Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:11:34.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending the scope and use of design rationale records

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Josh M.P. King  and
René Bañares-Alcántara
Josh M.P. King
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland, U.K.
René Bañares-Alcántara
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the course of the design of a complex artifact many thousands of objects will be created that will refer to many different types of information. Thus, an effective design support system must be able to store various types of data and allow easy navigation of the resulting extensive network of objects. In addition, the quality of the design records (both the record of the design artifact and rationale) is increased by the quality and quantity of information which the designer is able to record. In this paper we describe two new developments to Kbds a design support system for chemical process design, which enable easier navigation of the design network, and a fuller representation of the design process. In addition, we show how these extensions may be used together to improve the quality of the design information recorded—both for the evolution of the design artifact and the supporting rationale. The first development enables the designer to record a variety of complementary types of document within the process design history, fulfilling the task of improving the design information recorded. The second enhancement to Kbds eases the navigation of the design history by categorizing design objects according to a user-defined set of keywords. The categorization of design objects is carried out semiautomatically using, in part, the various design representations (documents) enabled through the first extension and enables rapid navigation of the design network. Finally, a method of checking the consistency of design rationale structures using keywords is also described. Thus, various representations may be used to generate keywords that in turn may be used to improve the quality of design rationale records. An example showing this situation is described.

Keywords

Design Support SystemsDesign Rationale IndexingChemical Process DesignIbis Networks
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 155 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

Aspen Technology, Inc. (1988). Aspen plus. User guide. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bañares-Alcántara, R., & King, J.M.P. (1997). Design support systems for process engineering. III. Design rationale as a requirement for effective support. Comput. Chem. Eng., 21(3), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bañares-Alcántara, R., & Lababidi, H.M.S. (1995). Design support systems for process engineering. II. KBDS: An experimental prototype. Comput. Chem. Eng. 19(3), 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BUSS-AG. (1968). UK patent no 1216270. Process for the continuous production of hydrofluoric acid.Google Scholar
Chong, T.T. (1995). Derivation and use of function in the design of chemical processes. Master's thesis. Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Clark, D.S. (1996). Modelling the BUSS process in ASPEN PLUS. Final Year Research Project, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Conklin, E.J., & Burgess Yakemovic, K.C. (1991). A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Human-Comp. Interact. 6, 357–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukich, K. (1992). Techniques for automatically correcting words in text. ACM Comput. Surveys 24(4), 377–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcllroy, M.D. (1992). Development of a spelling list. IEEE Transactions on Communication COM-30(1), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H.W.J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155&169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipman, F., & Marshall, C.C. (1994). Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes and directions. Technical Report IST-LCSA-94–08–02, Xerox PARC.Google Scholar
Shipman, F., & McCall, R. (1994) Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization. Proceedings of CHI '94, pp. 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanian, E., Konda, S.L., Levy, S.N., Reich, Y., Westerberg, A., & Monarch, I. (1993). Equations aren't enough: Informal modeling in design. A1EDAM 7(4), 257–274.Google Scholar