Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:32:10.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving design and documentation by using partially automated synthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

A. Cristina Bicharra Garcia ,
H. Craig Howard  and
Mark J. Stefik
A. Cristina Bicharra Garcia
Affiliation:
Departamento de Informatica, PUC-RIO, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
H. Craig Howard
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Mark J. Stefik
Affiliation:
Information Systems and Technology Laboratory, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Rd., Palo Alto, CA94304
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the products of engineering, besides constructed artifacts, is design documentation. To understand how design participants use documentation, designers and typical documentation users were interviewed and protocols were taken of them both creating and using design documentation. The protocols were taken from realistic projects of preliminary design for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC). The studies of document creation and use revealed three important issues: (1) design participants not only look up design facts; they frequently access documents to obtain information about the rationale for design decisions; (2) the design rationale that they see often is missing from the documents; and (3) design requirements change frequently over a project life cycle so that design documents are often inconsistent and out of date. Recognizing these documentation issues in design practice, a new approach was developed in which documents are no longer static records, but rather interactive design models supporting a case. The feasibility of the approach was demonstrated by constructing a running system and testing it with designers on realistic problems. The costs and benefits of creating and using documentation of design rationale also were analyzed. In particular, the active documents approach was evaluated for a routine, preliminary design in domains where community practice is widely shared and largely standardized. The approach depends on the feasibility of creating a parametric design model for the design domain.

Keywords

Design RationaleDesign DocumentationActive DocumentsInteractive DesignComputer-aided DesignHVAC Design
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 335 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baudin, C., Sivard, C., & Zweben, M. (1990). Using Device Models and Design Goals for Design Rational Capture. Technical Report, MS244–17, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M.L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. Proc. 1988 Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW-88), Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Coyne, R.D., Rosenman, M.A., Radford, A.D., Balachandran, M., & Gero, J.S. (1990). Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol Analysis. Verbal Reports as Data. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., & Morch, A.I. (1991). Making argumentation serve design. Human-Computer Interaction 6 (3/4), 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, A.C.B., Howard, H.C., & Stefik, M.J. (1993). Active Design Documents: A New Approach for Supporting Documentation in Preliminary Routine Design. Technical Report #48, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Gruber, T.R., & Russell, D.M. (1992). Generative design rationale: Beyond the record and replay paradigm. In Design Rationale. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
Guindon, R., & Curtis, B. (1988). Control of cognitive processed during software design: What tools are needed? CHI’88 Human Factors in Computing Systems, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Karinthi, R. (1992). Capturing design rationales for use in a concurrent engineering environment. AAAI’92–Design Rationale Workshop, San Jose, California.Google Scholar
Lakin, F., Wambaugh, H., Leifer, L., Cannon, D., & Sivard, C. (1989). The electronic design notebook: Performing medium and processing medium. Visual Comput. Int. J. Comput. Graphics 5 (4), 214–226.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (1990). SIBYL: A tool for managing group decision rationale. Proc. Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW-90), Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Luth, G., Krawinkler, H., & Law, K.H. (1991). Representation and Reasoning for Integrated Structural Design. CIFE Technical Report #055, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of a design rationale for user interfaces. Human Computer Interaction 6 (3/4), 201–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, R. (1986). Issue-serve systems: A descriptive theory for design. Design Meth. Theories 20 (8), 443–458.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Stefik, M.J. (1995). Introduction to Knowledge Systems. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar