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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of engineering design 2013-03, Vol.24 (3), p.165-184 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & Francis Group, LLC 2013</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor & 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 & Francis</general><general>Taylor & 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 & 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 & 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 |