An integrated approach to representing and accessing design rationale

Abstract The design of a chemical plant is a difficult and time-consuming task that requires the co-operation of skilled personnel from many different disciplines. Once a plant has been designed and constructed, it is expected to last for many years. However, design modifications are often made to a plant in order to benefit from the advances made in technology and to meet the changing demands of the market. In order to avoid unsafe changes to a plant, it is very important that the design rationale behind a plant is captured and made easily accessible. This paper describes an Integrated Design Information System (IDIS) that supports the design of chemical plants. The system places particular emphasis on supporting the design process so that the recording of design rationale will be done easily. It provides an integrated framework for recording three different aspects of design rationale: exploration of design alternatives, reasons for design decisions and design constraints. A design example is used to illustrate the different aspects of the system, and to show how they are linked together. Novel facilities to aid the access of information are also described.

[1]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Design environments for constructive and argumentative design , 1989, CHI '89.

[2]  Alan Usher The Flixborough Disaster , 1979, The Medico-legal journal.

[3]  T. N. Chairman-Nam,et al.  Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software engineering , 1998, ICSE 1998.

[4]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  gIBIS: A tool for all reasons , 1989, JASIS.

[5]  James M. Douglas,et al.  Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes , 1988 .

[6]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion , 1988, CSCW '88.

[7]  John S. Gero,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Design ’94 , 1994, Springer Netherlands.

[8]  René Bañares-Alcántara,et al.  Design support systems for process engineering—II. KBDS: An experimental prototype , 1995 .

[9]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Artificial intelligence at MIT: expanding frontiers , 1991 .

[10]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[11]  Brian Logan,et al.  The Edinburgh Designer System: An Architecture for Solving Ill-Structured Problems , 1992, ECAI.

[12]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for the Analysis of Texts , 1987 .

[13]  Paul W. H. Chung,et al.  Capturing and using design rationale , 1997, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[14]  Trevor A. Kletz What went wrong? - case histories of process plant disasters (2. ed.) , 1988 .

[15]  M. D. Lubars,et al.  Representing design dependencies in an issue-based style , 1991, IEEE Software.

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

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

[18]  Trevor Kletz,et al.  Lessons from Disaster: How Organizations Have No Memory and Accidents Recur , 1993 .

[19]  Colin Potts,et al.  Recording the reasons for design decisions , 1988, Proceedings. [1989] 11th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[20]  René Bañares-Alcántara,et al.  Representing the engineering design process: two hypotheses , 1991, Comput. Aided Des..

[21]  Paul W. H. Chung,et al.  Representing Design History , 1994 .

[22]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Options and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis , 1991 .

[23]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Making argumentation serve design , 1991 .