Introduction

Design Method proposal, or the pursuit of a canonical design method is historically conflictive, because of the ill-defined nature of design and also the negative of a very important segment of designers that rely on more intuitive methods of creation (Cross 2001). In the context of the study of design of Science of Design, some of the more robust and mature Parametric Design and scripting experiences can be addressed as design science as explained by Nigel Cross (2001) to “refers to an explicitly organized, rational, and wholly systematic approach to design”.

It seems that harsh critics on Parametric Design are a revival of the critics on Design Methods, by claiming and asking for cualitative features in current architecture theory and culture, but that are beyond current Parametric Design aim. The latter is because of that common practice achievements are fullfilled by a vantage point gained by the dismissal of process’s consistency by accepting black-box approaches on design. Meanwhile, a big majority of Parametric Desing is working in a proto-architectural dimension with products that are not satisfyng completely architectural needs, but constructing a robust layer of knowledge that in a near future will be integrated in a construct an architecture that is satisfyng.

Parametric Design as the new panorama

“What we have facilitated is the ability for the designer to embed his design logic within an interactive design system which is driven by the designer’s hand and evaluated by the designer’s eye. This follows the fundamental precept of design, that of the combining intuition and precision into a single process and with the results of that process integrated and embodied in the same artefact.”

Robert Aish sentence of his seminal (and short) paper “From Intuition to Precision”, present the new panorama that purges formalized design i.e. Parametric Design from mechanicism and predictability (Aish 2005). With Parametric Design Ambients like GenerativeComponents and Grasshopper, interactivity can bond intuition to precision, bypassing the dichotomy in Design Methods discussion, by powering designer with exploration as its key feature.

FBS Studies of Parametric Design Ambients

Nowadays, a important but still preliminary approach on the behaviour of designers using Parametric Design Ambients seems to give lights to what this new kind of design is all about. Yu et al. took John Gero’s FBS (Function, Behavior, Structure) Ontology of Design. According to Gero, FBS model is a fundamental model in which any design development can be explained (1991), and consist in transformations steps that goes from Requirements to Function, the setting of Expected Behaviours, etc. (see figure).

Structure in Gero’s Ontology, is understood as the physical embodyment of design, in this fashon, Design Knowledge activity is understood as dealing with the geometric composition. However and knowing that designers on such ambients claims that parametrization is a key and salient feature on Parametric Design.  Yu et al proposed the division of the activity through FBS model between Design Knowledge (components structure) and Ruled-Based Knowledge standing for parametrization. (Yu et al. 2014)

Design Stages division

When declaring that parametrization as a distinctive feature of the use of Parametric Design Ambients, the autors also  states that there  is a clear task-segregation during design development (Yu et al. 2014)[1]. Our interpretation on this division is the existence of different Design Objects[2] involved in the development of a design through PDA’s, and with them the corresponding different focusses, that goes beyond Design Product as the principal Design Object.

In Yu et al. division of Design Knowledge we believe that other features may be present, like the interaction with the parametric model and the evaluation of Design Space, quantification (Rocker) as a tangible and multiple output of Parametric Design, that is emergent with digital technologies (Rocker ).

The hypothetical Design Objects pursuit and focuss is proposed as Morphogenetic Metapatterns: Guidelines for the well-development of Design Objects, that also includes the mediation between them.

Morphogenetic Metapatterns Proposal

Metapatterns were first defined by Gregory Bateson as “Patterns of Patterns”, since then are appearing on every discipline, with with several local intepretations and implementations. In general, Metapatterns deals with abstract objects that are convergent in practices or fields of study in science. Our Metapatterns, The Morphogenetic Metapatterns (MM’s) are guidelines in a pre-parametric design stage, and are derived  from Design Patterns that came from Alexander and nowadays expressed as Patterns for Parametric Modeling by Woodbury. We believe that programming design (paraphrasing Woodbury’s definition of Design Pattern) needs Metapatterns that go “above Parametric Design Patterns and known parametric methods and commands” while staying “below design intention”.

In our work we have delineated three Metapatterns: Divergent, Component and Programmer. These Metapatterns are streamlined partially by several CAD-related authors such as Aish, Rocker, De Landa (to name a few) that speaks about them as important features, skills, themes, etc. however this Metapattern proposal takes the Pattern formalism to incarnate and express once-and-for-all these distinguishing abstract features of parametric and digital design. We believe that in doing so we can produce a valuable two-side effect: (1) To state the digital subjects for speaking with parametric skeptics, and to offer guidelines for abducting new practitioners in this apparently harsh design sub discipline.

[1] “The first of these is that the co-evolution process typically occurs at the individual design knowledge level or rule algorithm level, and only relatively infrequently do transitions occur across the two levels.” (Yu et al. 2014 (3))

[2] Design Object is a therm analog to Research Object, that is the interest and aim in the activity of design.