Custom Digital Workflows: A New Framework for Design Analysis Integration

Flexible information exchange is critical to successful design-analysis integration, but current top-down, standards-based and model-oriented strategies impose restrictions that contradict this flexibility. In this article we present a bottom-up, user-controlled and process-oriented approach to linking design and analysis applications that is more responsive to the varied needs of designers and design teams. Drawing on research into scientific workflows, we present a framework for integration that capitalises on advances in cloud computing to connect discrete tools via flexible and distributed process networks. We then discuss how a shared mapping process that is flexible and user friendly supports non-programmers in creating these custom connections. Adopting a services-oriented system architecture, we propose a web-based platform that enables data, semantics and models to be shared on the fly. We then discuss potential challenges and opportunities for its development as a flexible, visual, collaborative, scalable and open system.

[1]  Yehuda E. Kalay,et al.  COMPUTATIONAL ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT DESIGN COLLABORATION , 1998 .

[2]  Charles M. Eastman,et al.  BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors , 2008 .

[3]  John Haymaker,et al.  Multidisciplinary process integration and design optimization of a classroom building , 2009, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[4]  Ian J. Taylor,et al.  Workflows and e-Science: An overview of workflow system features and capabilities , 2009, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[5]  Rudi Stouffs,et al.  Data transformations in custom digital workflows : Property graphs as a data model for user-defined mappings , 2012 .

[6]  Cláudio T. Silva,et al.  VisTrails: visualization meets data management , 2006, SIGMOD Conference.

[7]  Godfried Augenbroe,et al.  The design analysis integration (DAI) initiative , 2003 .

[8]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 1999 .

[9]  E Ery Djunaedy,et al.  Building performance simulation for better design: some issues and solutions , 2004 .

[10]  V. Curcin,et al.  Scientific workflow systems - can one size fit all? , 2008, 2008 Cairo International Biomedical Engineering Conference.

[11]  Arthur W Toga,et al.  The LONI Pipeline Processing Environment , 2003, NeuroImage.

[12]  I. Altintas.  Collaborative provenance for workflow-driven science and engineering , 2011 .

[13]  Thomas W. Maver.  PACE 1: Computer Aided Design Appraisal , 1971 .

[14]  Yehuda E. Kalay.  P3: Computational environment to support design collaboration , 1998 .

[15]  Tomaz Pazlar,et al.  Interoperability in practice: geometric data exchance using the IFC standard , 2008, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[16]  Dominik Holzer.  Optioneering in Collaborative Design Practice , 2010 .

[17]  A. Heylighen P. Leclercq.  Untangling Parametric Schemata : Enhancing Collaboration through Modular Programming , 2011 .

[18]  Jane Burry,et al.  Untangling Parametric Schemata: Enhancing Collaboration Through Modular Programming , 2011 .

[19]  Axel Kilian.  Design Innovation through Constraint Modeling , 2006 .

[20]  Zohra Bellahsene,et al.  On Evaluating Schema Matching and Mapping , 2011, Schema Matching and Mapping.

[21]  Shady Attia,et al.  "ARCHITECT FRIENDLY": A COMPARISON OF TEN DIFFERENT BUILDING PERFORMANCE SIMULATION TOOLS , 2009 .