Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes

Abstract

This paper introduces the design exploration assessment methodology (DEAM) for comparing design process impact and outcome. Current practice fails to reliably generate high-performing alternatives in part because it lacks systematic means to compare existing or emerging design processes. Researchers lack empirical methods and data to evaluate design challenges and the strategies available to address them. In this paper, we document and then apply the DEAM to the professional implementation of six design strategies across two design challenges using the charrette test method. The results are used to compare the strategies according to the performance of the solution(s) generated. For the strategies and challenges investigated, more information during design does not always assist the designer to produce better performing alternatives. We discuss possible explanations and conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the DEAM as an evaluation method. Initial findings demonstrate that the DEAM is a method capable of providing a meaningful comparison of strategies in the domain of energyefficient design challenges. Terms ComponentsVariable: a design choice to be made. A variable can be discrete (i.e. number of windows) or continuous (i.e. building length). Option: individual variable input(s) (i.e. number of windows = {1, 2, or 3}; building length = 10-20 m). Decision: the selection of an option (i.e. number of windows = 2; building length = 12.75 m). Alternative: a combination of decisions about options. Stakeholder: a party with a stake in the selection of alternatives. Goal: declaration of intended properties of alternatives. Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 13:12 03 December 2014 166 C.M. Clevenger et al.Preference: weight assigned to a goal by a stakeholder. Constraint: limit placed on options. Impact: alternative's estimated performance according to a specified goal. Requirement: limit placed on impacts. Objective: union of stakeholders, goals, preferences, and constraints. Value: net performance of an alternative relative to all objectives. DimensionsChallenge: a set of decisions to be made ranging from simple to complex. Strategy: a procedure to generate decisions ranging from none to advanced. Exploration: a history of decisions made ranging from misled to guided. Design Process: implementation of a strategy to a challenge resulting in an exploration. Guidance: variation in exploration produced by applying different strategies to a given challenge. SpacesObjective space: set of stakeholders, goals, preferences, and constraints. Alternative space: feasible (explored or unexplored) alternatives for a given challenge. (similar to option space, Struck et al. 2009). Impact space: analysed impacts of alternatives relative to goals, determined to be acceptable or unacceptable according to the requirements. Value space: values of the set of alternatives generated during an exploration. We use italics throughout this paper to indicate explicit reference to these definitions.

Feasibility Study on an Evidence-Based Decision-Support System for Hospital Site Selection for an Aging Population

“…We applied our framework retrospectively to evaluate whether the site selection of the hospital was sufficient to support an aging population. To systematically apply our framework, we reviewed formal decision-making processes required for construction projects and found they consist of five decision-enabling phases: the definition, formulation, evaluation, decision and iteration phases [16,33]. In the retrospective application of our framework, we focused on the theoretical phases (i.e., definition, formulation and evaluation).…”

Designing in complexity: Simulation, integration, and multidisciplinary design optimization for architecture

“…There are also research that evaluate robustness and the flexibility of the early stage design exploration process. 59 Recently, the work of Clevenger et al 60,61 emphasized the need of providing a metrics by which to assess design guidance. However, as summarized by Clevenger et al,…”

The Methodological Unboundedness of Limited Discovery Processes

“…Now we will do exactly this: by looking at a framework for providing metrics to parametric design, we will find ways to measure improvements that come from considering the non-parametric equivalents of parametric frameworks. The Design Exploration Assessment Methodology (DEAM) is a methodology for assessing the quality of guidance provided by design processes in parametric design problems (Clevenger et al, 2013;Haymaker 2011, 2012). This framework provides a number of useful definitions and metrics for assessing parametric problems with given inputs.…”