Skip to main content
Log in

Design process rationale capture and support by abstraction of criteria

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The re-use of previous design knowledge is a potentially important way to improve design efficiency. To do so, both the product under study (product data) and the argumentation leading to it (process data) must be stored throughout the engineering design process. CAD systems do the former very well; the latter has to be developed. The objective of the paper is to contribute to a system able to capture design process rationale and make it available for re-use in the current design project or in further projects. The approach involves extracting elements of argumentation and maintaining connections between arguments, proposed solutions and decision-making contexts. Criteria exchanged between design participants leading to the acceptance or refusal of solutions are key clues to understanding design rationale. A descriptive model of a design process is proposed, based on features capitalising on the rationale of design: a conjecture (an element of a solution proposed for validation), a criterion (an element of evaluation of the proposal) and the interactions between them. Conjectures capture alternatives; criteria provide access to the rationale behind the alternatives. The model was validated by laboratory-based experimentation. A computer-aided tool supporting and analysing criteria–conjecture interactions was developed, focusing on the context of decision-making and currently available information. It comprises a database storing the interactions and five modules to process the data for use in a design context. The raw data in the database are abstracted into knowledge according to the manner in which a design engineer wants to retrieve and use it. This structure is represented in the form of a data-processing prototype.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ball LJ, Lambell NJ, Ormerod TC, Slavi S, Mariani JA (2001) Representing design rationale to support innovative design re-use: a minimalist approach. Autom Construct 10:663–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco E, Garro O, Brissaud D, Jeantet A (1996) Intermediary object in the context of distributed design. In: Proceedings of Computational Engineering in Systems Applications (CESA’96), IMACS Conference. IEEE–SMC, Lille

  • Boujut JF, Blanco E (2003) Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Comput Support Coop Work J Collab Comput 12:205–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brissaud D, Garro O (1996) An approach to concurrent engineering using distributed design methodology. Int J Concur Eng Res Applic 4:303–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung PWH, Goodwin R (1998) An integrated approach to representing and accessing design rationale. Eng Applic Artif Intell 11:149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Court AW, Culley S, McMahon C (1995) A method for analysing the information accessing methods of engineering designers. In: Hubka V (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing Design (ICED 1995), Prague. Heuristica, Zurich

  • Culley S (1998) Design re-use of standard parts. In: Proceedings of Engineering Design Conference 1998, Brunel University, UK. Professional Engineering Publishing, London

  • Darlington M, Culley S, Potter S (2001) Knowledge and reasoning: issues raised in automating the conceptual design of fluid power systems. Int J Fluid Power 2:75–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon JR, Cunningham JJ, Simmons MK (1989) Research in designing with features, Intelligent CAD-I. North Holland.

  • Duffy AHB, Legler S (1999) Rationalising past designs for re-use. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED ‘99), Munich

  • Finger S (1998) Design re-use and design research. In: Proceedings of Engineering Design Conference, Brunel University, UK. Professional Engineering Publishing, London

  • Galarreta D, Charrel PJ, Orel T, Rothenberger B, Trousse B, Vogel C (1998) Study of dynamic viewpoints in satellite design. In: Proceedings of Information Control in Manufacturing (INCOM), Nancy. Elsevier IFAC Publications, Oxford

  • Garro O, Salaü I, Martin P (1995) Distributed design theory and methodology. Int J Concur Eng Res Applic 3:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsenty L (1996) An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. In: Bilger R, Guest S, Tauber MJ (eds) Computer–human interaction. Proceedings of CHI ‘96 , Vancouver. ACM, New York

  • Knutilla A, Schlenoff C, Ray S (1998) Process specification language: an analysis of existing representations. NISTIR 6160, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusiak A (1993) Concurrent engineering. Automation, tools and techniques. Wiley, Chichester

  • Lee J, Lai KY (1996) What’s in design rationale? In: Design rationale. LEA publishers

  • MacLean A, Young RM, Bellotti VME, Moran TP (1996) Questions, options and criteria: element of design space analysis. In: Design rationale. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., pp 53–105

  • Moran T, Carroll J (1996) Design rationale, LEA publishers

  • Myers KL, Zumel NB, Garcia P (2000) Acquiring design rationale automatically. Artif Intell Eng Design Anal Manuf 14:115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  • Regli WC, Hu X, Atwood M, Sun W (2000) A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Eng Comput 16:209–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenoff C, Knutilla A, Ray S (1996) Unified process specification language: requirements for modeling process. NISTIR 5910, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shon D (1983) The reflective practitioner. Basic Books, New York

  • Stahovich T, Bal H (2002) An inductive approach to learning and reusing design strategies. Res Eng Design 13:109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Suh NP (2001) Axiomatic design: advances and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Suwa M, Purcell T, Gero J (1998) Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Design Studies 19:455–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tichkiewitch S, Véron M (1997) Methodology and product model for integrated design using a multiview system. Ann CIRP 46:81–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinck D, Jeantet A (1995) Mediating and commissioning objects. . In: Vinck D, McLean A, Saviotti P (eds) The sociotechnical process of product design: a conceptual approach. Management and new technology: design, networks, strategy. COST Social Sciences Series, CCE, pp 111–129

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Brissaud.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brissaud, D., Garro, O. & Poveda, O. Design process rationale capture and support by abstraction of criteria. Res Eng Design 14, 162–172 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0038-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0038-0

Keywords

Navigation