these needs into design requirements, generate one
or more design responses (including the selection of appropriate
materials) that meet requirements, resolve conflicting design objectives, and ultimately make or construct the product or project.
Both products and buildings can also be generally thought of in
terms of their constituent environments, systems, and assemblies.
It is here where material selection issues occur. Environments may
be an integral part of a design, such as spaces within a building, or
they can define the external context within which a product operates. Systems and subsystems provide specific functions (e.g., heat
sources, lifting). Physical assemblies and subassemblies house the
components of functional systems or otherwise provide support or
enclosure functions. Products can range from very simple singlefunction items (where single material type responses are common)
to highly complex objects involving many complex and interacting
systems that provide multiple functions. Buildings are invariably
complex objects when considered as a whole and do involve
complex functional systems, but they also incorporate many quite
elemental components.
In general, as system and assembly complexities increase, problems
related to the need to resolve conflicting design objectives invariably
increase as well, as do problems associated with optimizing design
solutions. The idea that any single material approach will dominate
a design tends to decrease. The question becomes more one of
decomposing the design problem into its constituent parts that are
addressable in terms of different material responses (including
whether nanomaterials can be feasibly used) and orchestrating the
whole to achieve design goals. We will return to these issues in
Chapter 5.
Another important way of understanding how nanomaterials and
nanotechnologies fit into the broader design picture is via a close
look at general design processes and their objectives. Many formal
design processes proceed from a determination of design needs
48
differences as well. In many ways, differences are more easily characterized than similarities and have to do with factors such as the
markets or target audiences addressed, the product’s physical size
and scale, functional and assembly complexities, the number of
units produced, the nature of the industry that produces the final
objects, and the kind of design, engineering, and manufacturing
or construction teams that bring a design from an idea to final fruition. In terms of similarities, both fields share similar issues about
the need to identify product or project design objectives as well as
ways to translate these needs into design requirements, generate one
or more design responses (including the selection of appropriate
materials) that meet requirements, resolve conflicting design objectives, and ultimately make or construct the product or project.
Both products and buildings can also be generally thought of in
terms of their constituent environments, systems, and assemblies.
It is here where material selection issues occur. Environments may
be an integral part of a design, such as spaces within a building, or
they can define the external context within which a product operates. Systems and subsystems provide specific functions (e.g., heat
sources, lifting). Physical assemblies and subassemblies house the
components of functional systems or otherwise provide support or
enclosure functions. Products can range from very simple singlefunction items (where single material type responses are common)
to highly complex objects involving many complex and interacting
systems that provide multiple functions. Buildings are invariably
complex objects when considered as a whole and do involve
complex functional systems, but they also incorporate many quite
elemental components.
In general, as system and assembly complexities increase, problems
related to the need to resolve conflicting design objectives invariably
increase as well, as do problems associated with optimizing design
solutions. The idea that any single material approach will dominate
a design tends to decrease. The question becomes more one of
decomposing the design problem into its constituent parts that are
addressable in terms of different material responses (including
whether nanomaterials can be feasibly used) and orchestrating the
whole to achieve design goals. We will return to these issues in
Chapter 5.
Another important way of understanding how nanomaterials and
nanotechnologies fit into the broader design picture is via a close
look at general design processes and their objectives. Many formal
design processes proceed from a determination of design needs