Effective Design Rationale: Understanding the Barriers

One goal of design rationale systems is to support designers by providing a means to record and communicate the argumentation and reasoning behind the design process. However, there are several inherent limitations to developing systems that effectively capture and utilize design rationale. The dynamic and contextual nature of design and our inability to exhaustively analyze all possible design issues results in cognitive, capture, retrieval, and usage limitations. In this chapter we analyze these issues in terms of current perspectives in design theory, and describe the implications to design research. We discuss the barriers to effective design rationale in terms of three major goals: reflection, communication, and analysis of design processes. We then suggest alternate means to achieve these goals that can be used with or instead of design rationale systems.

[1]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Design as a minority discipline in a software company: toward requirements for a community of practice , 2002, CHI.

[2]  Donald A. Schön.  Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions , 1987 .

[3]  Frank M. Shipman,et al.  Incremental formalization with the hyper-object substrate , 1999, TOIS.

[4]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use , 1997 .

[5]  Christopher Alexander,et al.  The Timeless Way of Building , 1979 .

[6]  J. Rall.  Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. , 1997 .

[7]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Social creativity: turning barriers into opportunities for collaborative design , 2004, PDC 04.

[8]  Brigham Bell,et al.  Problem-Centered Design for Expressiveness and Facility in a Graphical Programming System , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Evaluating Opportunities for Design Capture , 1996 .

[10]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Generative Design Rationale: Beyond the Record and Replay Paradigm , 1996 .

[11]  Patrick Wilson,et al.  Situational relevance , 1973, Inf. Storage Retr..

[12]  Laurent Karsenty,et al.  An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents , 1996, CHI.

[13]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Synthesis by Analysis: Five Modes of Reasoning That Guide Design , 1996 .

[14]  P. Kidwell,et al.  The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering , 1996, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing.

[15]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design , 2000, Knowl. Based Syst..

[16]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[17]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Book Reviews : The Social Life of Information By John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000. 320 pages , 2000 .

[18]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[19]  Ken Friedman,et al.  Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods , 2003 .

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

[21]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Symmetry of igorance, social creativity, and meta-design , 1999, Creativity & Cognition.

[22]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use , 1996 .

[23]  Jintae Lee,et al.  What's in Design Rationale? , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  E. Wenger,et al.  Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge , 2002 .

[25]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[27]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers , 1994, CACM.

[28]  David G. Ullman,et al.  Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use , 1997 .

[29]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Developments in design methodology , 1984 .

[30]  E. Jeffrey Conklin,et al.  A process-oriented approach to design rationale , 1991 .

[31]  Michael E. Atwood,et al.  How does the design community think about design? , 2002, DIS '02.