This article presents the results from exploring the impact of using a parametric design tool on designers’ behavior in terms of using design patterns in the early conceptual development stage of designing. It is based on an empirical cognitive study in which eight architectural designers were asked to complete two architectural design tasks with similar complexity, respectively, in a parametric design environment and a geometric modeling environment. The protocol analysis method was employed to study the designers’ behavior. In order to explore the development of design patterns in the empirical data, Markov model analysis is utilized. Through Markov models analysis of the parametric design environment and geometric modeling environment results, it was found that there are some significantly different design patterns being used when designing in a parametric design environment compared to designing in a geometric modeling environment. The article articulates these differences and draws conclusions from these results.
EricssonKASimonHA. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
2.
GeroJSMc NeillT. An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design studies19(1): 21–61.
3.
WoodburyR. Elements of parametric design. New York: Routledge, 2010.
4.
KolarevicB. Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. New York: Spon Press, 2003.
5.
IordanovaITidafiTGuitéM. Parametric methods of exploration and creativity during architectural design: a case study in the design studio. In: the 13th international conference on computer aided architectural design futures (ed. TidafiTDortaT), Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada, 2009, pp.423–439, http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/cf2009_423.content.pdf
6.
SchnabelMA. Parametric designing in architecture. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computer aided architectural design futures (ed. DongAMoereVGeroJS), Sydney, NSW, Australia: Springer, 2007, pp.237–250.
7.
LeeJHGuNJuppJSherrattS. Evaluating creativity in parametric design processes and products: a pilot study. In: Proceedings of international conference of design computing and cognition, DCC’12 (ed. GeroJ), Austin, TX: Springer, 2014, pp.165–183.
8.
ChienS-FYehY-T. On creativity and parametric design—A preliminary study of designer’s behaviour when employing parametric design tools. In: Proceedings of eCAADe 2012 (ed. AchtenHPavlíčekJHulínJ), Czech Republic, 2012, eCAADe in cooperation with Mediatecture, http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ecaade2012_223.content.pdf
9.
GeroJS. Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine11(4): 26–36.
JiangH. Understanding senior design students’ product conceptual design activities—a comparison between industrial and engineering design students. Singapore: National University of Singapore, 2012.
12.
KanJWTGeroJS. Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Design studies29(4): 315–337.
13.
KanJWTGeroJS. Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information in design protocol studies. In: McDonnellJLloydP (eds) About designing: analysing design meetings. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2009, pp.213–229.
14.
GeroJKannengiesserU. The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design studies25(4): 373–391.
15.
AtmanCJ. A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design studies20(2): 131–152.
16.
SuwaMTverskyB. What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design studies18(4): 385–403.
17.
AkinO. Psychology of architectural design. London: Pion, 1986.
18.
GeroJTangH-H. The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Design studies22(3): 283–295.
19.
DorstKDijkhuisJ. Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design studies16(2): 261–274.
20.
KuuselaHPallabP. A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. American Journal of Psychology113(3): 387–404.
21.
PourmohamadiMGeroJS. LINKOgrapher: an analysis tool to study design protocols based on FBS coding scheme. In: CulleyS. (eds) Design theory and methodology, design society. Glasgow: Design Society, 2011, pp.2-294–2-303.
22.
ChingWKNgMK. Markov chains: models, algorithms and applications. New York: Springer, 2006.
23.
MeynSPTweedieRL. Markov chains and stochastic stability. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
24.
KanJWTGeroJS. Exploring quantitative methods to study design behavior in collaborative virtual workspaces. In: Proceedings of CAADRIA 2010, (ed. DaveBLiAIGuNParkH-J), Hong Kong, 7–10 April 2010, pp.273–282.
25.
GammaE. Design patterns: abstraction and reuse of object-oriented design. In: ManfredBErnstD (eds) Software pioneers. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp.701–717.
26.
FowlerM. Patterns of enterprise application architecture. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2003.
27.
AlexanderCIshikawaSSilversteinM. A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
28.
AlexanderC. The timeless way of building. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
29.
RazzoukRShuteV. What is design thinking and why is it important?Review of Educational Research82(3): 330–348.
30.
WigginsGA. A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowledge Based System19(7): 449–458.
