Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM): Special Issue on Research Methodology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1994

Edited by Yoram Reich


Content:

  • Reich, Y. (1994), “Guest editorial: Special issue: research methodology,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 261-262.
  • Reich, Y. (1994), “Layered models of research methodologies,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 263-274.
    Abstract: The status of research methodology employed by studies on the application of AI techniques to solving problems in engineering design, analysis, and manufacturing is poor. There may be many reasons for this status including: unfortunate heritage from AI, poor educational system, and researchers' sloppiness. Understanding this status is a prerequisite for improvement. The study of research methodology can promote such understanding, but most importantly, it can assist in improving the situation. This paper introduces concepts from the philosophy of science and builds on them models of worldviews of science. These worldviews are combined with a research heuristics or research perspectives and criteria for evaluating research to create a layered model of research methodology. This layerd model can serve to organize and facilitate a better understanding of future studies of research methodologies. The paper discusses many of the issues involved in the study of AI and AIEDAM research methodology using this layered model.
  • Dym, L. C. and Levitt, R. E. (1994), On the Evolution of CAE Research Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 275-282.
    Abstract: Less than a decade ago it seemed that a new paradigm of engineering-called computer-aided engineering (CAE)-was emerging, this emergence being driven in part by the success of computer support for the tasks of engineering analysis, and in part by a new understanding of how computational ideas largely rooted in artificial intelligence (AI) could perhaps improve the practice of engineering, especially in the area of design synthesis. However, while this "revolution" has failed to take root or flourish as a separate discipline, it has spawned research that is very different from traditional engineering research. To the extent that such CAE research is different in style and paradigm, it must also be evaluated according to different metrics. This paper suggests some of the metrics that can be used and points out some of the evaluation issues that remain as open questions.
  • Steinberg, L. (1994), Research Methodology for AI and Design, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 283-287.
    Abstract: This paper discusses my perspectives on research methodology in the field of “AI and Design”. This perspective is based on a view of a “Science of Design” focusing on methods of design and on characteristics of design tasks that affect what methods are relevant for a given task. The paper discusses two methodological issues: the need to try applying a design method on multiple tasks and domains, and the need to work with collaborators who are experts in the task domain of each research system you build.
  • Adelman, L. and Gualtieri, J. and Riedel, S. L. (1994), A multi-faceted approach to evaluating expert systems, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 289-306.
    Abstract: This paper overviews a multi-faceted approach to evaluating expert systems. This approach has three facets: a technical facet for "looking inside the black box", an empirical facet for assessing the system's impact on performance, and a subjective facet for obtaining users' judgment about the system. Such an approach is required to test the system against the different types of criteria of interest to sponsors and users, and is consistent with evolving life cycle paradigms. Moreover, such an approach leads to the application of different evaluation methods to answer the different types of evaluation questions. This paper overviews different evaluation methods for each facet.
  • Lowe, H. (1994), Proof Planning: a Methodology for Developing AI Systems Incorporating Design Issues, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 307-317.
    Abstract: In cases where we can successfully express a domain theory in a logical formalism and formulate a task in that domain in mathematical terms, then this greatly facilitates the task of building sound knowledge based systems. However, it is not immediately obvious how the design aspects of such tasks, where these are an important feature of problem-solving, can be incorporated in this approach. Design issues differ from search problems in that there may be several choices, each valid in some sense, but not (necessarily) equally good, or equally appropriate in the current context. We describe a case study in which we used a methodology based on the development of proof plans. The ability to conduct our research according to the Popperian framework of hypothesis, validation, testing, and modification in response to empirical evidence --- the hypothetico-deductive approach --- seems essential to any rigorous scientific endeavour. Proof planning, we believe, is a method which readily exploits this inherently incrementalist approach, and could prove a powerful tool in designing AI systems.
  • Tomiyama, T. (1994), From General Design Theory to knowledge intensive engineering, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 319-333.
    Abstract: This paper illustrates contributions of General Design Theory (GDT) proposed by Yoshikawa to the development of advanced CAD (Computer Aided Design) and to innovative design from research results of our group at the University of Tokyo. First, we review GDT that formalizes design knowledge based on axiomatic set theory. Second, this theoretical result is tested against experimental work on design processes. Although in principle theoretical results agree with experimental findings, some problems can be pointed out. From these problems, we establish a new design process model, called refinement model, that has better agreement with experimental findings. This model implies three guiding principles to develop a future CAD system. One is that future CAD requires a mechanism for physics modeling and multiple model management. Second, a mechanism for function modeling is also required and the FBS (Function-Behavior-State) modeling is proposed. Third, intention modeling is also proposed for recording decision-making processes in design. These advanced modeling techniques enable creative, innovative design. As an example, the design of self-maintenance machines is illustrated. This design example utilizes design knowledge intensively on a knowledge intensive CAD. This is a new way of engineering and can be called knowledge intensive engineering. The design of self-maintenance machines is, therefore, an example of knowledge intensive design of knowledge intensive products, which demonstrates the power of the design methodology derived from GDT.
  • Garcia, A. C. B., Howard, C. H., and Stefik, M. J. (1994), Improving Design and Documentation by Using Partially Automated Synthesis, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 335-354.
    Abstract:One of the products of engineering, besides constructed artifacts, is design documentation. To understand how design participants use documentation, we interviewed designers and typical documentation users and also took protocols of them both creating and using design documentation. Our protocols were taken from realistic projects of preliminary design for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC). Our studies of document creation and use revealed three important issues: (1) Design participants not only look up design facts; they frequently access documents to obtain information about the rationale for design decisions; (2) The design rationale that they seek is often missing from the documents; (3) design requirements change frequently over a project life cycle so that design documents are often inconsistent and out-of-date. Recognizing these documentation issues in design practice, we developed a new approach in which documents are no longer static records, but rather interactive design models supporting a case. We demonstrated the feasibility of the approach by constructing a running system and testing it designers on realistic problems. We also analyze the costs and benefits of creating and using documentation of design rationale and of the active documents approach in particular for routine, preliminary design in domains where community practice is widely shared and largely standardized. The approach depends on the feasibility of creating a parametric design model for the design domain.
  • Reich, Y. (1994), “Annotated bibliography on research methodology,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 355-366.

Copyright © 1997-2005 Yoram Reich
Page URL: http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~yoram/topics/aiedam-method.html

Last modified: 5/6/2005 6:18:00 PM