Lee, K (1994) Software options for support of three-dimensional CAD in the architectural design process: A critical evaluation by practitioners and educators. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, USA.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the integration of three dimensional (3D) CAD techniques in the architectural design process. For this purpose, the study examined the CAD-using practitioners' and educators' perceived importance levels of the generally-recognized 3D graphics features and work-support options in the different design phases. The study also attempted to examine whether different perceptions existed between practice and education with respect to the importance levels. The 3D features included in the research were wireframe, surface shading, solid modeling, 3D sketch, shadow, motion, color support, and photorealism. The work-support options were engineering support, file transfer, and networking. The levels were determined with a five-level importance scale rating ranging from 0 (NOT important) to 4 (VERY important) throughout four architectural design phases, including (1) the predesign, (2) schematic design, (3) design development, and (4) construction document phase as specified by AIA. In May, September, and December 1993, survey questionnaires were mailed out to architectural practitioners and educators. The sample size for practice was 950 CAD-using practitioners employed in large and small architectural firms in four geographically disparate regions of California, Illinois, New York, and Texas. The sample for education was 195 academic members in the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA). The data analysis showed no regional difference in the mean scores. And there were no different perceptions between practitioners in large and small firms with respects to the importance levels throughout the design phases. However, some significant statistical differences were found between practitioners and educators. Generally, educators' importance levels were higher than those of practitioners. The 3D features of wireframe, solid modeling, and 3D sketch were most important in the schematic design phase, while shading, shadow, motion, color support, and photorealism were most important in the design development phase. The work-support option of file transfer was most important in the design development phase. On the other hand, engineering support and networking were most important in the construction document phase.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Degelman, L O |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education; architectural design; computer-aided design; integration; sample size |
| Index terms: | sample size, architectural firm, option, modelling, design development, design phase, New York, survey, networking, data analysis, architectural design, shading, practitioner, questionnaire, computer aided design, integration |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, organizational analysis, design process, Geography, building design, design practice, analytical methods, data analysis and analytics, professional practice, communication, practitioner, research design and methodology, business, data collection methods, computational design |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here