Cumincad : CUMINCAD Papers : Search Results

CumInCAD is a Cumulative Index about publications in Computer Aided Architectural Design
supported by the sibling associations ACADIA, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SIGraDi, ASCAAD and CAAD futures

PDF papers
References

Hits 1 to 5 of 5

Reformat results as: short short into frame detailed detailed into frame

_id	c78f
authors	Fischer, T. and Herr, C.M.
year	2001
title	Teaching Generative Design
source	Soddu, C., ed. (2001). The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Generative Art 2001. Milan, Italy: Generative Design Lab, DiAP, Politechnico di Milano University
summary	Generative design, which integrates multidisciplinary types of expertise in unconventional ways, was reserved just until recently to experienced and highly autodidactic designers. However, growing recognition of the importance of generative design methodologies have resulted in a need to introduce theories and applications of generative design to undergraduate students as part of their design studies. This emerging educational field of generative design teaching currently lacks methodologies, teaching experience and introductory study material. Available textbooks related to algorithmic form generation, discussing algorithmic growth, artificial life, fi-actal images, emergent behaviour and the like have originated in the field of mathematics. This resource provides an abundance of examples and generative approaches but when adapted to design education, it poses great interdisciplinary challenges which are addressed in this paper. Experiences in generative design teaching are presented, focusing on the relation between algorithmic reproduction of nature (as emphasized by authors in the mathematical field) and innovation (as commonly emphasized in design education). This discussion leads to a derivation of pedagogic suggestions as early steps on the way towards theories and curricula of generative design teaching, addressed to curriculum planners, generative design teachers as well as novices of the field such as undergraduate students.
series	other
last changed	2003/04/23 15:50

_id	7a20
id	7a20
authors	Carrara, G., Fioravanti, A.
year	2002
title	SHARED SPACE’ AND ‘PUBLIC SPACE’ DIALECTICS IN COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
source	Proceedings of Collaborative Decision-Support Systems Focus Symposium, 30th July, 2002; under the auspices of InterSymp-2002, 14° International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics, 2002, Baden-Baden, pg. 27-44.
summary	The present paper describes on-going research on Collaborative Design. The proposed model, the resulting system and its implementation refer mainly to architectural and building design in the modes and forms in which it is carried on in advanced design firms. The model may actually be used effectively also in other environments. The research simultaneously pursues an integrated model of the: a) structure of the networked architectural design process (operators, activities, phases and resources); b) required knowledge (distributed and functional to the operators and the process phases). The article focuses on the first aspect of the model: the relationship that exists among the various ‘actors’ in the design process (according to the STEP-ISO definition, Wix, 1997) during the various stages of its development (McKinney and Fischer, 1998). In Collaborative Design support systems this aspect touches on a number of different problems: database structure, homogeneity of the knowledge bases, the creation of knowledge bases (Galle, 1995), the representation of the IT datum (Carrara et al., 1994; Pohl and Myers, 1994; Papamichael et al., 1996; Rosenmann and Gero, 1996; Eastman et al., 1997; Eastman, 1998; Kim, et al., 1997; Kavakli, 2001). Decision-making support and the relationship between ‘private’ design space (involving the decisions of the individual design team) and the ‘shared’ design space (involving the decisions of all the design teams, Zang and Norman, 1994) are the specific topic of the present article. Decisions taken in the ‘private design space’ of the design team or ‘actor’ are closely related to the type of support that can be provided by a Collaborative Design system: automatic checks performed by activating procedures and methods, reporting of 'local' conflicts, methods and knowledge for the resolution of ‘local’ conflicts, creation of new IT objects/ building components, who the objects must refer to (the ‘owner’), 'situated' aspects (Gero and Reffat, 2001) of the IT objects/building components. Decisions taken in the ‘shared design space’ involve aspects that are typical of networked design and that are partially present in the ‘private’ design space. Cross-checking, reporting of ‘global’ conflicts to all those concerned, even those who are unaware they are concerned, methods for their resolution, the modification of data structure and interface according to the actors interacting with it and the design phase, the definition of a 'dominus' for every IT object (i.e. the decision-maker, according to the design phase and the creation of the object). All this is made possible both by the model for representing the building (Carrara and Fioravanti, 2001), and by the type of IT representation of the individual building components, using the methods and techniques of Knowledge Engineering through a structured set of Knowledge Bases, Inference Engines and Databases. The aim is to develop suitable tools for supporting integrated Process/Product design activity by means of a effective and innovative representation of building entities (technical components, constraints, methods) in order to manage and resolve conflicts generated during the design activity.
keywords	Collaborative Design, Architectural Design, Distributed Knowledge Bases, ‘Situated’ Object, Process/Product Model, Private/Shared ‘Design Space’, Conflict Reduction.
series	other
type	symposium
email
last changed	2005/03/30 16:25

_id	6279
id	6279
authors	Carrara, G.; Fioravanti, A.
year	2002
title	Private Space' and ‘Shared Space’ Dialectics in Collaborative Architectural Design
source	InterSymp 2002 - 14th International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics (July 29 - August 3, 2002), pp 28-44.
summary	The present paper describes on-going research on Collaborative Design. The proposed model, the resulting system and its implementation refer mainly to architectural and building design in the modes and forms in which it is carried on in advanced design firms. The model may actually be used effectively also in other environments. The research simultaneously pursues an integrated model of the: a) structure of the networked architectural design process (operators, activities, phases and resources); b) required knowledge (distributed and functional to the operators and the process phases). The article focuses on the first aspect of the model: the relationship that exists among the various ‘actors’ in the design process (according to the STEP-ISO definition, Wix, 1997) during the various stages of its development (McKinney and Fischer, 1998). In Collaborative Design support systems this aspect touches on a number of different problems: database structure, homogeneity of the knowledge bases, the creation of knowledge bases (Galle, 1995), the representation of the IT datum (Carrara et al., 1994; Pohl and Myers, 1994; Papamichael et al., 1996; Rosenmann and Gero, 1996; Eastman et al., 1997; Eastman, 1998; Kim, et al., 1997; Kavakli, 2001). Decision-making support and the relationship between ‘private’ design space (involving the decisions of the individual design team) and the ‘shared’ design space (involving the decisions of all the design teams, Zang and Norman, 1994) are the specific topic of the present article. Decisions taken in the ‘private design space’ of the design team or ‘actor’ are closely related to the type of support that can be provided by a Collaborative Design system: automatic checks performed by activating procedures and methods, reporting of 'local' conflicts, methods and knowledge for the resolution of ‘local’ conflicts, creation of new IT objects/ building components, who the objects must refer to (the ‘owner’), 'situated' aspects (Gero and Reffat, 2001) of the IT objects/building components. Decisions taken in the ‘shared design space’ involve aspects that are typical of networked design and that are partially present in the ‘private’ design space. Cross-checking, reporting of ‘global’ conflicts to all those concerned, even those who are unaware they are concerned, methods for their resolution, the modification of data structure and interface according to the actors interacting with it and the design phase, the definition of a 'dominus' for every IT object (i.e. the decision-maker, according to the design phase and the creation of the object). All this is made possible both by the model for representing the building (Carrara and Fioravanti, 2001), and by the type of IT representation of the individual building components, using the methods and techniques of Knowledge Engineering through a structured set of Knowledge Bases, Inference Engines and Databases. The aim is to develop suitable tools for supporting integrated Process/Product design activity by means of a effective and innovative representation of building entities (technical components, constraints, methods) in order to manage and resolve conflicts generated during the design activity.
keywords	Collaborative Design, Architectural Design, Distributed Knowledge Bases, ‘Situated’ Object, Process/Product Model, Private/Shared ‘Design Space’, Conflict Reduction.
series	other
type	symposium
email
last changed	2012/12/04 07:53

_id	ga0129
id	ga0129
authors	Fischer, Thomas and Herr, Christiane M.
year	2001
title	Teaching Generative Design
source	International Conference on Generative Art
summary	Generative design, which integrates multidisciplinary types of expertise in unconventional ways, was reserved just until recently to experienced and highly autodidactic designers. However, growing recognition of the importance of generative design methodologies have resulted in a need to introduce theories and applications of generative design to undergraduatestudents as part of their design studies. This emerging educational field of generative design teaching currently lacks methodologies, teaching experience and introductory study material. Available textbooks related to algorithmic form generation, discussing algorithmic growth, artificial life, fractal images, emergent behaviour and the like have originated in the field of mathematics. This resource provides an abundance of examples and generative approaches but when adapted to design education, it poses great interdisciplinary challenges which are addressed in this paper. Experiences in generative design teaching are presented, focusing onthe relation between algorithmic reproduction of nature (as emphasized by authors in the mathematical field) and innovation (as commonly emphasized in design education). This discussion leads to a derivation of pedagogic suggestions as early steps on the way towards theories and curricula of generative design teaching, addressed to curriculum planners, generative design teachers as well as novices of the field such as undergraduate students.
series	other
email
more	http://www.generativeart.com/
last changed	2003/08/07 17:25

_id	cf2007_585
id	cf2007_585
authors	Fischer, Thomas
year	2007
title	Enablement or Restriction? On supporting others in making (sense of things)
source	Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures / 978-1-4020-6527-9 2007 [Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures / 978-1-4020-6527-9] Sydney (Australia) 11–13 July 2007, pp. 585-598
summary	In this paper I present and reflect upon a five-year investigation of designing digital tools for designing in the area of architectural space grid structures. I understand design as a novelty and knowledge generating conversational process as described by Pask (see Scott 2001) and Glanville (2000). Furthermore, I regard making design tools as a design task in itself, rendering this paper a reflection on designing for designing. This paper gives a report on observations I made during the toolmaking study, and subsequently contextualizes these observations using second-order cybernetic theory. This reflection focuses on different relationships between observers and systems, on conditions under which observers construct knowledge and on limits of supporting others in this activity.
series	CAAD Futures
email
last changed	2007/07/06 12:47

No more hits.