Gane, V (2011) Design scenarios methodology: enabling requirements-driven design spaces. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
During the conceptual design process, the building shape, orientation, materials and other major properties are established, all of which have a substantial impact on multi-aspect performance. In this process, multidisciplinary teams define project objectives, create various alternatives, and try to understand their impacts and value. With non-parametric Computer Aided Design (CAD) methods designers produce and analyze as few as three alternatives, whereas with parametric CAD -- they can generate thousands. However, with current parametric methods, CAD experts lack a comprehensive method to build and analyze multi-objective parametric models. Therefore the resulting models do not effectively encapsulate multi-objective value measures. This research introduces the Design Scenarios Methodology (DS), which builds on research from Systems Engineering, Process Modeling, and Parametric Modeling. With DS, Enablers use Methods to create Elements using five interconnected models to define (1) project stakeholders and their objectives, (2) designer logic used to address objectives, (3) the connection between designer logic and computable models to generate alternatives, (4) the predicted impact and (5) value of the generated alternatives. I implemented DS as a web-based software prototype and tested it on an industry project. The results provide evidence that the DS method provides CAD experts with well-defined logic and parameters for addressing objectives and the process enables creating parametric alternatives with clear multi-objective values that potentially provide clients with better building designs. This thesis lays the foundation for future research on automating the design alternative generation and analyses processes by leveraging such well established methods as Multi-Disciplinary Optimization.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Fischer, M; Haymaker, J; Bazjanac, V and Cutkosky, M R |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | multi-disciplinary; optimization; systems engineering; building design; client; designer; project stakeholder; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | modelling, designer, systems engineering, building design, conceptual design, project stakeholder, evidence, computer aided design, methodology, prototype, multidisciplinary team, process modelling |
| Subjects: | design practice, research methods, sociology, systems engineering, profession, computational design, evaluation and assessment methods, design analysis, modelling and simulation, architectural design, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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