Dear Terry,
Thanks for your clear explanation. My focus is on the first one. I think it
will have different models and methodology from the design argument or
design issues. I’m engaged in developing a design rationale system for the
designer’ s thinking process.
Zhaoyang
2009/4/21 Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Dear Zhaoyang,
>
> As I understand it, the primary focus of creating a design rationale system
> can be on any one of the following:
>
> * The designer - for example their ways of thinking (bearing in mind
> socio-cultural issues etc). This looks at the reasoning behind a design
> from
> the designers's perspective.
>
> * The design 'arguments'/ negotiations and reasoning - this looks at the
> rationale for design decisions in terms of the logic and rhetoric of
> arguments and reasoning of the designer(s) and other stakeholders and
> constitutncies in terms of the internal consistencies of the object
>
> * The designed object - this looks at the rationale for the composition
> of a design in terms of the internal consistencies of the object
>
> * The design brief - this looks at the rationale for design decisions in
> terms of the brief or needs analysis (or interactions with
> users/participants/collaborators...). It also includes contecxtual issues.
>
> * The design issues - this looks at the rationale for design decisions
> in terms of the issues evident in the brief or that emerge during the
> design
> process
>
> These are not mutually exclusive. A primary focus on one will bring in
> others in a secondary way.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> zhaoyang
> sun
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2009 9:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The differentce between construction design and mechanical
> design
>
> Dear Terry, Thanks for your help. I'm trying to use Design Rationale to
> represent designer's thinking process and develop design support tool. I've
> read a few related literature. I found argumentation-based design rationale
> was very popular. This research takes designer's thinking process as an
> argumentation process, however, I don't think every designer thinks as the
> style of argumentation. I guess there should be several other styles, but
> I'm not quite sure.
>
> Zhaoyang
>
> 2009/4/20 Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Dear Zhaoyang,
> >
> > >>Subject: Re: The differentce between construction design and
> > >>mechanical
> > design
> > >>I'm exploring design rationale and many examples are from
> > >>construction
> > design. I wonder if construction designers will have the same
> > cognitive style as mechanical designers.
> >
> > 'Design rationale' is a well established 'special term' in some areas
> > of design research and the basis of a substantial number of design
> > support software packages. I'm not sure if you are using it in this way
> or
> not?
> >
> > A fairly good description of this use of 'design rationale' is
> > available from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Rationale).
> >
> > One of the primary design rationale approaches in mechnical
> > engineering is via DRAMA (Design RAtionale MAnagement) software used
> > in the Oil and Gas industry.
> >
> > There is quite a bit of literature on the use of design rationale in
> > mechanical engineering. You could start with :
> > Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
> > Manufacturing (2008), 22:309-310 Cambridge University Press Copyright
> > C Cambridge University Press 2008 doi:10.1017/S0890060408000206 Guest
> > Editorial Special Issue: Design Rationale Janet E. Burgea1 and Rob
> > Bracewella2
> >
> > From this perspective, you would expect cognitive style issues vis a
> > vis design rationale in construction design and mechanical design to
> > be different simply on the grounds that detailed design process models
> > are different.
> >
> > I've attached belwo some early references that relate to design
> > rationale from fields other than construction design that may be of use.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Terry
> >
> > References (distilled from Human-Computer Interaction archive Volume
> > 6 , Issue 3 (September 1991) Pages 357-391 Year of Publication: 1991
> > ISSN:0737-0024 Authors E. Jeffrey Conklin and K. C. Burgess Yakemovic
> > Human Interface Technology Center, NCR, Northwest, Atlanta, GA.
> >
> >
> > K. C. Burgess Yakemovic , E Jeffery Conklin, Report on a development
> > project use of an issue-based information system, Proceedings of the
> > 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.105-118,
> > October 07-10, 1990, Los Angeles, California, United States
> > [doi>10.1145/99332.99347]
> >
> >
> > Conklin, J. (1989a). Design rationale and maintainability. Proceedings
> > of the 22nd International Conference on Systerm Sciences (Vol. 2, pp.
> > 533-539).
> > Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
> >
> > Conklin, J. (1989b). Interissue dependencies in gIBIS (Tech. Rep. No.
> > STP-091-89). Austin, TX: MCC.
> >
> >
> > Jeff Conklin , Michael L. Begeman, gIBIS: a hypertext tool for
> > exploratory policy discussion, ACM Transactions on Information Systems
> > (TOIS), v.6 n.4, p.303-331, Oct. 1988 [doi>10.1145/58566.59297]
> >
> >
> > Jeff Coklin , Michael L. Begeman, gIBIS: a tool for all reasons,
> > Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v.40 n.3,
> > p.200-213, May 1989
> > [doi>10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198905)40:3<200::AID-ASI11>3.0.CO;2-U]
> >
> >
> > Engelbart, D. C. (1963). A conceptual framework for the augmentation
> > of man's intellect. In Howerton & Weeks (Eds.), Vistas in information
> > handling (pp. 1-29). Washington, DC: Spartan.
> >
> >
> > Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., & Morch, A. I. (1991). Making
> > argumentation serve design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 393-419.
> > [Included in this Special Issue.]
> >
> >
> > G. Fischer , R. McCall , A. Morch, JANUS: integrating hypertext with a
> > knowledge-based design environment, Proceedings of the second annual
> > ACM conference on Hypertext, p.105-117, November 1989, Pittsburgh,
> > Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/74224.74233]
> >
> >
> > Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting
> > opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 305-344.
> >
> >
> > Frank,G. Halasz, Reflections on NoteCards: seven issues for the next
> > generation of hypermedia systems, Communications of the ACM, v.31 n.7,
> > p.836-852, July 1988 [doi>10.1145/48511.48514]
> >
> >
> > Hashim, S. (1990). AiGerm: A logic programming front-end for Germ.
> > Proceedings of the SEPEC Conference on Hypermedia and Information
> > Reconstruction: Aerospace Applications and Research Directions. Houston:
> > University of Houston-Clear Lake, Software Engineering Professional
> > Education Center.
> >
> >
> > Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives:
> > Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.
> >
> >
> > Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information
> > systems (Working Paper No. 131). Berkeley: University of California at
> > Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
> >
> >
> > Lee, J., & Lai, K.-Y. (1991). What's in design rationale?
> > Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 251-280. [Included in this Special
> > Issue.]
> >
> >
> > Lubars, M. (1989). Representing design dependencies in the issue-based
> > information system style (Tech. Rep. No. STP-426-889). Austin, TX: MCC.
> >
> >
> > MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991).
> > Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis.
> > Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 201-250. [Included in this Special
> > Issue.]
> >
> >
> > A. MacLean , R. M. Young , T. P. Moran, Design rationale: the argument
> > behind the artifact, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human
> > factors in computing systems: Wings for the mind, p.247-252, March
> > 1989
> >
> >
> > Mostow, J. (1985). Toward better models of the design process. AI
> > Magazine, 6, 44-57.
> >
> >
> > Zachary, W. (1986). A cognitively based functional taxonomy of
> > decision support techniques. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 25-63.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University
> No.37 Xueyuan RD, Haidian District, Beijing, 100083, China Phone & Fax:
> (86)-13693270822
>
>
--
School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University
No.37 Xueyuan RD, Haidian District, Beijing, 100083, China
Phone & Fax: (86)-13693270822
|
