Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
1992 Volume 7
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association

More Information
  • 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 paper 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 hâve 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 donc by recognizing useful analogies that can help in synthesizing parts of a design, recognizing unforeseen problems, and discovering opportunities. This paper is the first part of a two-part paper that presents and discusses a variety of association and exploration methods. This part examines association-based 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 cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, the history of science, and the creativity literature.
  • 加载中
  • Bourne D, Navin chandra D and Ramaswamy R, 1989. “Relative tolerances and kinematic behaviour” In: Gero J, editer, Al in Design, Computational Mechanics.

    Google Scholar

    Brown DC, and Chandrasekaran B, 1984. “Expert Systems for a class of mechanical design activity” In: Proceedings of IFIP W. G. 5.2 Working Conference on Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design,Budapest, Hungary.

    Google Scholar

    Brown DC and Chandrasekaran B, 1986. “Expert Systems for a class of mechanical design activity” In: D Sriram and B Adey, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Al applications in Engineering,Computational Mechanics.

    Google Scholar

    Carbonnell JG, 1983. “Learning by analogy: Formulating and generalizing plans from past experience” In: Michalski RS, Carbonell JG and Mitchell TM, editors, Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Tioga Press.

    Google Scholar

    Carbonnell JG, 1983b. “Deprivational analogy and its role in problem solving” In: Proceedings of AAAI-83, pp 64–69.

    Google Scholar

    Carbonnell JG, 1986. “Deprivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition” In: Michalski RS, Carbonell JG and Mitchell TM, editors, Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach Vol 2, Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar

    Dixon JR, 1985. Design Engineering: Inventiveness, Analysis and Decision MakingMcGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar

    Dixon JR, 1988. “Designing with features: Building manufacturing knowledge into more intelligent CAD Systems” In: Proceedings of ASME Manufacturing lnternational-88Atlanta GA, 04 17–20.

    Google Scholar

    Dyer MG, Flowers M and Hodges J, 1986. “EDISON: An Engineering Design Invention System Operating Naively” In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Applications of Al to Engineering.

    Google Scholar

    Evans TG. “A program for the solution of a class of geometric analogy intelligence test questions” In: Minsky M, editor, Semantic Information ProcessingMIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Faltings B, 1989. “Qualitative kinematics in mechanisms” Artificial Intelligence (accepted).

    Google Scholar

    Fikes RE, 1969. REF-ARF: A System For Solving Problems Related as Procedures Technical Report, Technical Note 14, Stanford Research Institute.

    Google Scholar

    Fikes RE and Nilsson NJ, 1971. “STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving” Artificial Intelligence2189–208.

    Google Scholar

    Fox MS, 1983. Constraint Directed Search: A case of Job Shop Scheduling PhD thesis, Carnegic-Mellon University.

    Google Scholar

    Gentner D, 1983. “Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy” Cognitive Science 7.

    Google Scholar

    Gentner D and Landers R, 1985. “Analogical reminding: A good match is hard to find” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Mon and Cybernetics pp 607–613, Tucson, AZ.

    Google Scholar

    Gentner D and Toupin C, 1986. “Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy” Cognitive Science10277–300.

    Google Scholar

    Gero J, 1987. Seminar at Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar

    Gero J, 1990. “Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design” AI Magazine11(4) 26–36.

    Google Scholar

    Goel AK, 1989. Integration of Case-Based Reasoning and Model-Based Reasoning for Adaptive Design Problem Solving PhD thesis, Ohio State University

    Google Scholar

    Goel AK, Kolodner JL, Pearce M, Billington R and Zimring C, 1991. “Towards a case-based tool for aiding conceptual design problem solving” In: Proceedings of the 1991 DARPA workshop on Case Based Reasoning, pp 109–120.

    Google Scholar

    Gordon WJ, 1961. Synectics: The development of Creative CapacityHarper & Row.

    Google Scholar

    Gross MD, 1986, Design as Exploring Constraints PhD thesis, MIT.

    Google Scholar

    Guilford JP, 1959. “Creativity” American Psychologist (5) 444–454.

    Google Scholar

    Hammond KJ, 1986. “CHEF: A model of case-based planning” In: Proceedings of AAAI-86 pp 267–271, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar

    Holland JH, 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial SystemsUniversity of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar

    Holyoak KJ and Koh K, 1987. “Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer” Memory and Cognition15332–340.

    Google Scholar

    Huhns MH, and Acosta RD, 1987. Argo: An Analogical Reasoning System for Solving Design Problems, Technical Report AI/CAD-092–87, Microelectronic and Computer Technology Corporation.

    Google Scholar

    Jevons WS, 1892. The Principles of ScienceMcMillan.

    Google Scholar

    Joskowicz L and Addanki S, 1988. “From kinematics to shape: An approach to innovative design”, In: Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence pp. 347–352.

    Google Scholar

    Kass AM and Leake DB, 1988. “Case-based reasoning applied to constructing explanations” In Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Case-based Reasoning pp 190–208.

    Google Scholar

    Kedar-Cabelli ST, 1985a. Analogy—From a unified perspective Technical Report ML-TR-3, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar

    Kedar-Cabelli ST, 1985b. “Purpose-directed analogy” In: Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference.

    Google Scholar

    Kedar-Cabelli ST, 1985c. Analogy—From a unified perspective Technical Report ML-TR-3, Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar

    Kling RE, 1971. “A paradigm for reasoning by analogy” Artificial Intelligence2(2).

    Google Scholar

    Koestler A, 1984. The act of creationMcMillan.

    Google Scholar

    Kolodner JL, 1980. Retrieval and organizational strategies in conceptual memory: A computer model PhD thesis, Yale University.

    Google Scholar

    Kolodner JL, 1981. “Organization and retrieval in a conceptual memory for events” In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar

    Kolodner JL, 1984. Retrieval and Organizational Strategies in Conceptual Memory: A Computer ModelLawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar

    Kolodner JL, 1988. “Retrieving events from a case memory: A parallel implementation” In: Proceedings of the 1988 Case-Based Reasoning Workshop pp 233–249, Clearwater, FL.

    Google Scholar

    Kota S, 1990. “A qualitative matrix representation scheme for the conceptual design of mechanisms” In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Automation Conference (21st Biannual ASME Mechanisms Conference).

    Google Scholar

    Kuhn TS, 1970. The structure of scientific revolutionsUniversity of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar

    Lozano-Perez T, 1983. “Spatial planning: A configuration space approach” IEEE Transactions on Computers C-32(2).

    Google Scholar

    Maher ML, 1984. HI-RISE: An Expert System For The Preliminary Structural Design of High Rise Buildings PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University.

    Google Scholar

    Maher ML and Zhao F, 1986. Using experience to plan the synthesis of new designs Technical Report, Engineering Design Research Center, CMU.

    Google Scholar

    Maher ML and Zhao F, 1987. “Using experience to plan the synthesis of new designs” In: Gero JS, editer, Expert Systems in Computer-Aided DesignNorth-Holland.

    Google Scholar

    Minski M, 1982. Learning Meaning Technical Report, M.I.T.

    Google Scholar

    Mitchell TM, Keller RM and Kedar-Cabelli ST, 1986, “Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view” Machine Learning1(1).

    Google Scholar

    Mittal S, Dym C and Morjaria M, 1985. “PRIDE: An expert System for the design of paper handling Systems” In: Dym C, editor, Applications of Knowledge-Based Systems to Engineering Analysis and Design pp 99–116, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

    Google Scholar

    Mostow J, 1985. “Toward better models of the design process” The AI Magazine Spring.

    Google Scholar

    Mostow J, 1986. “Why are design derivations hard to replay?” In: Mitchell TM, Carbonell JG and Michalski RS, editors, Machine Learning—A guide to carrent researchKluwer.

    Google Scholar

    Murthy SS and Addanki S, 1987. “PROMPT: An innovative design tool” Fn: Proceedings of the sixth national conference on artificial intelligence pp 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, 1988. “Case-based reasoning in CYCLOPS, a design problem solver” In: Kolodner J, editor, Proceedings ofthe DARPA Workshop on Case-based Reasoning pp 286–301, Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar

    Navin chandra D, 1991. Exploration and Innovation in Design: Towards a Computational ModelSpringer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Navin chandra D, Sriram D and Kedar-Cabelli ST, 1987. “On the role of analogy in engineering design: An overview” In: D Sriram and B Adey, editor, AI in Engineering, Proceedings of the 2nd International ConferenceComputational Mechanics.

    Google Scholar

    Navin chandra D, Sycara K and Narasimhan S, 1991a. “A transformational approach to case based synthesis” AI EDAM5(1).

    Google Scholar

    Navin chandra D, Sycara KP and Narasimhan S, 1991b. “Behavioural synthesis in CADET, A case-based design tool” In: Proceedings ofthe Seventh Conference on Artificial Intelligence ApplicationsMiami, FL.

    Google Scholar

    Newell A and Simon HA, 1972. Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar

    Nilsson NJ, 1980. Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Tioga Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar

    Osborn AF, 1953. Applied ImaginationCharles Scribner's Sons.

    Google Scholar

    Pahl G and Beitz W, 1984. Engineering Design, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Prieditis A, editor, 1988. AnalogicaPitman.

    Google Scholar

    Rickards T, 1974. Problem Solving through Creative AnalysisWiley.

    Google Scholar

    Riesbeck CK and Schank R, 1989. Inside Case-Based ReasoningLawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar

    Rosenman M and Gero JS, 1989. “Creativity in design using a prototype approach” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Creative Design pp 207–232.

    Google Scholar

    Rossman J, 1931. The Psychology ofthe InventerInventor's Publishing.

    Google Scholar

    Schank RC, 1982. Dynamic Memory: A Theory of reminding and learning in computers and peopleCambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Schank RC, 1986. Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and CreativelyLawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar

    Schank R, 1988. The Creative Attitude: Learning to ask and answer the right questionsErlbaum.

    Google Scholar

    Schank RC and Abelson RP, 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and UnderstandingLawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar

    Sriram D, 1986. Knowledge-Based Approaches for Structural Design PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar

    Stefik M, 1980. Planning with Constraints PhD thesis, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar

    Steinberg L, Langrana N, Mitchell T, Mostow J and Tong C, 1986. A Domain Independent Model of Knowledge-Based Design Technical Report AI/VLSI Project Working Paper No. 33, Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar

    Sussman GJ and Steele GL, 1980. “CONSTRAINTS—A language for expressing almost hierarchical constraints” Artificial Intelligence (14) 1–39.

    Google Scholar

    Sycara K, 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods PhD thesis, School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar

    Sycara K and Navin chandra D, 1989a. “Representing and indexing design cases” In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of AI and Expert SystemsTullahomK, TN.

    Google Scholar

    Sycara D and Navin chandra D, 1989b. “Integrating case-based reasoning and qualitative reasoning in design” In: Gero J, editor, AI in DesignComputational Mechanics.

    Google Scholar

    Sycara K and Navin chandra D, 1991. “Index transformation techniques for facilitating creative use of multiple cases” In: Proceedings of the twelth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar

    Tong C, 1986a. Knowledge-Based Circuit Design PhD thesis, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar

    Tong C, 1986b. A framework for organizing and evaluating knowledge-based models of the design process Technical Report AI/VLSI Project Working Paper No. 21, Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar

    Tversky A, 1977. “Features of similarity” Psychology Review84(4), 07.

    Google Scholar

    Ullman DG and Dietterich TA, 1987. “Mechanical design methodology: Implications on future developments of computer-aided design and knowledge-based Systems” Engineering with Computers221–29.

    Google Scholar

    Wallas G, 1926. The Art of Thought Harcourt.

    Google Scholar

    Williams B, 1989. Invention from First Principles via Topologies of Interaction PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar

    Williams B, 1990. “Interaction-based invention: Designing novel devices from first principles” In: Proceedings of AAAI-90 pp 349–356, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar

    Winston PH, 1980. “Learning and reasoning by analogy” Communications of the ACM23(12), 12.

    Google Scholar

    Winston PH, 1981. Learning New Principles from Precedents and Exercises: The Details Technical Report AI Lab Memo 632, MIT AI Lab.

    Google Scholar

    Winston PH, Binford TO, Katz B and Lowry M, 1983. “Learning physical descriptions from functional definitions, examples and precedents” In: Proceedings of AAAI-8308.

    Google Scholar

    Woodbury RF, 1989. “Design Genes” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Creative Design pp 133–154

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    D. Navin Chandra. 1992. Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 7:6342 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006342
    D. Navin Chandra. 1992. Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 7:6342 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006342
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(14) PDF downloads(120)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association

  • Published online: 07 July 2009
The Knowledge Engineering Review  7,  Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900006342  (1992)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: 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 paper 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 hâve 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 donc by recognizing useful analogies that can help in synthesizing parts of a design, recognizing unforeseen problems, and discovering opportunities. This paper is the first part of a two-part paper that presents and discusses a variety of association and exploration methods. This part examines association-based 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 cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, the history of science, and the creativity literature.

    HTML

    Rights and permissions
    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19921992Cambridge University Press
References (90)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    D. Navin Chandra. 1992. Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 7:6342 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006342
    D. Navin Chandra. 1992. Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 7:6342 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900006342
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return