1. DDSS 2006 - 06-07-06, Zeest Nishchal Deshpande PhD Student Design Systems Group(DS) Dept.of Planning and Architecture Eindhoven 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) Patrons TU/e TNO (Applied scientific Research Organization of The Netherlands) Co-located and Collaborative Design Argumentation Space

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. 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) Fact So (Probably) Conclusion Warrant Rebuttal because Backing Question Option Criteria

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 CDAS Framework Each Element is an Object that holds: Information about Self [ i ] Information about Relations [+]

12. The space Visualization and communication spaces Interaction spaces Architecture

13. Interaction Space Member’s Space Interface sketch of Interaction Space

14. Knowledge Space Knowledge construction A Group of Statements 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 Space Argument construction Argument Structure

18. Sketch of Argument Space

19. Browse and organize Session documents Evidence/Support Annotation/edit Design Document Space

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 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 To fully take advantage of DNs,find ways to minimize the existing gap between informal knowledge construction methods and formal DN construction

22. Thank you.