Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T11:59:11.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A DESIGN RATIONALE ANALYSIS METHOD TOWARDS ROBUST ARTIFACT DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Yusuke Tsutsui ,
Yuya Mitake ,
Mar'atus Sholihah ,
Shigeru Hosono  and
Yoshiki Shimomura
Yusuke Tsutsui*
Affiliation:
Department of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University
Yuya Mitake
Affiliation:
Department of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University
Mar'atus Sholihah
Affiliation:
Department of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University
Shigeru Hosono
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science, Tokyo University of Technology
Yoshiki Shimomura
Affiliation:
Department of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University
*
Tsutsui, Yusuke, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Department of Mechanical System Engineering, Faculty of System Design, Japan, tsutsui-yusuke@ed.tmu.ac.jp

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To design a more robust artifact, an artifact design based on a design rationale analysis is pivotal. Errors in previous design rationales that led to the degradation of artifact robustness in the past provide valuable knowledge towards improving the robust design. However, methods for exposing and analysing errors in design rationale remain unclear. This paper proposes a structured method for a design rationale analysis based on logical structuring. This method provides a well-constructed means of identifying and analysing errors in design rationale from the perspective of knowledge operation.

Keywords

Design managementDesign processDecision makingDesign cognitionDesign rationale
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 71 - 80
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Arora, V., Greer, E.J. and Tremblay, P. (1992), “A framework for capturing design rationale using granularity hierarchies”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering, pp. 246–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracewell, R., Wallace, K., Moss, M. and Knott, D. (2009), “Capturing design rationale”, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M.E., Israel, D.J. and Pollack, M.E. (1988), “Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning”, Computational Intelligence, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (2014), “Normativity in reasoning”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domeshek, E.A. and Holman, E. (2002), “Web-based design coordination”, International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 36215, pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
Garcia, A.C.B. and Howard, H.C. (1992), “Acquiring design knowledge through design decision justification”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, C. and Andreasen, M.M. (2004), “A mapping of design decision-making”.Google Scholar
Hansen, C.T. and Andreasen, M.M. (2000), “Basic thinking patterns of decision-making in engineering design”, in Meerkamm, H. (Ed.), MCE 2000 - International Workshop on Multi-Criteria Evaluation, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Kunz, W. and Rittel, H.W. (1970), Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Working Paper, Center for Planning and Development Research.Google Scholar
Lakin, F., Wambaugh, J., Leifer, L., Cannon, D. and Sivard, C. (1989), “The electronic design notebook: Performing medium and processing medium”, The Visual Computer, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (1997), “Design rationale systems: Understanding the issues”, IEEE Expert, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. and Lai, K.-Y. (1991), “What's in design rationale?”, Human–Computer Interaction, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 6 No. 3–4, pp. 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakao, M. (1996), “Collapse of Tacoma Narrows Bridge”, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Pokojski, J., Oleksiński, K. and Pruszyński, J. (2019), “Conceptual and detailed design knowledge management in customized production – Industrial perspective”, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Automotive and Construction Machinery Engineering, Institute of Machine Design Fundamentals, Narbutta 84, Warsaw, Poland, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 479–506.Google Scholar
Shipman, F.M. and McCall, R.J. (1997), “Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: Supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1947), Administrative Behavior, Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P. and Yoshikawa, H. (1990), “Modeling design process”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4 SE-Articles, p. 37.Google Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (2001), “Robust decision-making for engineering design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Johnson, A.L. and Bracewell, R.H. (2012), “The retrieval of structured design rationale for the re-use of design knowledge with an integrated representation”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar