Applied Intelligence

, Volume 10, Issue 2–3, pp 113–122

A Knowledge-Level Model for Concurrent Design

  • Robin Barker
  • Anthony Meehan
  • Ian Tranter


This paper describes the development and validation of a knowledge-level model of concurrent design. Concurrent design is characterised by the extent to which multidisciplinary perspectives influence all stages of the product design process. This design philosophy is being increasingly used in industry to reduce costs and improve product quality. We propose an essentially rational model for concurrent design and report on our validation of the model through studies with designers. We outline some of the limitations of current computational techniques needed to support negotiation in the design cycle and consider some of the implications of this for the development of systems to support concurrent design.

knowledge model concurrent design design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Mira and A.P. del Pobil, Preface to 11th International Conference on Engineering Applications of AI and Expert Systems, Benicassim, Castellon, Spain, 1–4 June 1998 (Proc. IEA-98-AIE), vol. 1. Methodology and Tools in Knowledge-Based Systems, edited by J. Mira, A.P. del Pobil, and M. Ali, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1415, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 3–540–64582–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Smithers, “On knowledge level theories of design process,” in Artificial Intelligence in Design, edited by J.S. Gero and F. Sudweeks, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 561–579, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Oxman, “Cognition and design,” Design Studies, vol. 17, pp. 337–340, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Pahl and W. Beitz, Engineering Design (Copyright the Design Council), Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think, Avebury, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Shiva Kumar, S. Suresh, C.S. Krishnamoorthy, S.J. Fenves, and S. Rajeev, “GENCRIT: A tool for knowledge based critiquing in engineering design,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8, pp. 239–259, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Desa and J.M. Schmitz, “The development and implementation of a comprehensive concurrent engineering method: Theory and application,” SAE Transactions, vol. 100, pp. 1041–1049, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.F. Schmidt and M. Schmidt, Computer Aided Concurrent Integral Design, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Kruger and B. Wielinga, “A KADS model for the industrial design task,” in Proceedings of the Third KADS Meeting, Munich, Germany, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Bernaras and W. Van de Velde, “Design,” in CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling: Reusable Problem Solving Components, edited by J. Breuker and W. Van de Velde, IOS Press, chap. 8, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Chandrasekaran, “Design problem solving: A task analysis,” AI Magazine, Winter 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.G. Silverman, “Survey of expert critiquing systems: Practical and theoretical frontiers,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 35,no. 4, pp. 107–127, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Fischer and T.A. Mastaglio, “Conceptual framework for knowledge-based critic systems,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 7,no. 4, pp. 355–378, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Fruchter, M.J. Clayton, H. Krawinkler, J. Kunz, and P. Teicholz, “Interdisciplinary communication of design critique in the conceptual design stage,” Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Proc. Fifth Intl. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering ICCCBE, ASCE, New York, pp. 377–384, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Barker, C. Short, I. Tranter, A. Meehan, and B. Parkinson, “Modelling the concurrent engineering environment using artificial intelligence techniques,” AIENG '95; 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Udine, Italy, 4–6 July 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Barker, C. Short, I. Tranter, A. Meehan, and B. Parkinson, “Critiquing and the concurrent design process,” in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Concurrent Engineering and Electronic Design Automation: CEEDA-96, edited by Meehat, Poole UK, EPIC, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Klein and S.C. Lu, “Conflict resolution in cooperative design,” Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Computational Mechanics Publications, vol. 4,no. 4, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K.J. Werkman, “Negotiation as an aid in concurrent engineering,” Issues in Design Manufacture Integration 39 ASME, pp. 23–30, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.V. Harrington and H. Soltan, “Negotiation in a knowledge-based concurrent engineering design environment,” Expert Systems, vol. 12,no. 2, pp. 139–147, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Molina, A.H. Alashaab, T.I.A. Ellis, R.I.M. Young, and R. Bell, “Review of computer-aided simultaneous engineering systems,” Research in Engineering Design: Theory Applications and Concurrent Engineering, vol. 7,no. 1, pp. 38–63, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S.P. Davies, “Effects of concurrent verbalisation on design problem solving,” Design Studies, vol. 16,no. 1, pp. 102–116, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Dorst, “Analysing design activity: New directions in protocol analysis,” Design Studies, vol. 16,no. 2, pp. 139–142, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Lloyd, B. Lawson, and P. Scott, “Can concurrent verbalisation reveal design cognition?” Design Studies, vol. 16,no. 2, pp. 237–259, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Lloyd and P. Scott, “Discovering the design problem,” Design Studies, vol. 15,no. 2, pp. 125–140, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J.L. Kolodner, “Powers of observation in creative design,” Design Studies, vol. 17,no. 4, pp. 385–416, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    W. Visser, “Two functions of analogical reasoning in design: A cognitive psycology approach,” Design Studies, vol. 17,no. 4, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D.H. Sonnenwald, “Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process,” Design Studies, vol. 17,no. 4, pp. 277–301, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Schreiber, B. Weilinga, and J. Breuker (Eds.), KADS: A Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development, Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Pugh, Total design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J.K.C. Kingston, Design by Exploration: A Proposed CommonKADS Inference Structure, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh, AIAI-TR; 155, 1994.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    B. Lawson, How Designers Think, Butterworth, 1990.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Goel, “Integration of case-based reasoning and model-based reasoning for adaptive design problem solving,” Department of Computer and Information Science, Ohio state University, US, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Fischer, A.C. Lemke, and T. Mastaglio, “Critics: An emerging approach to knowledge-based human-computer interaction,” Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 35, pp. 695–721, 1991.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S.T.C. Wong, “Preference-based decision making for cooperative knowledge-based systems,” ACM Trans. on Information Systems, vol. 12,no. 4, pp. 407–435, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Sycara, “Multiagent compromise via negotiation,” in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, edited by L. Gasser and M. Huns, Pitman, vol. 2, pp. 119–137, 1989.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Zlotkin and J.S. Rosenschein, “Mechanism design for automated negotiation and its application to task oriented domains,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 86, pp. 195–244, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Barker
    • 1
  • Anthony Meehan
    • 1
  • Ian Tranter
    • 1
  1. 1.Sheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations