This study explores the integration of expert design intuition and parametric data analysis. While traditional professional design expertise helps to rapidly frame relevant aspects of the design problem and produce viable solutions, it has limitations in addressing multi-criteria design problems with conflicting objectives. On the other hand, parametric analysis, in combination with data analysis methods, helps to construct and analyze large design spaces of potential design solutions and tradeoffs, within a given frame. We explore a process whereby expert design teams propose a design using their current intuitive and analytical methods. That design is then further optimized using parametric analysis. This study specifically explores the specification of geometric and material properties of building envelopes for two typically conflicting objectives: daylight quality and energy consumption. We compare performance of the design after initial professional design exploration, and after parametric analysis, showing consistently significant performance improvement after the second process. The study explores synergies between intuitive and systematic design approaches, demonstrating how alignment can help expert teams efficiently and significantly improve project performance.
ManyikaJChuiMBughinJ, et al. Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. San Francisco, CA: McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), 2013.
2.
DombrowskiUWagnerT. Mental strain as field of action in the 4th industrial revolution. Proc Cirp2014; 17: 100–105.
3.
SzusterM. Knowledge management in the companies which deliver new industrial solutions. In: Proceedings of the theory and applications in the knowledge economy, Poznan, 11–13 July 2018, pp. 263–277, https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/965896.TAKE_2018_-_Proceedings.pdf
4.
BernalMHaymakerJREastmanC. On the role of computational support for designers in action. Des Stud2015; 41: 163–182.
5.
DreyfusHL. Intuitive, deliberative, and calculative models of expert performance. In: ZsambokCEKleinG (eds) Naturalistic decision making. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, 1997, pp. 17–28.
6.
DorstK. On the problem of design problems-problem solving and design expertise. J Des Res2004; 4: 185–196.
7.
LawsonB. Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Des Stud2004; 25: 443–457.
8.
MaherMLPoonJBoulangerS. Formalising design exploration as co-evolution. In: GeroJSudweeksF (eds) Advances in formal design methods for CAD. Berlin: Springer, 1996, pp. 3–30.
9.
KrugerCCrossN. Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Des Stud2006; 27: 527–548.
10.
DabbeeruMMMukerjeeA. Discovering implicit constraints in design. In: GeroJGoelA (eds) Design computing and cognition’08. Berlin: Springer, 2008, pp. 201–220.
11.
ErhanHWangIYShireenN. Harnessing design space: a similarity-based exploration method for generative design. Int J Archit Comput2015; 13: 217–236.
12.
AbdulmawlaASchneiderSBielikM, et al. Integrated data analysis for parametric design environment-mineR: a grasshopper plugin based on R. In: Proceedings of the 36th eCAADe conference (eds Kepczynska-WalczakABialkowskiS), Lodz, 17–21 September 2018, pp. 319–326. Lodz: Lodz University of Technology.
13.
BrownNCMuellerCT. Design variable analysis and generation for performance-based parametric modeling in architecture. Int J Archit Comput2019; 17: 36–52.
SanguinettiPBernalMEl Khaldi-M, et al. Real-time design feedback: coupling performance-knowledge with design iteration for decision-making. In: Proceedigns of the 2010 spring simulation multiconference (eds McGrawRImsandE), Orlando, FL, 11–15 April 2010, pp. 192–199. New York: ACM.
16.
RoudsariMSPakMSmithA. Ladybug: a parametric environmental plugin for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious design. In: Proceedings of the 13th international IBPSA conference (ed WurtzE), Chambery, 26–28 August 2013, pp. 3128–3135. International Building Performance Simulation Association, http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2013/p_2009.pdf
Moreno-De-LucaLCarrilloOJB. Multi-objective heuristic computation applied to architectural and structural design: a review. Int J Archit Comput2013; 11: 363–392.
19.
OxmanR. Thinking difference: theories and models of parametric design thinking. Des Stud2017; 52: 4–39.
HaymakerJBernalMMarshallMT, et al. Design space construction: a framework to support collaborative, parametric decision making. J Inform Tech Construct2018; 23: 157–178.
22.
DhariwalJBanerjeeR. An approach for building design optimization using design of experiments. Build Simul2017; 10: 323–336.
23.
GeyerPSchlüterA. Automated metamodel generation for design space exploration and decision-making: a novel method supporting performance-oriented building design and retrofitting. Appl Energ2014; 119: 537–556.
24.
ChlelaFHusaunndeeAInardC, et al. A new methodology for the design of low energy buildings. Energ Build2009; 41: 982–990.
25.
SantnerTJWilliamsBJNotzW, et al. The design and analysis of computer experiments. Cham: Springer, 2003.
26.
OkhoyaV. Machine learning for multi-discipline parametric analysis in architectural practice. PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2020.
SadeghifamANZahraeeSMMeynaghMM, et al. Combined use of design of experiment and dynamic building simulation in assessment of energy efficiency in tropical residential buildings. Energ Build2015; 86: 525–533.
31.
ClevengerCMHaymakerJ. Metrics to assess design guidance. Des Stud2011; 32: 431–456.
32.
HambyD. A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ Monit Assess1994; 32: 135–154.
33.
MaltaisL-GGosselinL. Daylighting ‘energy and comfort’performance in office buildings: sensitivity analysis, metamodel and Pareto front. J Build Eng2017; 14: 61–72.
