Abstract

Aimed at exploring methods that help reduce discrepancies in design evaluation scores and improving the objectivity of results, this study conducts an experiment where a set of design products is evaluated using different methods. The study mainly consists of four major parts, the explorative, the operative, the analytical, and the evaluative. While related literature is reviewed in the first part, the main experiment is presented in the second, where a set of design instances are evaluated by a group of participants using numeric and normative methods. The third part is analytical and is based on the application of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning techniques to analyze, compare, and discuss the outcomes of the second part. The evaluative part discusses the results and findings of the third part. The study indicates a clear influence of methods on results in multiple aspects. A combination of normative and numeric criteria-based methods that involves many assessors appears to improve the reliability and consistency of scores, and decrease their discrepancies.