Co-located and Collaborative Design Argumentation Space

1. Co-located and Collaborative Design Argumentation Space Nishchal DeshpandePhD StudentDesign Systems Group(DS)Dept.of Planning and ArchitectureEindhoven 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. Fact So (Probably) Conclusion Warrant Rebuttal because Backing Criteria Option Question Criteria Option Criteria Roots of Argumentation A seminal paper – A vision A conceptual framework for augmentation of man’s 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 -> Concepts -> 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 SpaceMember’s 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/Support Annotation/edit

20. Initial test 2 Sittings Traditional Brainstorming Proposed causal mapping –> 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.