Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:11:39.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chunks, lines, and strategies: A three-component representation to capture and exchange architects' design processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2008

Jonas Lindekens  and
Ann Heylighen
Jonas Lindekens
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
Ann Heylighen
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to capture and exchange the arguments and rationale architects develop while designing. The approach was inspired by experiments conducted in the context of a larger research project on architectural redesign. Protocol analysis revealed that architects tend to use three mechanisms in constructing arguments for design solutions: chunks, lines of thought, and strategies. These three mechanisms were used to record “real-world” design processes in architectural practice, the results of which were evaluated by assessors with different backgrounds. The paper closes by comparing the approach to related work, and outlining challenges for the future.

Keywords

ArchitectureDesign MethodDesign ProcessDesign RationaleRedesign
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 22 , Issue 4: Design Rationale , November 2008 , pp. 387 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (2001). Pattern Language. Accessed at http://www.patternlanguage.com on April 8, 2006.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R., & Wallace, K. (2006). Introducing the capture of argumentation-based design rationale into industrial practise. DCC'06 Design Rationale Workshop Notes.Google Scholar
Cerulli, C., Peng, C., & Lawson, B. (2001). Capturing histories of design processes for collaborative building design development. In CAADFutures 2001, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. (de Vries, B., van Leeuwen, J., & Achten, H., Eds.), pp. 427–437. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (Eastman, C., Mc Crachen, M., & Newsletter, W., Eds.), pp. 79–103. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1996). Introduction: the Delft protocols workshop. In Analysing Design Activity (Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K., Eds.), pp. 1–16. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life (Rendall, S., Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns. Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Heylighen, A., & Martin, G. (2005). Chasing concepts during design: a photo shoot from the field of architecture. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(4), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, A., & Neuckermans, H. (2001). Destination: practice. Towards a maintenance contract for the architect's degree. In Reinventing the Discourse, Proc. 21st Annual Conf. Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture (Jabi, W., Ed.), pp. 90–99. Buffalo, NY: Acadia.Google Scholar
Jokilehto, J. (1999). A History of Architectural Conservation. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.Google Scholar
Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Working Paper 131. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Urban & Regional Development.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (1993). Parallel lines of thought. Languages of Design 1(4), 357–366.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (1997). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Lindekens, J. (2006). Redesign Strategies Unmasked. Insights in the Architectural Design Process of Adaptive Reuse Projects. Brussels, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1996). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies 16(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, W.M., Heylighen, A., & Cavallin, H. (2005). The right story at the right time. Towards a tacit knowledge support for (student) designers. AI & Society 19(1), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies 18(4), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Venice Charter. (1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Venice: ICOMOS/Vlaams Comite.Google Scholar