Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T10:23:02.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovative design systems: where are we, and where do we go from here? Part II: Design by exploration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

D. Navin Chandra
D. Navin Chandra
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Designing is a skill central to many human tasks. Designers are constantly producing newer and better artifacts, generating innovative solutions to problems in our world. This article looks at innovation and research that is aimed at developing theories and methodologies for innovative design. We view design as a process of association and exploration. These two approaches are fundamental to innovation. The aim of exploration is to generate a large variety of design alternatives by breaking away from the norms, by looking in unlikely places, and by relaxing binding constraints. Exploration exposes possibilities that would not normally have been considered, possibilities that may serendipitously lead to innovative solutions. Association, on the other hand, attempts to exploit previous design experiences in a new design context. This is done by recognizing useful analogies that can help in synthesizing parts of a design, recognizing unforeseen problems, and discovering opportunities. This article is the second part of a two-part paper that presents and discusses a variety of association and exploration methods. This part examines exploration techniques, some of which have been used in actual design systems, and others that point to the solution of some open questions in design research. We develop these ideas by examining connections between design research and other disciplines such as artificial intelligence, evolutionary epistemology, and the automated discovery literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 345 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addanki, S and Davis, ES, 1985. “A representation for complex domains”. In Proc. 9th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Blum, RL, 1982. “Discovery and representation of causal relationships from a large time-oriented, clinical database: The RX project”. In: Lindberg, DAB (ed.), Medical Informatics, Volume 19. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Buchanan, BG and Fiegenbaum, EA, 1978. “Dendral and Meta-Dendral: Their application dimension”. Artificial Intelligence 11 (1) 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagan, J, 1990. Innovative Design of mechanical structures from first principles. PhD thesis, Univ. of California.Google Scholar
Cheyayeb, F, 1987. A framework for engineering knowledge representation and problem solving. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Coyne, RE and Subrahmanian, E., 1991. “Computer supported creative design: a pragmatic approach”. In: Gero, J and Mahler, M (eds.), Modeling Creativity and Knowledge Based Design. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coyne, RD, Rosenman, MA, Radford, AD, Balachandaran, M and Gero, JS, 1989. Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Darwin, C, 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray.Google Scholar
Dyer, MG, Flowers, M and Hodges, J, 1986. “EDISON: An Engineering Design Invention System Operating Naively”. In: Proc. 1st Int. Conference on Applications of AI to Engineering.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U, Coyne, R, Glavin, T, Hung, H and Rychener, M, 1989. A generative expert system for the design of building layouts EDRC 48–15-89. Technical Report, Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Grefenstette, JJ, 1987. Genetic Algorithms and their Applications: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms.Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Koestler, A, 1964. The Act of Creation. McMillan.Google Scholar
Langley, P, Simon, HA, Bradshaw, GL and Zytkow, JM, 1987. Scientific Discovery—Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenat, DB, 1976. AM: An artificial intelligence approach to discovery in mathematics as heuristic search. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Lenat, DB, 1983. “EURISKO: a program that learns new heuristics and domain concepts, The nature of Heuristics III: program design and results”. Artificial Intelligence 21 (1,2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenat, DB, 1984. “Why AM and EURISKO appear to work”. Artificial Intelligence 24 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, ET, 1987. Daydreaming and computation: a computer model of everyday creativity, learning, and emotions in the human stream of thought. PhD thesis, Univ. of California.Google Scholar
Murthy, S and Addanki, S, 1987. “PROMPT: An innovative design tool”. In: Proc 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 637–642.Google Scholar
Navin chandra, D, 1987. Exploring for innovative designs by relaxing criteria and reasoning from precedent-based knowledge. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Navin chandra, D, 1991. Exploration and Innovation in Design: Towards a Computational Model. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G and Beitz, W, 1984. Engineering Design. The Design Council, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Papalambros, P and Wilde, D, 1988. Principles OF Optimal Design. CUP.Google Scholar
Popper, K, 1965. Conjectures and Refutations; The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Quillian, RM, 1968. “Semantic memory”. In: Minsky, M (ed.), Semantic Information Processing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, H, 1857. “Progress: its law and cause”. Westminster Review.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S, 1967. “The evolutionary development of natural science”. American Scientist 57.Google Scholar
Walker, MG, 1987. “How feasible is automated discovery”. IEEE Expert 69–82, Spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar