DDSS 2006 - 06-07-06, Zeest

Nishchal DeshpandePhD Student

Design Systems Group(DS)Dept.of Planning and Architecture

Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)

Supervisors:Prof. dr.ir. Bauke de Vries (DS)

dr.ir.J.P.Leeuwen (DDSS)Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)

PatronsTU/e

TNO (Applied scientific Research Organization of The Netherlands)

Co-located and Collaborative Design Argumentation Space

Introduction

• Area of Research Design Teams, Architectural design Domain

• Challenge Dynamic nature - Multi-disciplinary - Collaborative - Synchronous

Objectives• Developing Shared Understanding

• Capturing the design process

• Effective way to represent, structure and access dynamic elements of a collaborative session

• design Unobtrusive interface and interaction techniques

Hypothesis

• Argumentation is the main way of discussing points between members of a design team

• Shared Understanding equals the construction of Design Rationale

• Argumentation as design rationale

Contribution of the Research

• Developing a Hybrid notation scheme to capture and visualize dynamic elements

• Developing a representation and structuring method to capture, link and show the knowledge, documents and their with arguments to team members

• An attempt in Conceptualizing a GUI collaborative interface to achieve objectives

Capturing arguments

• Communication and reasoning

• Keeping track of issues and eventual arguments and Process

• Facilitates in understanding what others have done

Deliberation process and arguments with appropriate labels

Roots of Argumentation

A seminal paper – A vision

A conceptual framework for augmentation of man’s intellect(‘concept structure’ - Englebart)

Representational form

TBL (Toulmin Based Logic -Toulmin)

QOC (Question, Option, Criterion – (MacLean) IBIS (Issue Based Information Systems – (Rittel)

Fact So (Probably) Conclusion

Warrant Rebuttal

because

Backing

Question

Option

Option

Criteria

Criteria

Criteria

drawbacks

• Not intended for multi-disciplinary collaborative activity

• No representation of dependent relations between members views

• No link between argumentative and design artifact construction activities

• Overall representation of the session is not possible, focus on single issues

• Organization of rationale elements according to the task at hand not supported (following the process)

Our approach• Recognizing rationale as a collection of three

elements Knowledge, arguments and design documents

• Construction of collaborative knowledge and creation of concept structures

• Creation of argument structures and decisions• Design document support• Bridging the above three

…(contd.)

• Causal Mapping of concepts (Knowledge, concept structuring)

Statements -> Concepts -> values -- Causal Mapping “Statements are systematically challenged in order to expose them to viewpoints of the other sides and the

structure of the process becomes a following process” (Rittel)

Advantages

Many collaborative situations are best understood in cause to effect relation

Advantage of upgrading to decision Networks

• Adapted Ibis structure (argument construction) Advantages

Generic and seems promising

Framework

CDAS Framework

Each Element is anObject that holds:

Information aboutSelf [ i ]

Information aboutRelations [+]

The spaceVisualization and communication spaces

Interaction spaces

Architecture

Interaction SpaceMember’s Space

Interface sketch of Interaction Space

Knowledge Space Knowledge construction

A Group ofStatements

A concept

A concept

A concept

A Value

…Contd.

Knowledge and concept structure

…Contd.

Knowledge Evaluation

Generating and incorporating cases

Screen shot of the Network - Netica(Norsys sofware)

Argument SpaceArgument construction

Argument Structure

•Argument Structure

Sketch of Argument Space

Browse and organizeSession documents

Evidence/Support

Annotation/edit

Design Document Space

Initial test

2 Sittings Traditional Brainstorming Proposed causal mapping –> Wizard-of-oz Relatedness rating of Concepts (Langan-Fox)

Result of initial test (knowledge construction)

Conclusions

•Work in progress•New Hybrid structuring approach to combine all rationale elements•Three spaces defined

•Positive feeling on conceptual schemaSkeptical on collaborative interface and interaction

Future Work • Continuation of prototype implementation• Focus on controlled experiment design• Analysis of Arguments

• Further study on new interaction techniques/tools

•To fully take advantage of DNs,find ways to minimize the existing gapbetween informal knowledge construction methods and formal DNconstruction

Thank you.