Design space exploration in parametric systems: analyzing effects of goal specificity and method specificity on design solutions

In this paper, the effects of design-task specificity level on design space exploration are studied. An experiment was conducted to study the effects of goals and methods on design process and design solutions by 16 individual designers, who performed two design tasks under different combination of design goal and method specifications. Protocol analysis and outcome-based analysis were carried out. The results of the outcome-based analysis reveal that the quality of the design solutions can greatly be affected by goal specificity level of a design task, whereas in case of quantity, novelty and designer's self satisfaction level, the effects are insignificant. None of these metrics showed significant influence of method specificity levels of a design task. The process-based analysis on the other hand, reveals some interesting search behaviors in parametric systems, which are then used to explain the possible reasons for insignificance in quantitative data.

[1]  Enrico Motta,et al.  The Trouble with What: Issues in method-independent task specifications , 1995 .

[2]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[3]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data , 1988, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[4]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[5]  Matthew I. Campbell,et al.  An experimental study on the effects of a computational design tool on concept generation , 2009 .

[6]  N. Cross,et al.  Design Expertise Amongst Student Designers , 1994 .

[7]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Analysing design activity , 1996 .

[8]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[9]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[10]  O Akın,et al.  Navigation within a Structured Search Space in Layout Problems , 1996 .

[11]  Willemien Visser,et al.  More or Less Following a Plan During Design: Opportunistic Deviations in Specification , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[12]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[13]  John S. Gero,et al.  Can An Objective Measurement of Design Protocols Reflect the Quality of a Design Outcome , 2007 .

[14]  B. Chandrasekaran,et al.  Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis , 1990, AI Mag..

[15]  David Light Akers,et al.  Backtracking events as indicators of software usability problems , 2010 .

[16]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in Design: Analyzing and Modeling the Creative Leap , 2017 .

[17]  John S. Gero,et al.  Computational models of creative design IV , 1999 .

[18]  Ömer Akin,et al.  How do Architects Design , 1978 .

[19]  Willemien Visser,et al.  The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing , 2006 .

[20]  Sambit Datta,et al.  Erasure in Design Space Exploration , 2000, AID.

[21]  Renate Eisentraut.  Styles of problem solving and their influence on the design process , 1999 .

[22]  Ömer Akin,et al.  Design protocol data and novel design decisions , 1995 .

[23]  Belinda López-Mesa,et al.  On the significance of cognitive style and the selection of appropriate design methods , 2006 .

[24]  Robert F. Woodbury,et al.  Whither design space? , 2006, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[25]  Gerd Fricke,et al.  Successful individual approaches in engineering design , 1996 .

[26]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Artificial intelligence and pattern recognition in computer aided design : proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference, organized by Working Group 5.2, Computer Aided Design, Grenoble, France, March 17-19, 1978 , 1978 .

[27]  Belinda López-Mesa,et al.  Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams , 2011 .

[28]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[29]  Duc Truong Pham,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Design , 1991 .

[30]  Robert Woodbury,et al.  Elements of Parametric Design , 2010 .

[31]  Ömer Akin,et al.  On the process of creativity in puzzles, inventions, and designs , 1998 .

[32]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty , 2010 .

[33]  Yan Liu.  The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates by Willemien Visser , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[34]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation , 2007, CACM.