Towards a Knowledge Level Theory of Design Process

  • Tim Smithers


The outline of a Knowledge Level theory of designing is introduced and presented. It is then used to account for, and thus to theoretically define, the widely used and accepted folk concepts of routine, innovative, and original designing. This analysis and definition naturally leads to a definition for creative designing. The role of this outline Knowledge Level theory in the practice of engineering knowledge-based systems for use in designing is then presented. In particular, its relationship to modern knowledge engineering methods, such as CommonKADS, is discussed, and how it can be used to support the construction of better, theory-based, knowledge level models of design processes. A review of related work discusses important similarities and differences between the outline theory presented here and other attempts to develop and use theories of designing in AI in Design research.


Design Process Problem Statement Knowledge Level Knowledge Type Routine Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akkermans, H., van Harmelen, F., Schreiber, G. and Wielinga, B. J.: 1993, A formalization of knowledge-level models for knowledge acquisition, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 8, 169–208.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjammins, R. and Jansweijer, W.: 1994, Towards a competence theory of diagnosis, IEEE Expert, 9(5), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernaras, A.: 1994, Problem-oriented and task-oriented models of design in the CommonKADS framework, in J. S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘84, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brazier, F. M. T., van Langen, P. H. G., Ruttkay, Z. and Treur, J.: 1994, On formal specification of design tasks, in J. S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘84, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brazier, F. M. T., van Langen, P. H. G. and Treur, J.: 1995, A logical theory of design, inJ. S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds), Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD, Preprints of the IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Formal Design Methods for Computer-Aided Design, Mexico City, Mexico, 13–16 June, pp 247–271. Available from Key Centre of Design Computing, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  6. Breuker, J. A. and Wielinga, B. J.: 1988, Models of expertise in knowledge acquisition, in Guida and Tasso (eds), Topics in Expert Systems Design: Methodologies and Tools, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekaran, B.: 1989, Design problem solving: knowledge structures and contrai strategies, Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Pitman.Google Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran, B.: 1990, Design problem solving: a task analysis, Al Magazine, 11(4), 59–71.Google Scholar
  9. Dasgupta, S.: 1991, Design Theory and Computer Science, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzhorn, P. A.: 1994, Engineering design is a computable function, AIEDAM, 8, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gero, J. S.: 1994, Towards a model of exploration in computer-aided design, in J. S. Gero and E. Tyugu (eds), Formal Design Methods for CAD, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 315–336.Google Scholar
  12. Goel, V.: 1994, A comparison of design and nondesign problem spaces, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 9, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muschamp, H.: 1997, The iracle in Bilbao, The New York Times Magazine, 7 September, pp. 54–59, 72, 82.Google Scholar
  14. Newell, A.: 1981, The knowledge level, Al Magazine, 1(2), 1–20. Also published in Artificial Intelligence, 1982, 18(1), 87–127.Google Scholar
  15. Newell, A.: 1990, Unified Theories of Cognition, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B. J., de Hoog, R., Akkermans, H. and van de Velde, W.: 1994, CommonKADS: A comprehensive methodology for KBS development, IEEE Expert, 9(6), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smithers, T.: 1992, Design as exploration: Puzzle-making and puzzle solving, Workshop Notes for AID’92 Workshop on Exploration-based models of design and Search-based models of design, CMU, Pittsburgh, June.Google Scholar
  18. Smithers, T.: 1996, On knowlege level theories of design process, in J. S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘86, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 561–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T. and Yoshikawa, H.: 1992, A logical and computable framework for reasoning in design, in D. L. Taylor and L. A. Stauffer (eds), Design Theory and Methodology-DTM92, ASME, New York, pp. 167–174.Google Scholar
  20. Tomiyama, T. and Yoshikawa, H.: 1987, Extended general design theory, inH. Yoshikawa and E. A. Waterman (eds), Design Theory for CAD, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 95–130.Google Scholar
  21. Tomiyama, T.: 1994, From general design theory to knowledge-intensive engineering, AIEDAM, 8(4), 319–334.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van de Velde, W.: 1993, Issues in knowledge level modelling, in David, D. J-M., Krivine, J-P. and Simmons, R. (eds), Second Generation in Expert Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 211–231.Google Scholar
  23. Yoshikawa, H.: 1981, General design theory and a CAD system, in T. Sata and E. A. Waterman (eds), Man-Machine Communication in CAD/CAM, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Smithers
    • 1
  1. 1.Industri Injineruen Goimailako EskolaNafarroako UnibertsitateaDonostiaEspaina

Personalised recommendations