Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of engineering design 2013-03, Vol.24 (3), p.165-184
Hauptverfasser: Clevenger, Caroline Murrie, Haymaker, John Riker, Ehrich, Andrew
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 184
container_issue 3
container_start_page 165
container_title Journal of engineering design
container_volume 24
creator Clevenger, Caroline Murrie
Haymaker, John Riker
Ehrich, Andrew
description 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 energy-efficient design challenges.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/09544828.2012.698256
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1323253783</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1323253783</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-8d481583e3dbbc1e30329b130342a095d76c9f8df076ad03cd1038675019263a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kL1OwzAYRS0EEqXwBgyWWFhS_BM7DgtC5VeqxADMlhs7aarELrYj6NvjKLAwMH3Lufe7OgCcY7TASKArVLI8F0QsCMJkwUtBGD8AM5xznmFBi0MwG5FsZI7BSQhbhFKOsBl4vTOhbSw0X7vOeRVbZ6EKwYTQGxthb-LGade5Zn8NowmxtQ2MGwObodXKVga6GuqpYuddZcboKTiqVRfM2c-dg_eH-7flU7Z6eXxe3q6yinIRM6FzgZmghur1usKGIkrKNU4nJyrt1QWvylroGhVcaUQrjREVvGAIl4RTRefgcupNnz-GNE72bahM1ylr3BAkpoQSRgtBE3rxB926wdu0TmIiCM8FK1mi8omqvAvBm1rufNsrv5cYydG0_DUtR9NyMp1iN1OstbXzvfp0vtMyqn0yWvtkqQ2S_tvwDauGhCs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1282648595</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Access via Taylor &amp; Francis</source><creator>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie ; Haymaker, John Riker ; Ehrich, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie ; Haymaker, John Riker ; Ehrich, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>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 energy-efficient design challenges.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0954-4828</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-1837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2012.698256</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEDSEW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>Alternating current ; Assessments ; challenge ; Combustion ; creativity ; Design engineering ; design theory ; Empirical analysis ; Energy efficiency ; Exploration ; guidance ; Methodology ; Process engineering ; Strategic planning ; Strategy</subject><ispartof>Journal of engineering design, 2013-03, Vol.24 (3), p.165-184</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2013</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd. 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-8d481583e3dbbc1e30329b130342a095d76c9f8df076ad03cd1038675019263a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-8d481583e3dbbc1e30329b130342a095d76c9f8df076ad03cd1038675019263a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09544828.2012.698256$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09544828.2012.698256$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,59647,60436</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haymaker, John Riker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehrich, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes</title><title>Journal of engineering design</title><description>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 energy-efficient design challenges.</description><subject>Alternating current</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>challenge</subject><subject>Combustion</subject><subject>creativity</subject><subject>Design engineering</subject><subject>design theory</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Energy efficiency</subject><subject>Exploration</subject><subject>guidance</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Process engineering</subject><subject>Strategic planning</subject><subject>Strategy</subject><issn>0954-4828</issn><issn>1466-1837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kL1OwzAYRS0EEqXwBgyWWFhS_BM7DgtC5VeqxADMlhs7aarELrYj6NvjKLAwMH3Lufe7OgCcY7TASKArVLI8F0QsCMJkwUtBGD8AM5xznmFBi0MwG5FsZI7BSQhbhFKOsBl4vTOhbSw0X7vOeRVbZ6EKwYTQGxthb-LGade5Zn8NowmxtQ2MGwObodXKVga6GuqpYuddZcboKTiqVRfM2c-dg_eH-7flU7Z6eXxe3q6yinIRM6FzgZmghur1usKGIkrKNU4nJyrt1QWvylroGhVcaUQrjREVvGAIl4RTRefgcupNnz-GNE72bahM1ylr3BAkpoQSRgtBE3rxB926wdu0TmIiCM8FK1mi8omqvAvBm1rufNsrv5cYydG0_DUtR9NyMp1iN1OstbXzvfp0vtMyqn0yWvtkqQ2S_tvwDauGhCs</recordid><startdate>20130301</startdate><enddate>20130301</enddate><creator>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie</creator><creator>Haymaker, John Riker</creator><creator>Ehrich, Andrew</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130301</creationdate><title>Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes</title><author>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie ; Haymaker, John Riker ; Ehrich, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-8d481583e3dbbc1e30329b130342a095d76c9f8df076ad03cd1038675019263a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Alternating current</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>challenge</topic><topic>Combustion</topic><topic>creativity</topic><topic>Design engineering</topic><topic>design theory</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Energy efficiency</topic><topic>Exploration</topic><topic>guidance</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Process engineering</topic><topic>Strategic planning</topic><topic>Strategy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haymaker, John Riker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehrich, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of engineering design</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clevenger, Caroline Murrie</au><au>Haymaker, John Riker</au><au>Ehrich, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes</atitle><jtitle>Journal of engineering design</jtitle><date>2013-03-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>165</spage><epage>184</epage><pages>165-184</pages><issn>0954-4828</issn><eissn>1466-1837</eissn><coden>JEDSEW</coden><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 energy-efficient design challenges.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/09544828.2012.698256</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0954-4828
ispartof Journal of engineering design, 2013-03, Vol.24 (3), p.165-184
issn 0954-4828
1466-1837
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1323253783
source EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Access via Taylor & Francis
subjects Alternating current
Assessments
challenge
Combustion
creativity
Design engineering
design theory
Empirical analysis
Energy efficiency
Exploration
guidance
Methodology
Process engineering
Strategic planning
Strategy
title Design exploration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of design processes
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T01%3A20%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Design%20exploration%20assessment%20methodology:%20testing%20the%20guidance%20of%20design%20processes&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20engineering%20design&rft.au=Clevenger,%20Caroline%20Murrie&rft.date=2013-03-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=165&rft.epage=184&rft.pages=165-184&rft.issn=0954-4828&rft.eissn=1466-1837&rft.coden=JEDSEW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/09544828.2012.698256&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E1323253783%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1282648595&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true