0
Research Papers: Analogy Evaluation

The Four-Box Method: Problem Formulation and Analogy Evaluation in Biologically Inspired Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael Helms

School of Interactive Computing,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
85 Fifth Street NW,
Atlanta, GA 30308
e-mail: mhelms3@cc.gatech.edu

Ashok K. Goel

School of Interactive Computing,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
85 Fifth Street NW,
Atlanta, GA 30308
e-mail: goel@cc.gatech.edu

Note, during training we sometimes refer to the four-box representation as a structured representation for X, where X is either a design problem or an existing solution.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 24, 2014; final manuscript received July 30, 2014; published online October 8, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Robert B. Stone.

J. Mech. Des 136(11), 111106 (Oct 08, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1082; doi: 10.1115/1.4028172 History: Received January 24, 2014; Revised July 30, 2014

Searching for biological analogies appropriate for design problems is a core process of biologically inspired design (BID). Through in situ observations of student BIDs, we discovered that student designers struggle with two issues that bookend the problem of search: design problem formulation, which generates the set of conditions to be used for search; and evaluation of the appropriateness of the retrieved analogies, which depends both on problem formulation and the retrieved analogy. We describe a method for problem formulation and analogy evaluation in BID that we call the Four-Box method. We show that the Four-Box method can be rapidly and accurately used by designers for both problem formulation and analogy evaluation, and that designers find the method valuable for the intended tasks.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Design , Students
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., and Nataraju, B., 2005, “A Functional Representation for Aiding Biomimetic and Artificial Inspiration of New Ideas,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 19, pp. 113–132. [CrossRef]
Chiu, I., and Shu, L. H., 2007, “Biomimetic Design Through Natural Language Analysis to Facilitate Cross-Domain Information Retrieval,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 21, pp. 45–59. [CrossRef]
Nagel, J., Stone, R., and McAdams, D., 2010, “An Engineering-to-Biology Thesaurus for Engineering Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2010-28233, Montreal, Canada. [CrossRef]
Vattam, S., and Goel, A., 2011, “Foraging for Inspiration: Understanding and Supporting the Information Seeking Practices of Biologically Inspired Designers,” Proceedings of ASME IDETC Conference on Design Theory and Methods, Washington, DC, Aug. 28–31.
Vincent, J. F. V., Bogatyreva, O. A., Bogatyrev, N. R., Bowyer, A., and Pahl, A.-K., 2006, “Biomimetics: Its Practice and Theory,” J. R. Soc. Interface, 3(9), pp. 471–482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Helms, M., Vattam, S., and Goel, A., 2009, “Biologically Inspired Design: Process and Products,” Des. Stud., 30(5), pp. 606–622. [CrossRef]
Wirth, N., 1971, “Program Development by Stepwise Refinement,” Commun. ACM, 14(4), pp. 221–227. [CrossRef]
Dahl, O., Dykstra, E., and Hoare, C., 1972, Structured Programming, Academic, New York.
Roozenburg, N., and Eekels, J., 1995, Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, J.-H., 2007, Engineering Design (K. Wallace and L. Blessing, Translators), The Design Council, London, UK.
Yen, J., Weissburg, M., Helms, M., and Goel, A., 2011, “Biologically Inspired Design: A Tool for Interdisciplinary Education,” Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation, Y.Bar-Cohen, ed., Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Yen, J., Helms, M., Goel, A., Tovey, C., and Weissburg, M., 2013, “Adaptive Evolution of Teaching Practices in Biologically Inspired Design,” Biologically Inspired Design: Computational Methods and Tools, A.Goel, D.McAdams, and R.Stone, eds., Springer, London, UK.
Chandrasekaran, B., 1990, “Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis,” AI Mag., 11(4), p. 59.
Darke, J., 1979, “The Primary Generator and the Design Process,” Des. Stud., 1(1), pp. 36–44. [CrossRef]
Dorst, K., 2003, “The Problem of Design Problems,” Expertise in Design, N.Cross and E.Edmonds, eds., Creativity and Cognition Studio Press, Sydney, pp. 135–147.
Dorst, K., and Cross, N., 2001, “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem-Solution,” Des. Stud., 22(5), pp. 425–437. [CrossRef]
Gero, J., 1996, “Creativity, Emergence and Evolution in Design,” Knowl.-Based Syst., 9(7), pp. 435–448. [CrossRef]
Goel, V., and Pirolli, P., 1992, “The Structure of Design Problem Spaces,” Cogn. Sci., 16, pp. 395–429. [CrossRef]
Helms, M., and Goel, A., 2012, “Analogical Problem Evolution in Biologically Inspired Design,” Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, TX, June 7–9.
Ho, C.-H., 2001, “Some Phenomena of Problem Decomposition Strategy for Design Thinking: Differences Between Novices and Experts,” Des. Stud., 22(1), pp. 27–45. [CrossRef]
Liikkanen, L., and Perttula, M., 2008, “Exploring Problem Decomposition in Conceptual Design Among Novice Designers,” Des. Stud., 30(1), pp. 38–59. [CrossRef]
Lloyd, P., and Scott, P., 1994, “Discovering the Design Problem,” Des. Stud., 15(2), pp. 125–140. [CrossRef]
Maher, M. L., Poon, J., and Boulanger, S., 1996, “Formalising Design Exploration as Co-Evolution: A Combined Gene Approach,” Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD, J. S.Gero and F.Sudweeks, eds., Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Restrepo, J., and Christiaans, H., 2003, “Problem Structuring and Information Access in Design,” Proceedings of the Expertise in Design: Design Thinking Research Symposium, N. Cross, and E. Edmonds (Eds.), Sydney Australia, pp. 149–162.
Schön, D. A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner, Temple-Smith, London, UK.
Gero, J., 1993, “Towards a Model of Exploration in Computer-Aided Design,” Formal Design Methods for Computer-Aided Design, J. S.Gero and N.Tyugu, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Simon, H., 1973, “The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems,” Artif. Intell., 4(3–4), pp. 181–201. [CrossRef]
Gero, J., and Kannengiesser, U., 2004, “The Situated Function-Behaviour-Structure Framework,” Des. Stud., 25(4), pp. 373–391. [CrossRef]
Goel, A., 1992, “Representation of Design Functions in Experience-Based Design,” Intelligent Computer Aided Design, D.Brown, M.Waldron, and H.Yoshikawa, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 283–308.
Goel, A., 2013, “A 30-Year Case Study and 15 Principles: Implications of an Artificial Intelligence Methodology for Functional Modeling,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 27, pp. 203–215.
Goel, A., and Bhatta, S., 2004, “Use of Design Patterns in Analogy-Based Design,” Adv. Eng. Inf., 18(2), pp. 85–94. [CrossRef]
Sarkar, P., and Chakrabarti, A., 2008, “The Effect of Representation of Triggers on Design Outcomes,” Artif. Intell. Des., Anal. Manuf., 22(2), pp. 101–116. [CrossRef]
Helms, M., and Goel, A., 2013, “Grounded Knowledge Representations for Biologically Inspired Design,” DS 75-6: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design Society, Seoul, Korea, Aug. 19–22, Vol. 6, pp. 351–360.
Dinar, M., Shah, J., Hunt, G., Campana, E., and Langley, P., 2011, “Towards a Formal Representation Model of Problem Formulation in Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-48396. [CrossRef]
Forbus, K., Gentner, D., and Law, K., 1995, “MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval,” Cogn. Sci., 19(2), pp. 141–205. [CrossRef]
Gentner, D., 1983, “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy,” Cogn. Sci., 7(2), pp. 155–170. [CrossRef]
Holyoak, K., and Thagard, P., 1995, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Thagard, P., Holyoak, K. J., Nelson, G., and Gochfeld, D., 1990, “Analog Retrieval by Constraint Satisfaction,” Artif. Intell., 46, pp. 259–310. [CrossRef]
Yaner, P., and Goel, A., 2006, “Visual Analogy: Viewing Retrieval and Mapping as Constraint Satisfaction,” J. Appl. Intell., 25(1), pp. 91–105. [CrossRef]
Goel, A., Rugaber, S., and Vattam, S., 2009, “Structure, Behavior, and Function of Complex Systems: The Structure, Behavior, and Function Modeling Language,” Artif. Intell. Des., Anal. Manuf., 23(1), pp. 23–35. [CrossRef]
Goel, A. K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., and Helms, M., 2012, “Cognitive, Collaborative, Conceptual and Creative—Four Characteristics of the Next Generation of Knowledge-Based CAD Systems: A Study in Biologically Inspired Design,” Comput.-Aided Des., 44(10), pp. 879–900. [CrossRef]
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L., 2009, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Transaction Books, Piscataway, NJ.
Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J., 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research, Vol. 15, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Lamp, J., and Milton, S., 2007, “Grounded Theory as Foundations for Methods in Applied Ontology,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in Qualitative Research (QualIT), Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, Nov. 18–20.
Helms, M., 2013, “Analogical Problem Evolution in Biologically Inspired Design,” Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The SR.BID problem schema, including main conceptual categories represented as boxes and the relationships between categories represented as annotated directional arrows between boxes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example of a student Four-Box design problem specification for making self-cleaning, bacteria-resistant door handles, taken from 2011 BID class homework assignment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Example of a student T-chart for evaluating the problem of reducing light post breakage against the biological analogue of a saguaro cactus, taken from a 2011 BID class final project

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The Four-Box diagram consisting of (a) operational environment, (b) functions, (c) specifications/constraints, and (d) performance criteria

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The T-chart for analogy evaluation provides a side-by-side view of the Four-Box specification of the design problem and the Four-Box specification of a biological analogy. The middle column is used to qualitatively specify for each row the similarity of the match between the problem and biological analogy as either the same, similar, different or N/A (not shown).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Difference among majors in the overall accuracy of concept categorization using the Four-Box method, from 2011 to 2012 student assignment data

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