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.
|