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
|