2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.cad.2008.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capturing design rationale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
124
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 175 publications
(125 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
124
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These are active areas of research [7] and still poorly addressed by current industrial tools [38]. Although some success has been reported using semi-automated tools [38][39][40][41], the task of capturing design intent cannot be completely automated [42], and thus requires designers to be actively involved throughout the entire process. Unfortunately, it has been shown that designers are often reluctant to spend time adding additional information to their models [43].…”
Section: Design Intent Communication and Model Reusementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These are active areas of research [7] and still poorly addressed by current industrial tools [38]. Although some success has been reported using semi-automated tools [38][39][40][41], the task of capturing design intent cannot be completely automated [42], and thus requires designers to be actively involved throughout the entire process. Unfortunately, it has been shown that designers are often reluctant to spend time adding additional information to their models [43].…”
Section: Design Intent Communication and Model Reusementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[48]. The most sophisticated approaches often involve the use of complex external systems, such as Compendium [42] and DR editor (DRed) [38] (both based on the concept of Issue based Information System or IBIS [49]), and rely heavily on human intervention, especially for interpreting and entering information into the system. Other approaches include argumentation-based models such as Decision Representation Language (DRL) [50], which was further extended by Software Engineering Using Design RATionale (SEURAT) [51], and the Question, Option and Criteria (QOC) technique which emphasizes discussions of alternatives regarding artifact features [50].…”
Section: Design Intent Communication and Model Reusementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the DR representation approaches are argumentation-based approaches, and the typical model is issue-based information system (IBIS) (Kunz and Rittel 1970), which uses issues, positions, arguments and relationships between them to represent DR. Several software tools which allow engineering designers to record DR have been implemented based on IBIS. For example, Conklin and Begeman (1988) developed graphical IBIS (gIBIS), and Bracewell et al (2009) implemented Design Rationale editor (DRed). In addition, McCall (1991) proposed the Procedural Hierarchy of Issues (PHI) model, which broadens the scope of the concept of issue in IBIS.…”
Section: Dr Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Buckingham Shum et al have presented and replayed meeting content through a computer generated graphical map similar to a decision tree [22]. This type of approach has also been used for capturing design rationale in aerospace using visual symbols to represent items discussed like issue status, answers to questions and arguments [23,24]. Another type of browser, developed by Jaimes et al [25] was later evaluated in a study by Whittaker et al [3].…”
Section: State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%