Colocated and Collaborative Design Argumentation Space

1
Co-located and Collaborative Design Argumentation
Space
Nishchal DeshpandePhD StudentDesign Systems
Group(DS)Dept.of Planning and ArchitectureEindho
ven University of Technology (TU/e)
Supervisors Prof. dr.ir. Bauke de Vries
(DS) dr.ir.J.P.Leeuwen (DDSS)Eindhoven
University of Technology (TU/e)
PatronsTU/e TNO (Applied scientific Research
Organization of The Netherlands)
DDSS 2006 - 06-07-06, Zeest
2
Introduction

• Area of Research
• Design Teams, Architectural design Domain
• Challenge
• Dynamic nature
• - Multi-disciplinary
• - Collaborative
• - Synchronous

3
Objectives

• Developing Shared Understanding
• Capturing the design process
• Effective way to represent, structure and access
  dynamic elements of a collaborative session
• design Unobtrusive interface and interaction
  techniques

4
Hypothesis

• Argumentation is the main way of discussing
  points between members of a design team
• Shared Understanding equals the construction of
  Design Rationale
• Argumentation as design rationale

5
Contribution of the Research

• Developing a Hybrid notation scheme to capture
  and visualize dynamic elements
• Developing a representation and structuring
  method to capture, link and show the knowledge,
  documents and their with arguments to team
  members
• An attempt in Conceptualizing a GUI collaborative
  interface to achieve objectives

6
Capturing arguments

• Communication and reasoning
• Keeping track of issues and eventual arguments
  and Process
• Facilitates in understanding what others have
  done
• Deliberation process and arguments with
  appropriate labels

7
Roots of Argumentation
A seminal paper A vision A conceptual
framework for augmentation of mans
intellect (concept structure -
Englebart) Representational form TBL (Toulmin
Based Logic -Toulmin) QOC (Question, Option,
Criterion (MacLean) IBIS (Issue Based
Information Systems (Rittel)
8
drawbacks

• Not intended for multi-disciplinary collaborative
  activity
• No representation of dependent relations between
  members views
• No link between argumentative and design artifact
  construction activities
• Overall representation of the session is not
  possible, focus on single issues
• Organization of rationale elements according to
  the task at hand not supported (following the
  process)

9
Our approach

• Recognizing rationale as a collection of three
  elements
• Knowledge, arguments and design documents
• Construction of collaborative knowledge and
  creation of concept structures
• Creation of argument structures and decisions
• Design document support
• Bridging the above three

10
(contd.)

• Causal Mapping of concepts (Knowledge, concept
  structuring)
• Statements -gt Concepts -gt values --? Causal
  Mapping
• Statements are systematically challenged
  in order to expose them to viewpoints of the
  other sides and the structure of the process
  becomes a following process
• (Rittel)
• Advantages
• Many collaborative situations are best
  understood in cause to effect relation
• Advantage of upgrading to decision Networks
• Adapted Ibis structure (argument construction)
• Advantages
• Generic and seems promising

11
Framework
Each Element is an Object that holds Information
about Self i Information about Relations
CDAS Framework
12
The space
Visualization and communication spaces
Architecture
Interaction spaces
13
Interaction SpaceMembers Space
Interface sketch of Interaction Space
14

• Knowledge Space
• Knowledge construction

A Group of Statements
A concept
A concept
A concept
A Value
15
Contd.
Knowledge and concept structure
16
Contd.
Knowledge Evaluation
Generating and incorporating cases
Screen shot of the Network - Netica(Norsys
sofware)
17
Argument SpaceArgument construction
Argument Structure
18

• Argument Structure

Sketch of Argument Space
19
Design Document Space
Browse and organize Session documents Evidence/Su
pport Annotation/edit
20
Initial test
2 Sittings Traditional Brainstorming
Proposed causal mapping gt Wizard-of-oz
Relatedness rating of Concepts (Langan-Fox)
Result of initial test (knowledge construction)
21

• Conclusions
• Work in progress
• New Hybrid structuring approach to combine all
  rationale elements
• Three spaces defined

• To fully take advantage of DNs,find ways to
  minimize the existing gap
• between informal knowledge construction methods
  and formal DN
• construction

• Positive feeling on conceptual schema

Skeptical on collaborative interface and
interaction

• Future Work
• Continuation of prototype implementation
• Focus on controlled experiment design
• Analysis of Arguments
• Further study on new interaction
  techniques/tools

22
Thank you.