0
Research Papers

Impacts of Synthesis Reasoning on Ideation Effectiveness in Conceptual Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Ang Liu

e-mail: angliu@usc.edu

Stephen C-Y. Lu

e-mail: sclu@usc.edu
Department of Aerospace and
Mechanical Engineering,
University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA 90089

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received August 7, 2012; final manuscript received March 11, 2013; published online April 22, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Jonathan Cagan.

J. Mech. Des 135(6), 061009 (Apr 22, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1403; doi: 10.1115/1.4024086 History: Received August 07, 2012; Revised March 11, 2013

Synthesis plays a critical role in determining the ideation effectiveness in conceptual design. When synthesis is formulated as a reasoning activity, there are several fundamental reasoning principles in formal logic that can be applied to support making the “what→how” propositions. This paper introduces three such principles that define a good what→how proposition in synthesis, namely the synthetic principle, the instantiation principle, and the abduction principle. Furthermore, we present a rigorous case study that explores the impacts of these reasoning principles on the ideation effectiveness. Specifically, we conduct a correlation analysis between the count of what→how propositions that follow and fail to follow every principle with different ideation metrics. The results provide clear evidence that certain correlations exist between the reasoning activity and the ideation effectiveness in conceptual design.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Suh, N. P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, New York.
Suh, N. P., 2001, Axiomatic Design, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gero, J. S., and Kannengiesser, U., 2004, “The Situated Function-Behavior-Structure Framework,” Design Studies, 25(4), pp. 373–391. [CrossRef]
Yoshikawa, H., 1981, General Design Theory and a CAD System, Man–Machine Communication in CAD/CAM, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 35–58.
Tomiyama, T., Yoshioka, M., and Tsumaya, A., 2002, “A Knowledge Operation Model of Synthesis,” Engineering Design Synthesis: Understanding, Approaches and Tools, A.Chakrabarti, Ed., Springer, London, pp. 67–90.
Ueda, K., 2001, “Synthesis and Emergence—A Research Overview,” Artif. Intell. Eng., 15, pp. 321–327. [CrossRef]
Kikuchi, M., and Taura, T., 1999, “A General Model of Design Synthesis—An Extension of General Design Theory,” Proceedings of the International Workshop on Emergent Synthesis, Kobe, Japan, pp. 49–56.
Helms, B., Shea, K., and Hoisl, F., 2009, “A Framework for Computational Design Synthesis Based on Graph Grammars and Function Behavior Structure,” Proceeding of ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, San Diego, CA.
Yoshioka, M., and Tomiyama, T., 1999, “Toward A Reasoning Framework of Design as Synthesis,” Proceeding of ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, DETC99/DTM-8743.
Goel, A. K., 1997, “Design, Analogy and Creativity,” IEEE Expert Intell. Syst. Appl., 12(3), pp. 62–70.
Kolodner, J., 1993, Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA.
Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., and Tomiyama, T., 2001, “A General Framework for Modeling of Synthesis Integration of Theories of Synthesis,” Proceeding of the 13th International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow, pp. 307–314.
Summers, J., 2005, “Reasoning in Engineering Design,” Proceeding of ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, Long Beach, CA.
Lu, S. C-Y., and Liu, A., 2011, “Subjectivity and Objectivity in Design Decisions,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 60(1), pp. 161–164. [CrossRef]
Lu, S. C-Y., and Liu.A., 2011, “A Synthesis Decision Framework for Early-Stage Innovative Design,” Proceeding of 2011 CIRP Design Conference, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea.
Lu, S. C-Y., and Liu, A., 2012, “Abductive Reasoning for Design Synthesis,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 61(1), pp. 143–146. [CrossRef]
Papalambros, P. Y., 2008, “Design Analysis and Synthesis,” ASME J. Mech. Design, 130(3), p. 1. [CrossRef]
McKoy, F. M., Vargas, H. N., Summers, J. D., and Shah, J., 2001, “Influence of Design Representation on Effectiveness of Idea Generation,” Proceedings of ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, pp. 9–12.
Shah, J. J., Vargas, N., and Smith, S. M., 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Design Studies, 24, pp. 111–134. [CrossRef]
Chusilp, P., and Jin, Y., 2006, “Impact of Mental Iteration on Concept Generation,” ASME J. Mech. Design, 128(1), pp. 14–25. [CrossRef]
Mohan, M., Chen, Y., and Shah, J. J., 2011, “Towards a Framework for Holistic Ideation in Conceptual Design,” Proceeding of ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, Washington, DC.
Kant, I., 1781, Critique of Pure Reason, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Parkyn, G. W., 1976, “The Particular and the General, Towards a Synthesis,” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g746400357, pp. 20–26.
Xiu, L., 2007, VLSI Circuit Design Methodology Demystified: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Wiley-IEEE, New York.
Marchese, F. T., 2010, “Engineering, Science, and Design,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Meta-Engineering, pp. 140–144.
Hartenberg, R. S., and Denavit, J., 1964, Kinematic Synthesis of Linkages, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Peirce, C. S., 1958, “Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. 1–6 edited by C.Hartshorne and P.Weiss, Vols. 7 and 8 edited by A. W.Burks, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Yoshikawa, H., 1989, “Design Philosophy: The State of the Art,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 38(2), pp. 579–586. [CrossRef]
Tomiyama, T., Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., and Shimomura, Y., 2003, “Abduction for Creative Design,” Proceeding of ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Goel, A. K., Josephson, J., Fischer, O., and Sadayappan, P., 1995, “Practical Abduction: Characterization, De-composition and Distribution,” J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell.7, pp. 429–450. [CrossRef]
Lu, S. C-Y., 2009–2011, Advanced Mechanical Design, Graduate Course, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, CA.
Tomiyama, T., Gu, P., Jin, Y., Lutters, D., Kind, C., and Kimura, F., 2009, “Design Methodologies: Industrial and Educational Applications,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 58, pp. 543–565. [CrossRef]
Srnka, K. J., and Koeszegi, S.,T., 2007, “From Words to Numbers—How to Transform Rich Qualitative Data into Meaningful Quantitative Results: Guidelines and Exemplary Study,” Schmalenbach’s Bus. Rev., 59, pp. 29–57. Available at: http://www.sbr-online.de/pdfarchive/einzelne_pdf/sbr_2007_jan-029-057.pdf
Mayer, R. J., 1992, “IDEF0 Function Modeling,” A Reconstruction of the Original Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory Technical Report, AFWAL-TR-81-4023 (The IDEF0 Yellow Book), Knowledge-Based System Inc, College Station, TX.
Shah, J., Kulkarni, S., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2000, “Guidelines for Experimental Evaluation of Idea Generation Methods in Conceptual Design,” ASME J. Mech. Design, 122(4), pp. 377–384. [CrossRef]
Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1996, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 2nd ed., Springer, London.
Torrance, E. P., 1964, Role of Evaluation in Creative Thinking, Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, MN.
Jansson, D. G., and Smith, S. M., 1991, “Design Fixation,” Design Studies, 12, pp. 3–11. [CrossRef]
Kumar, V. K., Holman, E. R., and Rudegeair, P., 1991, “Creativity Styles of Freshmen Students,” J. Creative Behavior, 25(4), pp. 275–303. [CrossRef]
Candy, L., and Edmonds, E. A., 1996, “Creative Design of the Lotus Bicycle: Implications for Knowledge Support Systems Research,” Design Studies, 17(1), pp. 71–90. [CrossRef]
Schurz, G., 2008, “Patterns of Abduction,” Synthese, 164(2), pp. 201–234. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Illustration of analytic-synthetic distinction in synthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Genealogy trees for CN1 (the left) and CN2 (the right) in design project 15

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Sketching of final solution in design project 15

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A collection of final concept sketching in some design projects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Scatter plot of impacts of the abduction principle

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In