This paper presents the results of a protocol study which compares designers’ behavior in a parametric design environment (PDE) and a geometric modeling environment (GME). An experiment was conducted in which seven designers were required to complete two architectural conceptual design tasks with similar complexity respectively in a PDE and GME. Protocol analysis is employed to compare the cognitive behavior of designers in these two environments. By analyzing the designers’ actions, including shifting between “problem” and “solution” spaces, it was possible to compare their cognitive activities in PDEs and GMEs. Results of this research suggest that designers put similar effort into the design problem space and the solution space in PDE and GME and that interaction between these two spaces also appears similar in the two design environments. However, different Problem-Solution index values and discontinuity ratios are found across design stages of the two design environments.
References
[1]
Iordanova, I.; Tidafi, T.; Guité, M.; de Paoli, G.; Lachapelle, J. Parametric Methods of Exploration and Creativity during Architectural Design: A Case Study in the Design Studio. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, Montréal, Canada, 17–19 June 2009; pp. 423–439.
[2]
Schnabel, M.A. Parametric Designing in Architecture. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, Sydney, Australia, 11–13 July 2007.
[3]
Qian, C.Z.; Chen, V.Y.; Woodbury, R.F. Participant Observation Can Discover Design Patterns in Parametric Modeling. In Proceedings of 27th International Conference on the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, Halifax, UK, 1–7 October 2007.
[4]
Abdelmohsen, S.; Do, E.Y.-L. Analyzing the Significance of Problem Solving Expertise and Computational Tool Proficiency in Design Ideation. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, Montreal, Canada, 17–19 June 2009.
[5]
Chien, S.-F.; Yeh, Y.-T. On Creativity and Parametric Design—A Preliminary Study of Designer’s Behaviour When Employing Parametricdesign Tools. In Proceedings of 30th International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Prague, Czech Republic, 12–14 September 2012.
[6]
Dorst, K.; Cross, N. Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Des. Stud. 2001, 22, 425–437, doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
[7]
Jiang, H.; Gero, J.; Yen, C.C. Exploring Designing Styles Using a Problem-Solution Index. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, TX, USA, 7–9 June 2012.
[8]
Bilda, Z.; Demirkan, H. An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Des. Stud. 2003, 24, 27–50, doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00032-7.
[9]
Kan, J.W.T.; Gero, J.S. The Effect of Computer Mediation on Collaborative Designing. In Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Yunlin, Taiwan, 22–25 April 2009.
[10]
Woodbury, R. Elements of Parametric Design; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[11]
Kolarevic, B. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing; Spon Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
[12]
Lee, J.H.; Gu, N.; Jupp, J.; Sherratt, S. Evaluating Creativity in Parametric Design Processes and Products: A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, TX, USA, 7–9 June 2012.
[13]
Ostwald, M.J. Systems and Enablers: Modeling the Impact of Contemporary Computational Meth-Ods and Technologies on the Design Process. In Computational Design Methods and Technologies: Applications in CAD, CAM and CAE Education; IGI Global: Pennsylvania, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–17.
[14]
Sch？n, D.; Wiggins, G. Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Des. Stud. 1992, 13, 135–156, doi:10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F.
[15]
Cross, N. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work; Berg Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
[16]
Kruger, C.; Cross, N. Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Des. Stud. 2006, 27, 527–548, doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.001.
[17]
Gero, J.S. Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag. 1990, 11, 26–36.
[18]
Maher, M.L.; Poon, J. Modelling design exploration as co-evolution. Comput. Aided Civ. Eng. 1996, 11, 195–210, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00323.x.
[19]
Lawson, B. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified; Architectural Press: Burlington, MA, USA, 1997.
[20]
Kim, M.J.; Maher, M.L. Creative Design and Spatial Cognition in a Tangible User Interface Environment. In Proceedings of the international conference of Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design VI, Heron Island, Australia, 10–14 December 2005.
[21]
Helms, M.E.; Goel, A.K. Analogical Problem Evolution in Biologically Inspired Design. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, TX, USA, 7–9 June 2012.
[22]
Cross, N.; Dorst, K.; Christiaans, H. Analysing Design Activity; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
Kan, J.W.T.; Gero, J.S. Using the FBS Ontology to Capture Semantic Design Information in Design Protocol Studies. In About: Designing—Analysing Design Meetings; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[25]
Kim, M.J.; Maher, M.L. The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des. Stud. 2008, 29, 222–253, doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.006.
[26]
Gero, J.; Tang, H.-H. Concurrent and Retrospective Protocols and Computer-Aided Architectural Design. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Shanghai, China, 5–7 May 1999.
[27]
Kan, J.W.T.; Gero, J.S. Can Entropy Indicate the Richness of Idea Generation in Team Designing? In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, New Delhi, India, 28–30 April 2005.
[28]
Kan, J.W.T.; Gero, J.S. Studing Software Design Cognition. In Software Designers in Action: A Human-Centric Look at Design Work; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012.
[29]
Kan, J.W.T.; Gero, J.S. Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Des. Stud. 2008, 29, 315–337, doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.001.
[30]
Gero, J.; Jiang, H.; Williams, C.B. Design Cognition Differences When Using Structured and Unstructured Concept Generation Creativity Techniques. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity, Glasgow, UK, 18–20 September 2012.
[31]
Simon, H.A. The structure of ill-structured problems. Artif. Intell. 1973, 4, 181–201.
[32]
Maher, M.L.; Tang, H.H. Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res. Eng. Des. 2003, 11, 47–63.
[33]
Sch？n, D.A. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowl. Based Syst. 1992, 5, 3–14, doi:10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G.
Zeiler, W.; Savanovic, P.; Quanjel, E. Design Decision Support for the Conceptual Phase of the Design Process. In Proceedings of International Association of Societies of Design Research, Hongkong, 12–15 November 2007.
[36]
Cross, N. Expertise in design: An overview. Des. Stud. 2004, 25, 427–441, doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.
