Conference Agenda

Validity is a central issue in determining the quality of research. However, it is often not reported or only reported at an overall level in design research publications, preventing effective evaluation of quality concerns as well as limiting the ability of the field to develop deeper quality discussions. Critically, validity is multifaceted and has numerous (often unreported) elements and trade-offs, which typically require specific accommodations being adopted for design research. Hence, in this workshop we will facilitate a mapping of the major validity constructs across the represented span of design research.

To do this, we will build on award-winning work by Larsen et al. (2020) and Larsen et al. (2025) on validity in design science, whose authors are amongst our workshop chairs and organising team. This will also draw together work by e.g., Brubaker and Cash on research quality as well as empirical work carried out by the SIG. This covers the centrality of claim types in validating designs and establishes the relationships between claims, design artifacts, evaluations, and validity types. It further explains the evaluative process’s requirement for criterion reference artifacts.

We will aim to examine the variety of validity constructs, how they apply to different branches of design research, such as design science, DRM and intervention type methodologies, as well as more social science aligned design research. At a later point we will expand this to also consider those methodologies linked to research through design and the DRS community.

As part of the workshop, we will develop a mapping of validity constructs and relationships and then examine their application/relevance for different areas of design research. This will form a practical and immediate output for workshop attendees.

Following this, we will further develop the mapping via systematic review of the design literature, follow-up discussions, and further engagement with the community to publish at least one research article mapping validity constructs and concerns across the design research space, as well as a potential methodological follow-up article focused on the implementation of validity concerns when developing research. These will produce practical outputs usable by the wider Design Society community and serve as a landmark for discussion of this topic in the design research field.

This workshop explores the intersection of creativity, awareness, and professional environments, examining how meditative and reflective practices an enhance divergent thinking and creative problem-solving. The session focuses on practical applications within office and professional contexts, investigating how mindfulness-based interventions can be meaningfully integrated into design and creative processes.

Drawing on prior research, the workshop examines both the potential and the limitations of awareness-based interventions. Participants will explore how such practices can support cognitive flexibility, challenge habitual thinking patterns, and foster idea generation at both individual and group levels. Attention is given to the transferability of these methods into everyday professional design settings.

The workshop aims to (1) introduce awareness interventions as tools to amplify divergent thinking, (2) examine their effectiveness through comparative testing and participant feedback, and (3) develop an actionable guide for applying these methods in professional contexts for individuals and teams. In doing so, the workshop also seeks to test, refine, and critically assess prior research propositions, strengthening their empirical and practical validity.

In this structured, hands-on workshop, participants are first introduced to the theoretical background of awareness-based creativity interventions and then guided in applying these methods in practice. The emphasis is on learning concrete tools and understanding how and when to use them to support creative work.

The worklshop balances practical exercises, guided reflection, and collaborative dialogue. The workshop concludes with reflection sessions in which participants complete short self-assessments and share insights in group discussions, contributing to a collective understanding of mindfulness-based approaches to creativity.

 Key outcomes

• Empirical insights into the effects of awareness-based interventions on divergent thinking capacity.
• Replication and critical examination of propositions from prior research, supporting confirmation or refutation.
• Practical knowledge and tools that participants can apply to enhance creativity in individual and group settings.
• Documentation of workshop findings through analysis of group discussions and evaluations.
• A consolidated body of knowledge to support the development of a white paper disseminating the tested interventions and an actionable guide for professional creative practice.

Health and care systems are increasingly challenged by disruptive events—from pandemics and workforce shortages to climate-related crises. Such disruptions expose vulnerabilities in care pathways and highlight the urgent need for resilience-oriented design approaches. Organised by the Health Systems Design Special Interest Group, this workshop explores how design research and practice can strengthen the resilience of care pathways through collaborative, systems-based approaches.

The workshop is structured around four guiding questions:

• What types of disruptive events most critically affect care pathways?
• What kinds of impacts—clinical, organisational, social, and technological—emerge because of these disruptions?
• Who can and should contribute to building care pathway resilience across academic disciplines and stakeholder groups (e.g. clinicians, patients, policymakers, designers, engineers, and others)?
• What unique perspectives, methods, and tools can design—and members of the Design Society—offer to this challenge?

The session will combine short, invited talks and case examples from health systems design research and practice with interactive breakout discussions. Participants will then engage in mapping exercises to identify key relationships between disruptions and their impacts, as well as opportunities to improve care pathway resilience. A panel discussion will synthesise the insights generated during the workshop and identify directions for future initiatives and joint research projects.

The workshop is open to all conference participants, including those without prior experience in health systems design. It adopts a broad perspective on health systems, encompassing wellbeing and medical technologies, drug development, medical devices, healthcare delivery organisation, and the design of healthcare environments. The session is expected to be particularly relevant for design researchers and practitioners interested in systemic resilience, collaborative innovation, and the design of complex socio-technical systems.

 Key outcomes

• Input and foundational material for a future conference paper on care pathway resilience.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being adopted across a wide range of design activities, from generative ideation to simulation and validation. At the same time, its integration is reshaping roles, skills, responsibilities, and values within design practice. This interactive workshop invites researchers, practitioners, and educators to critically explore how AI is transforming design processes—what it enables, what it challenges, and how it alters the nature, sequencing, and interdependencies of design tasks.

Through short reports from industrial practice and collaborative mapping of AI approaches currently in use, participants will examine both the benefits and potential risks associated with AI-supported design processes. Attention will be given to the interaction of multiple AI applications within a single design process, and to questioning whether existing design process paradigms remain fit for purpose in current industrial contexts and in the decades ahead.

The workshop aims to bridge research and practice by exploring how design processes can evolve while retaining human-centred creativity, judgment, and the ability to assess emerging design states. Ultimately, the session seeks to build a critical mass of researchers and practitioners interested in jointly exploring the future of design processes in industry, both theoretically and in practice.

Key outcomes

• Identify how AI is currently impacting industrial and engineering design processes.
• Strengthen the SIG community of researchers and practitioners interested in design practice and design processes.
• Identify next steps for collaboration and future research and exploration.

Assessment in project-based design education remains a persistent challenge due to diverse institutional contexts, learning objectives, accreditation requirements, and disciplinary traditions. The Design Learning Assessment Dimensions (D-LAD) Framework offers a structured approach for analysing, reflecting on, and redesigning assessment practices across five key dimensions: Output vs. Process; Summative vs. Formative; Teacher-led vs. Student-led; Assessment of Learning vs. Assessment for/as Learning; and Individual vs. Team Assessment.

This interactive workshop introduces participants to the D-LAD framework through hands-on, reflective activities in which they apply the framework to their own courses or modules. Through small-group discussions, guided mapping exercises, and collective reflection, participants will examine how their current assessment strategies align with intended learning outcomes, accreditation standards, and industry expectations. Case examples and shared educator experiences will illustrate how D-LAD can support balanced, transparent, and developmental assessment design in project-based learning contexts.

Each participant will develop a personalised D-LAD assessment map based on a real teaching case. This tangible outcome enables educators to critically analyse and visualise the distribution and balance of assessment practices across the five dimensions, providing a concrete foundation for redesigning assessment strategies, improving feedback and fairness, and strengthening alignment between learning outcomes and professional competencies.

Beyond individual reflection, the workshop creates space for cross-institutional exchange and benchmarking of assessment practices, fostering a shared understanding and a growing community around design education assessment.

Designed for design educators, programme leaders, and researchers seeking to enhance the coherence and transparency of assessment in project-based design education, the workshop also serves as a dissemination and evaluation activity for the D-LAD framework. Participant feedback and workshop outputs will directly inform the framework’s ongoing refinement and wider adoption.

Key outcomes

• Participant-generated D-LAD assessment maps based on real teaching cases, directly applicable to participants’ own educational practice.
• A synthesis report capturing key insights on the practical use of the D-LAD framework and outcomes of the workshop.
• A journal publication addressing contemporary challenges in design assessment and demonstrating how the D-LAD framework can support improved assessment practices through case-based examples.

The DESIGN 2026 PhD Forum is designed to create a dynamic and supportive environment for early-stage researchers, fostering both academic development and professional growth. It offers a unique platform for PhD candidates to engage in meaningful discussions, share innovative research ideas, and contribute to a vibrant exchange of perspectives within the engineering design community. Participants will benefit from direct interaction with experienced researchers, receiving personalised feedback on their research topics, methodologies, and challenges—insights that are often difficult to obtain elsewhere. At the same time, the forum encourages networking and collaboration, enabling participants to build lasting connections with peers and established experts that can significantly enrich their academic journey.

The forum is structured around small discussion groups, each consisting of approximately five PhD students and one to two experts, ensuring focused and in-depth dialogue. As part of the programme, each participant will deliver a concise five-minute pitch presenting their research. This pitch should clearly communicate the relevance and impact of the work, its theoretical grounding, the research gap it addresses, the chosen methodology, and any anticipated challenges. Participants are encouraged to support their presentation with visual materials such as slides, figures, or flowcharts to effectively convey their ideas.

The objective of this workshop is to examine how current research efforts are addressing contemporary challenges in advancing Design for Sustainability (DfS) in industry and society. The workshop takes as its point of departure the DfS evolutionary framework proposed by Ceschin et al. (2016), marking its ten-year anniversary and using it as a lens to reflect on how the DfS landscape has evolved, how sustainability challenges are currently being addressed, and how future research directions might unfold over the next decade.

The workshop brings together scholars working in the field of DfS, as well as participants with a broader interest in design and sustainability. Through a sequence of reflective and collaborative activities, participants will critically position their own research trajectories within the DfS evolutionary framework, examine how recent research contributions respond to sustainability challenges across different levels, and collaboratively construct future-oriented narratives and actions.

The workshop consists of the following activities:

1. Reflecting on research trajectories: Participants will individually reflect on and discuss in small groups how their own research relates to sustainability and how their focus has evolved over time, using the DfS evolutionary framework to structure the discussion.
2. Mapping current research contributions: Groups will analyse selected DfS-related abstracts submitted to DESIGN 2026, examining how these contributions are positioned within the DfS evolutionary framework and how they address sustainability challenges across different system levels.
3. Building future narratives: Each group will select a key DfS challenge and develop a future narrative outlining how research could contribute to overcoming this challenge between now and 2036.
4. Commitment to action: Participants will identify and write down one or two concrete near-term actions that they commit to pursuing in the six months following the conference. These commitments will be followed up by the conference chairs.

By combining reflection on past developments, critical analysis of current research, and the co-creation of future-oriented narratives and actions, the workshop aims to strengthen the connection between DfS research and societal impact.

Are designers truly objective when they design, or are their judgments systematically skewed? How do cognitive biases influence design processes and outcomes? Can some biases enhance creative problem-solving, while others undermine it? As AI and other forms of technological support become increasingly embedded in design practice, do they amplify existing human biases, introduce new and less visible ones, or offer opportunities to detect and mitigate bias more effectively? And how should we—as design practitioners, researchers, and educators—respond?

These questions lie at the heart of the “Mind the Bias” workshop series organised by the Cognitive Design Science SIG. The workshop explores the role of cognitive bias in design thinking, decision-making, and collaboration, with a particular focus on the evolving interaction between human designers and AI-based tools.

This second edition of the workshop welcomes both new participants and returning attendees from the inaugural event held at ICED 2025. Building on insights emerging from the Dallas workshop—where more than 40 participants contributed—the discussion will focus on how designers interact with emerging AI tools used in design practice, research, and education.

The workshop examines a dual phenomenon:

• the emergence of new biases introduced or reinforced by AI tools, and
• the potential of AI to act as a debiasing mechanism, supporting designers in recognising and counteracting systematic errors in judgment and decision-making.

The workshop invites diverse perspectives, including:

• Designers and practitioners, confronting biases in everyday collaboration and interaction with design tools.
• Educators, reflecting on their own biases in teaching design and recognising biases in students’ decision-making.
• Researchers and PhD students, encountering bias when framing research questions, designing experiments, or interpreting data and results.
• Participants seeking reflection, who are uncertain about the extent to which cognitive biases influence their own thinking and decisions.

Through interactive breakout sessions, participants will exchange personal experiences and examples of bias in design contexts. These exchanges will be followed by collective reflection and synthesis, aiming to build shared understanding, identify recurring patterns, and outline opportunities for future research and practice.

By foregrounding lived experience, open dialogue, and interdisciplinary perspectives, the workshop fosters a reflective and inclusive space in which every viewpoint contributes to a richer understanding of cognitive bias in design.

Join us for a comprehensive workshop on “The Data Quality Playbook for Engineering Design”, where participants will explore a wide range of techniques and methodologies for effective data collection across different contexts, including academic research, industrial practice, and field studies. The workshop addresses both digital and analogue data collection methods, equipping participants with practical tools adaptable to their specific research and design needs.

A central focus will be placed on data quality criteria—such as accuracy, reliability, validity, and completeness—to support the creation and use of robust and trustworthy data sets. Through hands-on activities, participants will engage with best practices in data collection using surveys, interviews, observational studies, and digital tools such as mobile applications and cloud-based databases.

The workshop will also facilitate discussion on common challenges and practical solutions for maintaining data quality across different collection contexts. Finally, an outlook will be provided on how high-quality data sets can be connected to and leveraged by AI-based agents and tools in engineering design.

Objectives

• To familiarize participants with a variety of data collection methods suitable for different research and design contexts.
• To develop an understanding of key data quality criteria and how to apply them in practice.
• To promote best practices for ensuring high data quality across both digital and analogue data collection approaches.

Key outcomes

• Participants will engage with a curated toolkit of data collection strategies, which will be collaboratively examined and reflected upon during the workshop.
• Participants will demonstrate increased awareness of the role and importance of data quality criteria in engineering design research and practice.

This interactive workshop makes the concept of nudging tangible as a practical and effective approach for driving change in design and development contexts. The “Small Nudges, Big Impact” workshop brings together researchers, practitioners, and design enthusiasts to explore how nudging principles can be applied to contemporary challenges in engineering design and product development.

Following a short introductory session with illustrative examples from design research, product development, and behavioural economics, participants will work in thematic breakout groups addressing selected challenges. One focal theme will be bridging research and practice (e.g., “Design Research meets Engineering Practice”, in cooperation with the Industry Practice SIG). Additional themes may include sustainability, user acceptance of new tools and methods, or fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, such as across public-sector contexts.

The aim is to explore how small behavioural interventions (“nudges”) can create new spaces for thinking and action in design processes and organizational settings. Each group will develop concrete, context-specific nudge concepts, identifying the underlying behavioural mechanisms and potential pathways for implementation. The results will be presented and jointly reflected upon in a plenary session.

Through shared experience, discussion, and creative co-creation, the workshop deepens participants’ understanding of nudging and supports its practical application as a catalyst for change in design practice.

Key outcomes

• A concise collection of nudge-based interventions addressing key design and development challenges (e.g., Design Research meets Engineering Practice).
• Documentation of the proposed interventions and their underlying behavioural mechanisms.
• Impetus for continued collaboration across SIGs.
• Input and inspiration for integrating nudging approaches into the organization and activities of ICED 2027 or the DESIGN Conference.

Breakthrough innovation is a goal for many engineering teams, but in practice, it occurs in cycles. Between those moments, organizations must deliver results through consistent execution, collaboration, and continuous improvement. This session explores why balancing breakthrough innovation with operational excellence is essential, and how modern, cloud-native engineering tools make that balance achievable through greater collaboration, iterative design, improved early-stage decision-making, and AI-enabled automation.
Attendees will learn how teams using Onshape, a cloud-native CAD and PDM platform, apply these new capabilities in real-world workflows. Through examples from industry, attendees will see how Onshape enables teams to explore ideas in parallel, make better decisions earlier, and continuously improve productivity and reliability across the product development lifecycle.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH:

Darren Henry serves as Senior Vice President of General Operations at PTC, where he orchestrates diverse teams spanning marketing, technical services, customer success, education, documentation, and training. A degreed mechanical engineer, Darren has held leadership roles at SolidWorks, Atlassian, OpsGenie, InVue, and Copia Automation. An expert in modern product development practices, he brings over 30 years of experience helping manufacturers adopt new technologies to accelerate innovation, improve operational efficiency, and build better products.

Generative AI is transforming how we create, customize, and accelerate digital content. Yet applying these tools to engineering design introduces unique challenges, from maintaining precision under evolving requirements to working effectively in data-scarce environments and interpreting designer intent. In this talk, I will discuss these challenges and show how emerging engineering-focused foundation models are beginning to address them, reshaping workflows in areas such as vehicle design, CAD automation, and design optimization. I will highlight new opportunities enabled by generative AI that integrates multimodal data with engineering analysis and optimization, and present examples of AI-driven design co-pilots for complex engineering tasks. The talk will conclude with a forward-looking perspective on how AI can broaden design democratization, accelerate innovation cycles, and fundamentally reshape the role of engineers in the decade ahead.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH:

Dr Faez Ahmed is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, where he leads the DeCoDE Lab. His research focuses on AI for engineering design, including generative models, multimodal representations, and human–AI collaboration. His work has been recognized with the NSF CAREER Award, ASME DAC and DTM Young Investigator Awards, the Google Research Scholar Award, and the Amazon Research Award.

This session explores modern engineering design workflows through an agile, cloud‑native lens, focusing on how design teams ideate, iterate, and collaborate in complex product development contexts. Using the Onshape CAD and PDM platform, participants will examine how digital design practices are integrated into agile product development workflows that emphasize rapid iteration, shared ownership, and continuous refinement of design intent. The session highlights how cloud‑native environments fundamentally reshape collaboration by enabling real‑time co‑design, built‑in version and data management, and transparent design evolution without the friction of file‑based workflows. Participants will also see how design data and analytics can be leveraged to support reflection, feedback, and assessment in educational and professional settings, reinforcing design decision‑making rather than interrupting it. 

Since this will be a hands-on session, please register for a free Onshape account at Onshape.com/edu in advance.

This panel session explores how artificial intelligence is transforming scientific publishing. The Design Science Journal has invited Chief Editors of design journals to share their thoughts and engage in a discussion. The session encourages an open dialogue among researchers and editors on current and future implications and impact of AI on publishing scientific papers, particularly in design.  Example topics include conduct and reporting of research, paper composition, reviewing and referencing, ethical and policy questions. 

Panel members:

• Jonathan Cagan, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Design Science Journal
• Gaetano Cascini, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation
• Amaresh Chakrabarti, Editor-in-Chief, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design and Manufacturing (remote)
• Lin-Lin Chen, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Design (remote)
• Roger Jiao, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Engineering Design (remote)
• Peter Lloyd, Editor-in-Chief, Designing
• Jianxi Luo, Editor-in-Chief, Research in Engineering Design
• Carolyn Seepersad, Chief Technical Editor, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design (remote)

The aim of this meeting is to discuss future directions for the development of the DfAM SIG. It will also be an opportunity to meet new potential members. Indeed, anyone who is not yet a member but is interested in knowing more about the DfAM SIG and its initiatives is welcome to join.

The aim of this meeting is to discuss future directions for the development of the DfAM SIG. It will also be an opportunity to meet new potential members. Indeed, anyone who is not yet a member but is interested in knowing more about the DfAM SIG and its initiatives is welcome to join.

An interactive session open to all conference participants on the role of physical spaces and Living Labs in the digital era, focusing on how universities can engage students and companies in AI-enabled sustainable design. The session would not be framed as a project meeting; rather, it would address a broader issue relevant to the DESIGN community, with DETAILLs presented as one case example.

In the evolving landscape of engineering design, the relationship between research and practice remains a central and often contested issue. The 6th edition of the DESIGN Debate invites the community to engage in a provocative and timely discussion around the motion:
“All design researchers should have clear evidence of design practice.”

As design research continues to mature and expand its theoretical foundations, questions arise regarding its connection to real-world application. Should design researchers actively demonstrate engagement with practice, or does such a requirement risk narrowing the scope of inquiry and limiting methodological diversity?

Building on the tradition of previous DESIGN Debates which have challenged assumptions about products versus systems, the role of methods, and the balance between theory and application, this year’s debate turns inward to reflect on the identity and expectations of the design research community itself.

More than a structured exchange of arguments, the DESIGN Debate serves as a platform for critical reflection and collective sense-making. It invites participants to reconsider long-held assumptions and engage in an open dialogue about the role, responsibility, and direction of design research in a rapidly changing world.

As always, the session encourages active participation from the audience, whose questions, perspectives, and final vote will ultimately shape the outcome of the debate.

FORMAT

• The motion will be proposed and then opposed (approximately 8 minutes each side)
• Supporting statements, seconding the two viewpoints, will then be given (4 minutes each side)
• The floor (the audience) will then be invited to question the proposers and opposers
• A single final statement will be given by each side

Inclusive design aims to accommodate the widest range of users possible, within resource constraints. It involves conscious decision-making: who to include? This decision has important impact on the design process and outcomes. Ethics protocols and different methods and tools have been developed to involve older people, disabled people, children, migrants et al in the process; they are often referred to as ‘users’, ‘partners’, ‘co-designers’ – each reflecting a different relationship with the design team. Unique approaches such as ‘critical users’, ‘fix partners’, ‘designing for one, extending to many’ are used for inclusive design, with emerging discussions on AI as co-designers, and including more-than-human to extend care for people to planet. This keynote will share insights into who to include in the design process, how and why, and push thinking for future responsible design.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH:

Professor Hua Dong is Director of Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design at the Royal College of Art (RCA), the global leader of inclusive design research. She held a research post at University of Cambridge, and professorships at Tongji, Loughborough, and Brunel Universities (as the Inaugural Dean of Brunel Design School). She is the Vice Chair and Fellow of the Design Research Society, and Chairs an advisory committee for the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s Subject Benchmark Statement. Hua was awarded Engineering Heros: the 2021 Top 50 Women in Engineering by Women’s Engineering Society, and currently serves as Acting Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research and Innovation) of RCA.