A course for teaching design research methodology

Design research informs and supports practice by developing knowledge to improve the chances of producing successful products.Training in design research has been poorly supported. Design research uses human and natural/technical sciences, embracing all facets of design; its methods and tools are adapted from both these traditions. However, design researchers are rarely trained in methods from both the traditions. Research in traditional sciences focuses primarily on understanding phenomena related to human, natural, or technical systems. Design research focuses on supporting improvement of such systems, using understanding as a necessary but not sufficient step, and it must embrace methods for both understanding reality and developing support for its improvement. A one-semester, postgraduate-level, credited course that has been offered since 2002, entitled Methodology for Design Research, is described that teaches a methodology for carrying out research into design. Its steps are to clarify research success; to understand relevant phenomena of design and how these influence success; to use this to envision design improvement and develop proposals for supporting improvement; to evaluate support for its influence on success; and, if unacceptable, to modify, support, or improve the understanding of success and its links to the phenomena of design. This paper highlights some major issues about the status of design research and describes how design research methodology addresses these. The teaching material, model of delivery, and evaluation of the course on methodology for design research are discussed.

The Skill of ECMWF Medium-Range Forecasts during the Year of Tropical Convection 2008

This study uses the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model-generated high-resolution 10-day-long predictions for the Year of Tropical Convection (YOTC) 2008. Precipitation forecast skills of the model over the tropics are evaluated against the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) estimates. It has been shown that the model was able to capture the monthly to seasonal mean features of tropical convection reasonably. Northward propagation of convective bands over the Bay of Bengal was also forecasted realistically up to 5 days in advance, including the onset phase of the monsoon during the first half of June 2008. However, large errors exist in the daily datasets especially for longer lead times over smaller domains. For shorter lead times (less than 4-5 days), forecast errors are much smaller over the oceans than over land. Moreover, the rate of increase of errors with lead time is rapid over the oceans and is confined to the regions where observed precipitation shows large day-to-day variability. It has been shown that this rapid growth of errors over the oceans is related to the spatial pattern of near-surface air temperature. This is probably due to the one-way air-sea interaction in the atmosphere-only model used for forecasting. While the prescribed surface temperature over the oceans remain realistic at shorter lead times, the pattern and hence the gradient of the surface temperature is not altered with change in atmospheric parameters at longer lead times. It has also been shown that the ECMWF model had considerable difficulties in forecasting very low and very heavy intensity of precipitation over South Asia. The model has too few grids with ``zero'' precipitation and heavy (>40 mm day(-1)) precipitation. On the other hand, drizzle-like precipitation is too frequent in the model compared to that in the TRMM datasets. Further analysis shows that a major source of error in the ECMWF precipitation forecasts is the diurnal cycle over the South Asian monsoon region. The peak intensity of precipitation in the model forecasts over land (ocean) appear about 6 (9) h earlier than that in the observations. Moreover, the amplitude of the diurnal cycle is much higher in the model forecasts compared to that in the TRMM estimates. It has been seen that the phase error of the diurnal cycle increases with forecast lead time. The error in monthly mean 3-hourly precipitation forecasts is about 2-4 times of the error in the daily mean datasets. Thus, effort should be given to improve the phase and amplitude forecast of the diurnal cycle of precipitation from the model.

Performance evaluation of AR4 Climate Models in simulating daily precipitation over the Indian region using skill scores

The ability of Coupled General Circulation Models (CGCMs) participating in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's fourth assessment report (IPCC AR4) for the 20th century climate (20C3M scenario) to simulate the daily precipitation over the Indian region is explored. The skill is evaluated on a 2.5A degrees x 2.5A degrees grid square compared with the Indian Meteorological Department's (IMD) gridded dataset, and every GCM is ranked for each of these grids based on its skill score. Skill scores (SSs) are estimated from the probability density functions (PDFs) obtained from observed IMD datasets and GCM simulations. The methodology takes into account (high) extreme precipitation events simulated by GCMs. The results are analyzed and presented for three categories and six zones. The three categories are the monsoon season (JJASO - June to October), non-monsoon season (JFMAMND - January to May, November, December) and for the entire year (''Annual''). The six precipitation zones are peninsular, west central, northwest, northeast, central northeast India, and the hilly region. Sensitivity analysis was performed for three spatial scales, 2.5A degrees grid square, zones, and all of India, in the three categories. The models were ranked based on the SS. The category JFMAMND had a higher SS than the JJASO category. The northwest zone had higher SSs, whereas the peninsular and hilly regions had lower SS. No single GCM can be identified as the best for all categories and zones. Some models consistently outperformed the model ensemble, and one model had particularly poor performance. Results show that most models underestimated the daily precipitation rates in the 0-1 mm/day range and overestimated it in the 1-15 mm/day range.