0
Research Papers

Problem Map: An Ontological Framework for a Computational Study of Problem Formulation in Engineering Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Mahmoud Dinar

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287
e-mail: mdinar@asu.edu

Andreea Danielescu

School of Computing, Informatics and
Decision Systems Engineering,
Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85821

Christopher MacLellan

Human-Computer Interaction Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15124
e-mail: cmaclell@cs.cmu.edu

Jami J. Shah

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287
e-mail: jami.shah@asu.edu

Pat Langley

Department of Computer Science,
University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019,
Auckland 1142, New Zealand
e-mail: patrick.w.langley@gmail.com

The term function was a reserved word in the ASP solver that we employed, thus fnction is used when representing predicates of functions.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING. Manuscript received September 13, 2013; final manuscript received February 16, 2015; published online April 24, 2015. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 15(3), 031007 (Sep 01, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: JCISE-13-1178; doi: 10.1115/1.4030076 History: Received September 13, 2013; Revised February 16, 2015; Online April 24, 2015

Studies of design cognition often face two challenges. One is a lack of formal cognitive models of design processes that have the appropriate granularity: fine enough to distinguish differences among individuals and coarse enough to detect patterns of similar actions. The other is the inadequacies in automating the recourse-intensive analyses of data collected from large samples of designers. To overcome these barriers, we have developed the problem map (P-maps) ontological framework. It can be used to explain design thinking through changes in state models that are represented in terms of requirements, functions, artifacts, behaviors, and issues. The different ways these entities can be combined, in addition to disjunctive relations and hierarchies, support detailed modeling and analysis of design problem formulation. A node–link representation of P-maps enables one to visualize how a designer formulates a problem or to compare how different designers formulate the same problem. Descriptive statistics and time series of entities provide more detailed comparisons. Answer set programming (ASP), a predicate logic formalism, is used to formalize and trace strategies that designers adopt. Data mining techniques (association rule and sequence mining) are used to search for patterns among large number of designers. Potential uses of P-maps are computer-assisted collection of large data sets for design research, development of a test for the problem formulation skill, and a tutoring system.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Topics: Design , Modeling
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A., 1992, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Cross, N., Dorst, K., and Roozenburg, N., 1992, “Research in Design Thinking,” Proceedings of a Workshop Meeting Held at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, May 29–31, 1991, Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., and Dorst, K., 1996, Analysing Design Activity, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Valkenburg, R., and Dorst, K., 1998, “The Reflective Practice of Design Teams,” Des. Stud., 19(3), pp. 249–271. [CrossRef]
Coyne, R., 2005, “Wicked Problems Revisited,” Des. Stud., 26(1), pp. 5–17. [CrossRef]
Dorst, K., and Cross, N., 2001, “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem–Solution,” Des. Stud., 22(5), pp. 425–437. [CrossRef]
Maclellan, C. J., Langley, P., Shah, J. J., and Dinar, M., 2013, “A Computational Aid for Problem Formulation in Early Conceptual Design,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 13(3), p. 031005. [CrossRef]
Thomas, J. C., and Carroll, J. M., 1979, “The Psychological Study of Design,” Des. Stud., 1(1), pp. 5–11. [CrossRef]
Cross, N., and Cross, A. C., 1998, “Expertise in Engineering Design,” Res. Eng. Des., 10(3), pp. 141–149. [CrossRef]
Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., and Nachtmann, H. L., 1999, “A Comparison of Freshman and Senior Engineering Design Processes,” Des. Stud., 20(2), pp. 131–152. [CrossRef]
Eisentraut, R., 1999, “Styles of Problem Solving and Their Influence on the Design Process,” Des. Stud., 20(5), pp. 431–437. [CrossRef]
Harfield, S., 2007, “On Design ‘Problematization’: Theorising Differences in Designed Outcomes,” Des. Stud., 28(2), pp. 159–173. [CrossRef]
Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C., and Morley, N. J., 2004, “Spontaneous Analogising in Engineering Design: A Comparative Analysis of Experts and Novices,” Des. Stud., 25(5), pp. 495–508. [CrossRef]
Ho, C., 2001, “Some Phenomena of Problem Decomposition Strategy for Design Thinking: Differences Between Novices and Experts,” Des. Stud., 22(1), pp. 27–45. [CrossRef]
Kruger, C., and Cross, N., 2006, “Solution Driven Versus Problem Driven Design: Strategies and Outcomes,” Des. Stud., 27(5), pp. 527–548. [CrossRef]
Gero, J. S., and Mc Neill, T., 1998, “An Approach to the Analysis of Design Protocols,” Des. Stud., 19(1), pp. 21–61. [CrossRef]
Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1996, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, London.
Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., and Wood, K. L., 2002, “A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts,” Res. Eng. Des., 13(2), pp. 65–82. [CrossRef]
Maher, M. L., Poon, J., and Boulanger, S., 1996, “Formalising Design Exploration as Co-Evolution: A Combined Gene Approach,” Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.2 Workshop on Formal Design Methods for Computer-Aided Design, J. S.Gero, and F.Sudweeks, eds., June, Springer, pp. 3–30.
Goldschmidt, G., 1997, “Capturing Indeterminism: Representation in the Design Problem Space,” Des. Stud., 18(4), pp. 441–455. [CrossRef]
Goldschmidt, G., and Tatsa, D., 2005, “How Good are Good Ideas? Correlates of Design Creativity,” Des. Stud., 26(6), pp. 593–611. [CrossRef]
Goel, V., and Pirolli, P., 1992, “The Structure of Design Problem Spaces,” Cogn. Sci., 16(3), pp. 395–429. [CrossRef]
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A., 1972, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Gero, J. S., 1990, “Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design,” AI Mag., 11(4), pp. 26–36. [CrossRef]
Pourmohamadi, M., and Gero, J. S., 2011, “LINKOgrapher: An Analysis Tool to Study Design Protocols Based on FBS Coding,” International Conference on Engineering Design, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1–10.
Anthony, L., Regli, W. C., John, J. E., and Lombeyda, S. V., 2001, “An Approach to Capturing Structure, Behavior, and Function of Artifacts in Computer-Aided Design,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 1(2), pp. 186–192. [CrossRef]
Gero, J. S., and Kannengiesser, U., 2004, “The Situated Function-Behaviour-Structure Framework,” Des. Stud., 25(4), pp. 373–391. [CrossRef]
Gero, J. S., and Kannengiesser, U., 2007, “Locating Creativity in a Framework of Designing for Innovation,” Trends in Computer Aided Innovation, N.León-Rovira, ed., Springer, Boston, pp. 57–66. [CrossRef]
Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., and Vattam, S., 2009, “Structure, Behavior and Function of Complex Systems: The Structure, Behavior, and Function Modeling Language,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 23(1), pp. 23–35. [CrossRef]
Wölkl, S., and Shea, K., 2009, “A Computational Product Model for Conceptual Design Using SysML,” ASME Paper No. DETC2009-87239. [CrossRef]
Boden, M. A., 2004, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Routledge, London/New York.
Novak, J. D., and Gowin, D. B., 1984, Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University, New York. [CrossRef]
Novak, J. D., and Cañas, A. J., 2008, “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them,” Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008.
Quillian, R., 1966, “Semantic Memory,” Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, PA.
Lehmann, F., 1992, “Semantic Networks,” Comput. Math. Appl., 23(2–5), pp. 1–50. [CrossRef]
Dinar, M., Shah, J. J., Langley, P., Campana, E., and Hunt, G. R., 2011, “Towards a Formal Representation Model of Problem Formulation in Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-48396. [CrossRef]
Danielescu, A., Dinar, M., Maclellan, C. J., Shah, J. J., and Langley, P., 2012, “The Structure of Creative Design: What Problem Maps Can Tell us About Problem Formulation and Creative Designers,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70325. [CrossRef]
Gelfond, M., 2008, “Answer Sets,” Handbook of Knowledge Representation, F.van Harmelen, V.Lifschitz, B.Porter, eds., Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 285–316.
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., and Sifonis, C. M., 2004, “The Role of Specificity and Abstraction in Creative Idea Generation,” Creat. Res. J., 16(1), pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
Tan, P.-N., Steinbach, M., and Kumar, V., 2005, Introduction to Data Mining, Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston.
Shah, J. J., Millsap, R. E., Woodward, J., and Smith, S. M., 2012, “Applied Tests of Design Skills—Part 1: Divergent Thinking,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(2), p. 021005. [CrossRef]
Vanlehn, K., 2006, “The Behavior of Tutoring Systems,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., 16(3), pp. 227–265.
Cohen, J., 1960, “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., 20(1), pp. 37–46. [CrossRef]
Fleiss, J. L., 1971, “Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement Among Many Raters,” Psychol. Bull., 76(5), pp. 378–382. [CrossRef]
Gwet, K. L., 2008, “Variance Estimation of Nominal-Scale Inter-Rater Reliability With Random Selection of Raters,” Psychometrika, 73(3), pp. 407–430. [CrossRef]
Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G., 1977, “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data,” Biometrics, 33(1), pp. 159–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., and Paik, M. C., 2003, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 3rd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A part of a concept map used in formulating a design problem

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The entities and the relationships of the P-maps framework

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

P-maps states representing changes in a designer’s problem formulation through time: (a) after 4 min and (b) after 8 min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Differences in thinking about the problem; the designer on the top continuously adds requirements, functions, and artifacts, while the designer on the bottom focuses on behaviors (from Ref. [37])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of box plots of the five entities for two designers (from Ref. [37])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

A comparison of iterations among different entity types for two designers

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In