Ed Departmental Conference Room.0Analysisof Variance

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 125 861 k 'SE 019 544

- AUTHOR Murthat D., .Michael; Nadler, ,Gexald TITLE A Comparison of Problem-Solving Alternatives Used by Environmental. Desigliets. Final. Report'.. INSTITUTION Wisconsin Univ.; Madison. SPONS AGENCY' A4ational Center for Educational Research and- .'' Development (DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C. Regional, Research Program. 0 BUREAU NO BR-1-E-159. PUB DATE Jun 73

GRANT i .OEG -5 -72- 0012(509) %

NOTE. 320p. .

EDRS pEICE 'MF-$0.83 HC-$16.73 plus Postage. . . DESCRIPTORS !*Architecture; Design; *Educational Reseaich;

. *Environment; Graduate Students;' *HiTherEdUcation; InstrUCtion; Physicalpvironment; *Problem

Solving . IDENTIFIERS *Environmental Design;,Researbb .EApotts.

ABSTRACT ; Thi'sstud.compared the effectivenetsof.three.design ,trategies Asing nine architecture. graduatestudentS to solve. three typical room design problems. Open-ended (5 stepy, traditional step),sand systematic (15 step) strategis were develOped.. bated611,4 nationn tutvey-of design methodologiSts. Eadh.strategywas.appl;ed by three. subjects working independently in three 8Thour testsessionis to piovide designS for a faculty office,;. campus snack bar,. and departmental conference rooM.0Analysisof variance indicated significant differences existed .for problems andforsubjects.within sti:ategy groups.- Some significant strategy effects were found over all three problems ,(8 measures)on individual problems'(16 . measores) , and in strategy-problem. linteraciont (24-Measure8).,The 5-step' strategy required a large amount ofIlme; using large quantities of informatibn,Minimally applied; the 10-step strategy

concentrated :or. a_detaiqed.prOblem developmentwith a low use of , conceptual information.; and the15-,Step'strategy -operated,, more efficiently overall, producing ,nonsignificantly, but apparently, better solutions.--Interaction results sfIggested.th4t the 5-Step strategy'reaCted,similarly to all:Three problems; the 10-step_. strategy became mioreefficient over the: three 'sessions and the 15 -step strategy demonstratedvsensitivity.to problem 'differences. Impliation.for design methodsand research are discussed. (Atthor/BT). - **144*********************************************************444******, * .Douments acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished' -.* * materials not available from other sources.ERICmakesevety effort * * to obtain the, best copy available,Nevertheless, of marginal .* *Ireproducibility-are often encountered and this afectt the-quality. *. of-the microfiche and hardcopyreproductions ERIC -makes available: * u*via' the ERIC DcTument Reptoduction'SerVice(EDItS)..EDRS.i.S hot * 'responsiblefor.the:qualityOf'the'orliginal document. Reproductions'* * supplied by EDRS.arethebest'that can be.made'frOm.the original. *' *********4***********************!0********t***?Ig******************** U S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION BEEN REPRO. THIS 0OCUMENT HASRECEIVED FROM g) DUCE° EXACTLY AS ORIGIN- Filial Report THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ATING IT POINTS OF VIEWOR OPINIONS Li4 STATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRE- SENT OFFICIAL NA1 IONALINSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION ORPOLICY '

I . R;oject No.4E-159 ,Grant No. 0EG-5=72-0012(509)

D. Michael Murtha Gerald Nadler Universi-ey of , Wisconsin 1513 Universit.venue Madison, Wisconsin 537,06

A' COMPARISON OFi)R9BLEM-SOLVING ALTERNATIVES USEDBY ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNERS

Ji.lne 1973

S. DEPARTMENTDE'PARTMENT OT HEALTH, 'EDUCATION,AND WELFARE ee,

9 Office-of Edu7ation 1 ,

National' Center for.Educational Resarch and -Devplopment (Regional Research Program) A Einal Report

Project No. 1-E-159 l\p, Grant No. OEG-5r72-0012(509)'

A COMPARISON OF PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROHES USED BY ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNERS

D. Michael Murtha

Gerald Nadler,. .

0 University oftisconsin

Madison, Wiscolisin

June 30, 1973

This research reportedherein was performed pursuant to a grant with the Offide.Of,Education, ,U.S.Department of Health,[ Education andWelfare..Contractors undertaking" such'projecits under GOvernment sponsorship areencouraged to ,exPress,freei theix -professional judgment in the con- dUttof the project, Points of view or opinions. do not, therefo're, necessarily represent official Officeof Edu- cation position or policY: 00

! U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEAI4E, EDUCATION, I AND WELFARE

. / Offite of.Edication National .center for Educationa 'Researth Developmenot (Iggional.Research Program) **.

0 4 Preface

This research was supported in part by a grant frOm the

U.S. Department of Healtb, 'Education, and Welfare,'Office'of,

-EdUcationl Regibnal Research-Program.

Gratefulacknowledgement is :given for the contributions o A made: by the facility adVisory committee, Gordon Robinsbn,

Department of Industrial' Engineering ; Charley Bridgman, 4,

Department of Psychology ;, LeoJdkobson,, Department of Urban

and Regional P4anning; Ralph.London, Department of Computer

Science, Ronald'Wyllys, Department bf Library Science; by\

the technical' consultants on apparatus design, Edward Falk abd'Howard Hagens; Instrumpntation Systems Center; Walter

M,eives, Department of PhotOgraphy; Theodore Tibbitts,' ) Department of Horticpbkure; by th) hosts .for the experiment,

the School of Ar,chiteCture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,

s s> especially Professor Leonard Kitts; by-the professional,11940-

tion evaluatots, Gordon, Orr,,CampusArchl'pect, pyron TooNfie],d, . , ,Department ofEnvironmerrEai Design;Thomas Nisbet; John J.

Flad .and 111ssocidtes.

Special appreciation i;:'given fot the. , ptpject asSistanCe. ofSusan Harrison, Robert 09egueda, and DianeKurtz; and the

staff assistance of Mary Dokken,Department' of Industrial

Engineering. and Joanne Zimmerman, Engineeting Experiment

Station.

1' iii

ABSTRACT

, An experiment compariag;the effectiveness ofthree design strategies used nine architecture graduate students solving three"typical room design problems..Open-ended (5-step),

traditional (ltd.-step), and systematic e15-step) strategies - 'were developed'based.on a nationalsurveyof design method-' ologists°. Each strategy was applied by. three aubjects\ working independently in three 8-hour test sessions to pro- , vide designs for a faculty office, campus snack bar,gnd departmental conference room.

The design process was recorded every 30 seconds; when] a camera photographed the work area on which ubjeete disr played and maniPula'ted cards taken from an inrmationbank. t The bank contained over.800 dataiitems on req irementS, de- si4n criteria, and solution .AlternatiVes for each problem. -Thirty-five process measures were generated including: time for solution, number and type'of cards used; number and type. of relationships formed with the cards. Tweriy-five solution measures covered.the differences in design configuration , 1 and quality, including ratings of judges. , .

/ . Arialysis of variance indicated significant diffekences existed for problems elicitor subjects withinlstrategy groui5s. Some significant strategy effects were faund over all three problems (8 measures), on. individual problems'(16 measuree)t and.in strategy- problem interactions 0,4 measures)% The'5- step, strategy required a rge amount of time, using large quantities of information];inimally applied; the ,10-,step strategy cohcentrated on a detailed Problem. development with a low usebf conceptual information; and the 15=steP strategy Operated more efficiently Overall,. prOducing nonsignificantly, but'apperently,abetter solutions. 'Interaction 'results eug-

7 gested that the 5-step strategy reacjed similarly;to all

three problems; the 10-step strategy became.more-efficient . over the three. sessions; and the 15-step strategy demonstkated sensitivity to problem differences. Implicatitms for design. methods resear h"are discussed. . . . ; (

SJ iv TABLE O'F. CONTENTS CHAPTER I..-.INSPIRATION Introduction_

ENVIRONMENTAL. DESIGN . 1 ,

A. tnvironmeytal Design 'Responsibility . 2

B. EnvironmAtal Design Difficulties ' . 2 C. Enivironmental Design Information, . . 3 Ts D. Environmental Design Methods '4

.DESIGN 'METHODS 5

. A. Utility of Design Metliods .5

B. Availability of DesignDesign Methods. . 8 7 .C. Developing Design Methods , C. Design Methods Research 8

1 CF1,PAR II- INVESTIGATION 10

introduction ,10 DESIGN METHODS RESEARCH 10

. A. Research Techniques 11. B.,Problem-Solving Reseaich 12

'' C. Design Research 0 14 D. Research implications 16 PRESEN' RESEARCH APPROACH 17 A. Comparing Design Strategies d, 18 B. Complex Design Task '?9,

C. ObServation TechniqUe . 0..

D. Experimetal Design 41 211 E. Subjects 22 CHAPTERIII - INSTALLATION 24 . Introduction 24 TEST PROBLEMS 41- A. Estabrishing a Problem Area H 24 a Advisory dommittee 24 C. Delphi Procedure 25

D. Criteria Reviewoplestionnare 4 25

I C

. E. Criteria Rating Questionnaire ; 26 F. Problem Selection Questionnaire .28

TEST STRATEGIES: 3-1 A. National Survey Questionnaire I 31 r ,. B. Survey:Results 32 C. StrategylievelOpment 35'

i p. Strategy Hypotheses 38 - -- , INFORMATION BANKS - 39 1 , , . . 4 A. Tykes of Inforjnation1 40

B. Information Selection . 41 C. Item Generation i 42 D. Infbrmation Structure 42

TEST, APPARATUS ,- ) 45 A. Operaional,Requirements 45 B: Recording Requirements' 45 C. .Practical Requirement's ., 46.

-b. DEPIRS I. 46 TEST SUBJECTS 491

A. Subject. Requirements I --t,'49 B. Subject .Selection ,4944's C. Subject:Recruitment 50

CHAPTER IV IMPLEMENTATION .'. 51

Introductia ---'' 51 SUBJECT ORIENTATION '51

A. Invitation a 51'

ri 1 B. Orientatiori Meeting 52 C. Orientation Booklet 52 D. Pre Session OLentation,. 53 EXPERIMENT PREPARATION '54 A. Pilot Test 54' B. Trarisportation 55' ,C. Set-Up . . .55

0 a vi.

RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT 56. A. Suliject OperationOperation s 56

' B. E'xperimenter Operations '59 C. Break Periods 59 D. End Session 59 E. Subsequent. Sessions 6b, cr. F- Debriefing Meeting 60 ..,\'DATA PROCESSING 60 .A.7*.a Coding 61. COmp'uter Tabulation 62. C. Manual_Tabulation 62- SOLUTION EVALUATION 63 A. Solution Record 63 B. Solution gormat 0 64 C. Solution Evaluator D. Evaluation Criteria 65 Evafuatpn,package 65 F. _Solution Ch'alacterist cs 66/ f a o 'CHAPTER V - INTERPRETATION 68 IntrdductiOn 68 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 4 ,68 A. Presentation of Results ,69 B. Analys4 of Variance 70 C. Significance of Results 74 EXAMINATION OF MEASURES 76 As -Problem Resul.ts 77 B. Performance Results- 80 A '. . ibQ . C. SOlution Results 89 D. Subject, ReOults e 91 E,Debriefing Results' 93 O CONCLUSIONS' / 94 .A. Suggestive Strategy 'Differences 94

13).- Reseal-CFI Approach .97. - DISCUSSION . 99 A, Design Methods Research 100- B. Design Methods Implications 102. 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 APPENDICES A. TEST PROBLEM DETAILS', 110 A71 Initial Problem SelectionCriteria '110

A-2 Revised Problem Selection Criteria 113 , A-3 Final TestProblem Selection Criteria- 116 . ir A-4 Test problea--Alternatives 119

B. TEST STRATEGY DETAILS 12.4 B.=1 List of Design Strategies 124 B..2 National SurVeyStep Alternatives, 131

B -3 NationallSurvey AssUmption. Alternatives 7 137 B -4 National Survey.Results 143 1375 Test Strategy.DevelOpme'nt 141 -"B-6 Test Strategy Hypotheses 160

, C. INFORMATION BANK DETAILS,- r,;, 166 C-1 Information Bank Sources '16C r C-2 Information Bank Structure ' . 169 ,C-3 Information-Processing Operations' 177 C-4 InfOrmation WocessingDimensions' -180 N Fr- I I D. APPARATUS DETAILS 184 D-1 Test Apparatus , C7parison of Alternatis 184 D-2'Test Apparatus Design 190' D-3 Apparatus Procedures, 194

E. SUBJECT INTERACTION DETAILS 198 E-1 Questicn,Log. 198 E-2 Debriefing Session 202

F. DATA PROCESSING DETAILS . 206 , l . F-1 Data Coding'Method 2Q6 H . F-2 Coding Conventions . 21 9 :viii G. COMPUTER ANALYSIS DETAILS 217 G-1 Computer Tabulation , 217. 1 . G-2 Computer (attribute) -Listing 222 H. EVALUATION' DETAILS . 224 H-1 -Evaluation ckiteria' , . - 224 H-2 Problem Requirements . 22' }-f-3 Soluion Drawings. I 236 H-4 Solution Specification Examples 2'64 I. RESULTS DETAILS 274 I-1 Descriptionof Measures 274 I-2 EXperimental °Res-tilts '2ableS 1-3 Major InteralctiOnGraphs. 301 J. INFORMATION BANK BIBLIOGRAPHY 306 TABLES Table 3-1. Responses on Criteria -RatingQuestionnaire .27 Table, 3-2 Responses on Problem Selection,Questionnaire', 30 Table 3-3 Step Responses on NationalSurvey Questionnaire34'

Table 3 -4 Assumption. Responseson NatiOnal Survey. ' Questionnaire 35 Table 4-1 Times Recorded for Experimental Sessions -57 Table 5-1 Distributionv of Measures 69 Table 5-2 Average Strategy. Scores 71,72 Table 5-3 Distributionof Signifibance 74. Table 5-4 Distribution of Interaction Effects Table 5-5 DiStritlition of Subject. Effects 92 FIGURES Figure 2-1.Experimental- Design 22 'Figure 3-1 Test Strategy Step Sequence 37 Figure 3-2 Information Item Card. Format 43 Figure .3-3 DEPIRSApparatus 47 Figure 3-4 Tes'Room. Layout 48, Figure 4-1 Typical Information Displays 58 Figure 5-1 Matrix. for Arialysisof NI' arlance 73 Figule 5-2 Typical Strategy-Pi-ableM Interactions

Att 0 ,4

' ,

. , CHAPTER. I -)INSPIRATION: The Need .For Design Method's Research

Introduction:

1 , Design methods, the working tec iciuds and procedures

used by professional designers in.fiel s such as. architecture

and engineering, have been regarded with interest in recent- . .1 years as one avepue through which the efficiency and effec-

tiveness.of design activity could be improved. This interest

has' been prohpted,by a growing awareness that past, traditional and intuitive methods are provinginadequqe.to,deal with current probleMs of social and technicar(co4lexity.. HOwtVer, the

development of effective newmethodsel,has been fr6strat4d,by

the lack of.appropriate controlled research in the-T'areaA of

. . . coMplexprobleM-solving and deSign methods; This study' repre-

pents-an attempt to provide a more rigorous examination, of se,-

1.1ected design methods and their interaction with tilt. designpro7

cess. Specifically,the,eMphasis is on methods used in Environ -.

mental Design, 'a field representative of a)proad.range of

design-oriented disciplines.

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN Environmental 'design is an emerging discipline which encompasses Urban Design, Architecture, Interior and/Product

Resign. Thisdiscipline links the previous looge community of designers and design activities within an overall' framework

which permits approaching and solving problems at all levels

of human environment (maldona1do, 1966; Malone, 1960; Musgrove,

1966; Van der Ryn, 1966). As such 'by definition and inclina- t'ion; it is in the interdisciplinary concern for de4

I . `sign, methods. This concern hasbeen described by Simon (1969)'

as the "science of design, represented by:fields suchas engi-

neering, archtedture, business, law, and medicine... Simon

, identifies the common aSpects.:of these- fields undera defini:- tiOn of'aesign as "devising - courses of action changipgexisting r, situations.into preferred ones". -Environmental .designcan

therefore serve asa typical example, wl current difficulties 0 and potential method. utilization sj.milat.,o other dis,cip'lines.

A. Environmental Design .Responsibility`

The area'ofresponsibility,for envirnmental design is

"inventingphysicalthings which display new order, organi- , zation, and form in responSe to human function"' (Alexander,

1969). Within this definition, "physical: things"can involve

. 0 _ any aspeot of the built environment "from a gity- to a teX-

spoon" (Maldonaldo, 1966). Pa'rticular. aspects of human Eunc- tion have beed defined as "freedom of choice, physical and

mental health, and a richness, and depth of human experience"

(G4des andSpring, 1967).- The critical nature of the field' is apparent when these definitions Are.applied to specific

environMents 'Associated with housing, educational andhealth

facilities, work places,transportation,,, etc: ot

B. Environmental Design Difficulties It Should be apparent to most observers of mOdernso-

. -ciety that environmental designers have not, been adequ*ately

12 0

. solving problems, in their .area of responsibility: Some de-

sigpers have noted this general ineffectiVeness in termsof

"nightmare' of the cities ". (Wachsman in Banham, 1965); "discom-

forts heaped on us by ill-design"'(Van der Ryn,- 1966); "misman-

e agekent.thropghanti-design"-IMaldonald0, 19'65) . These short- . comings have.been relateTto the "quantity", "complexity". and' )'' ":difficulty" of current problems 'aSSociated%with, changing t I social patterns' ands culture (Alexander! 1964). Other causes'

have been identified in. terms or-new `,production capabilities . which can reprciduce "almost a desired' shape in almost any

(Pye, '1964). In p4i7ticularo it has been observed ,c that changing conditions ha e forced the designer to assume

a decision - making burden far more compficatedthan in the

. _past, where options were severely limited, and designs were ..-,.- frequently based on centuries. of adaptation and development

. . (Alexander, ,1964; .Archer, 1960).

C:Environmental Design Information The difficulties experienced by environmental designers .°

in deci fin - makings have been traced in'part to the, increased load on information handling capabilitiesiaithin thedesign

. process.VIn general, the,information load is an inevitable, Pt result of technological 'innovatibn which produces a doubling'

0 . of availableJknowledgeevery' 10 -15 years (Price,/.1 61). For environmental designers the,situation has been described as a

"growing body1' of knowledge and specialist experience" with 0 probleM statements,becomirig more comprehensive In scope and

1 3.

... 'more complicated din nature.lAlexander,,1961;Cheetham, 1964).

In addition; the informationavailable for environmentalde .signers has been referredto as "hard to handle", ".diffuse",'

and "disorganized" (Alexa1nder,1964). The situatioh-is ode scribed by one authoras "it is difficult to find'even modest,

accurate, and' systematizedinformation on any aspect of archi.r...g, tectural practice" (Passonneau, 1965)! Without proper methods. ' 6 for coping with this informationburden, the deSignersinforma-

tion processing' capabilitiesare often,overloaded (Alexander,

1964) .

. . ,i D. .EnvironmentaleDesign Methods .,-

The present recognition-givendesign methods in the.

. , . . field is particularly . significant inlight of the pastre-

liance on' traditional, approaches,characterized by. ark empha-

-sis on.intuition and-practicalexperience (Cheetham, 1964;

, .1 L. Jay, 1963 Maldonaldo, 1965). The awkWardnebs .of these methods is suggested byArcher041970).: 0- Traditionally, the designer hasworked intuitively for the most part, S'tudying,hisbrief,,, scanning the evidence, ruminating upon implications,-and sketch- ( ing ideas without exercisingmuchconsclous control. overthe activity of design decision- making itself.

The concern for alternative,"more effective methods has been expressed in terms of the needto "emerge from cloudy pragma- tism" (Malone, 1960); using "amethodical modut operand' (Corkill, 1968);'amore methodical and logical,way.of working"

(inornielf, ,1963.); and estaLLshing."soUnd.heuiis'tics for. de-

4 14

ny "4, 41

\4.

5 sign problem-solving" (Kitts,. 1965). In1particular, an emphasis

has been placed on "systematic" ways of working, whichcould

1 contrql problem information and lead to more effective.results"

(Ariher,;,1965; Blake, 1962; Handler, 1964;Jones, 1963).

'DESIGN METHODS

Design methoaS despite their importance, have been in-

terpreted in a number of di4fferentways, without any deflni-

-tive statement of theconcept. In general terms, "method's"

usually suggest a mental procedureor set of procedUres,

4 which providean approach or framework to guide thedesign,_

er's thoughtS:oX actions (Eder, 1966; Gutman, 1966;McCrory,

1966). Synonyms for deSign methods include: "strategy ",

"subroutine ", "tricks of the trade", "rules ofthegame"-

(Amarel, 1966;." Eder, 1966; Newell e't, al., 1959; Thomas, 1965) :. Qualification'son the use of methods suggestthat they are not

to be used as a 'recipe', followed si.ep7bystep, but rathex.ate

to be used flexibly, adapted to a specificisitgationjas an,aid, not a replacement for.intuition (Archer, 1970; Gutman, 1966; Krampen, 1965),#

A, Utility of Design Methods

The utility of appropriately developed 'meods has been described in terms of the potential for aiding )the designer, articularly in the area of information processibg. r In overall

I erms, it is suggested that a specific approach can influence

the level, type, and sequence of informationusage within the 96.

. . design process (Mitroff, 1968; Ranstrom and illenman, 1965). For one.method the advantage were described as:

v aids the consciousness to focus on objectives,. analyze problems,, and select, reject, organize data in those patterns likely toproduce subconscious closure and interpretationAC. Gregory, ).967)-

In the area. of visuali tion, specific 'reference is made

to "expressing the jprief in erms that make possible a systegi-

atic rilthod of designing (M. Jay,,1967), and "a way of pre-

senting design problems that does make them easier to solve "..

(Alexander,,1964).

Dn processing information,methods, assist in direct-

./ %, ing the 'search' for a solution and evaluating alternatiVes . r with a 'minimum of error, redesign, and delay (Amarel, A966;

Jones, 1963; Miller et al.; 1967). Simon (1969)''provides one

. . interpretation of method advantages as:,

managethent..of the,respurces of the dekigner-go t hat his efforts will not be dissipated unnecessarily in following lines of inquiry.that prove fruiti ss.

The potential outcome of.these aids has been 4'iven in terms of "the evolutionarydevelopment.of-successfully im-'

proved SolutionsRoe et l';, 1967), and pilore imaginative

1 and advanced designs" ,(Jones,1963). ..

. Availabidit of Oesi n MethodS AlfernatIye design methods have been developed in recent

yeArs by practition6ks in environmental de.Sign and related filds.in an effort to realize the-potential,advadtages of

appropriate methods.,, MajCr methods developments have been

,16 4, 1

attempted by Archer (1970); Asimow ' (1964); Nadler (1970)1

C. Gregory (1967) Roe et al.(1967) . Symposia and collections

of articles, on diffet techniques and meth d have 'been

edited by Jones and Thornley (1963) ;Zwicky and Wilson (1967) ;

S. Gregory (1966); and Moore (1910) Comparisons of'different

t methods have been made by Alger and. Hay (1964);Whitfield.

(1968); Guilford 0,967) and Jones 1966) . Engineering design

methods have been described by Buhl (1960) ;Dixon {1966);

Pare et al. p963) ;Roylance (1966) ; Wilson (1965) . Specific I. design techniques have been, developed by Gordon (1968)'; Alex-

ander (1964) ; Alexander et al.(1968) ; Good4iandMaChol: 1'1967) ;

N.s. Starr (.1963). Computer-aided design has been discussed by

Campion (1368); Fetter (1965); Siders (1966) .

C. Developing Design Methods

The 'majority. of the available methods, however, are e empirically based, the result of individual experience. Such,

methods have been described 'as "applying-their 'favorite prin

-ciples to the design problein": (Gutman, 1966), end making explicit"the. practices that discerning people seeM:to be

adopting" (Archer,;197D) . Even when these methodhave been '77 adopted or adapted from other aisciplines Such as philosophy,

social science, economics, computer ,science, management

:Sdience, and engineering (Barnett, 1966; S. -,fregory, 1966;

M. Jay, 1967), th se methods have themselves 'of teA been empiri-

cally based, and their application has usually not been systema-

tically determined (Studer and Stea,4 1966). There appears to C. I have beenlittle, if any, attempt to develop design methods

in a controlled scientific manner, ,Permitting a r'igorous'

analysis and .evaluationof theireffects..This aspect has been summed up by:

DefinitiOns of "better" metho ologies are meaningless unleSswe are told in what respects /a method is better than ,;other methods (Kaiser,' 1952) .

.D. Design Methods Research .

It,shOuld be apparent that the only way to develop design methods beyond their present informal level,iSto follow the

course taken by' other disciplines in moving from an empirital

theorelcal knowledgebase. Thiis dbncept has been der-

. I cribed in terms of investigating theinature.of,thedesign

/ prOcess and determining the ways in which methodS could be

appropriately applied in each phase of-,desigh activity

(S. Gregory, 1966;,Kitts, 1965). scope of such an investi-

gation has been suggested by De Groot (1966):

4 . From ekperimental evidence and analysis, it 'Must he----/ --7 posstble'to develop an ordered Classifidation of human mental operations to cover every MethOd, trick, heuristic, transformation that may be instru-' `.,Mental in productive thinking. The type and level of research Which is needed is quite '-' .,. , extensive, butit should be apparent that in a quest for valid

, -. ' "systematic" methods,that. equallyrigorous means bf investiga . . . . -tion should be em toyed.Jibe significance of such research-

activity has been described In the strongest_ terms by Simone'

(.1969): 9

The 'professional schbols will reassume their professional responsibilities just to the degle,that they can discover a science of desigir, a body of intellectually tough,, analytid, partly formalizable, partly empir-, ical, teachable doctrine about the design process.."

ly te;

1 io

.;L . . 0*..' CHAPTER.I.1 INVEST/GATION: Approaches To Design4Methods Research

Introduction:

Design methods research-, on ,almost any aspect of design

process or methods, must be baded on the study of design prob-

lem-solving, the act of designving. Previous experience by cog- li nitive psycholbgists has indicated great difficulty instudying human problem-solving behavior. Some techniques have been

developed, but these involve a number of short- comings. While there have been Some studies in design-related fields, these

have not4dealt with the_details of complex' problem- solving

. - nqr have they attempted to use'design methods as an independent

variable. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate anew

approach to design methods investigation. This approach is

based on systematically.compari '1 g alternative design methods,

using a research technique adapted to the identificationof the impact of methods oh the design process.

DESIGN METHODS RESEARCH

The observation of the workings of the design process. poses particular difficulties since by tradition and practice. most desilgn activity consists of subconscious or covert be-

, havior, with most'reasoning and criticak decision-making-re- maining within the mind (Eder,,1966; Thornley, 1963). in,

most cases the only evidence available is the solution ptesenta- , tion and a limited display of notes, sketches,or calculations' (Eder, 1966). While Lt may,be possible to make some general 20. 4, 11 .1 observations from thiS evidence, theAcritiC4.details reMain

out of reach (Bloom, 1950; Johnand Miller,. 1957).. The basic difficulty.has'been- described-as the "problem how toobserve

and measure the process" and referdnceis made to the "method- ological difficulty in externalizing the processin 'an opera-

a tional way"(John and Miller, 1957). '

A. 'Regearch,echniques Some techniques have been developedin attempting to.

. - make the problem-solving Processesobservable, One authot

.has .described these techniqUes'asmeans of "bringing:the covert .processesinto_the open" (Forehand;.1966)..The use Of the

,technique has been_referred to as"exploringthe process

itself investigating the subject's thoughts,feelings, and

reactions as he attacks theprOblem.(Bloom and Brodel,.1950).

Retros eotion represents onetechnique which has been used either alone or in combinationwith other methods This

techni e usually consistsof an interview or questionnaire' after the problem-solVinq session, in anattempt to recall and

reconstruct the. processes which wereusedj(Clarkson and Pounds,

19.63; John andMiller, 1957; Mitroff, 1968). Due to diffi-' culties with memory and reconstruction,this t!echniqueis-not

'too reliable, but it can. be 'usefulfor identifying major

occurrances and subjective observations,.

Ihtrospedtion is an alternative techniquebased on eliciting

information from the subject while heis in the. - process of

2..1. 1.2 '

-solving a problem .(John ,sand Miller, 1957) The recordgenet-

, ated using this technique is usually referred to as a "protocol"

. ,(Newell and'Simon, 1961), which is intended to representa.pic- ""\. ture of the cognitive.. process used by the problem-solver,

1.-Itrospection Is usually'preferted over retrospection as pro-

. viding-o more literal,,acqurote picture of the subject's behaviOr

(Clarkson and' Pounds ,1963)

Thinking Aloud is a particular technique for generating 4. introspective protocols, based on subject verbalizations c:xhich 'are recorded on magnetic tape as he attempts to solve or think

. through a given problem (Clarkson and Pounds, 1963)- A sEeci-

t tic description of the application of this technique given'

by Miller et al.(1969) as:

Thinking aloud requires-merely that person talk while he is working, that he shOUld comment on what he'is.doing, what he is looking for, what his to ions are,' what Objects or relationships catc11 his attention, etc. These authors have cited the popularity of the thinking aloud

technique "used by Binet Duncker,.'cloperede, ,and many others" and indicate-ts advantages, "when the method is used Intel - ligently and conscientiously, it can prOvide a tremendous

amOuit of information about the detailed process. of.;thought". Howeve, this method'has some drawbacks which will be shown

later in the discussion.

B. Problem-Solving Research

. A large number of studies have been completed, using the

above techniques. However, most of the work has had minor

2 Q 13

impact orf design methods re-Search since the emphasis has been

. - on basic "problem-solving", using relatiVely simple, highly

-constrained test prableAs. The early work is characterized

by Saier (1931) and tuncker (1545) who studied subjects' solving

physical and mathematical logic problems. Their emphasis

on demonstrating the formation OfSpecific conceptualrelation-

. / ,ship's. as the keyS to solving pxoblemS.' This approach and that

of elated studies wasbased on concepts related to Gestalt.

- ..ft hology, and similar. work inVestigated mechanisms reldted'' to "deductive'' and "induCtive" reasoning, and "conCept_formaT

tion" (Wason and JChnson-Lairdi 1968). s.

An information processing approach to problem-solving

,Was t-aken by Several investigators, typified by Newell,Simon;

Paigre, and others (1958, 1959, 196.1, l9§6). This research

2 . .relied heavily on thinking.aloud protocols generated by t Subjects involved'ih-somewhat more complex tasks Such. as,sym- ,

bolic logic and algebra word problems. The outcome was a comprehensive analysis of these probleM-solving activities . with the development bf.inforthationiprooessing models basedon "objebts" or problem- states, transformed by "operatorscwhich werek"applied to certain objects to produce different obSectS"

For the relatively simple, essentially mechanical, problems beinglstudied it was pbssible to represent huiAan problem-solving , behaviorYv using computtr programs Such as.. the LOGIC Theorist; GPS

(General Problem Soler) and STUDENT.

r: 2J

4 14

C. Design Research A --*esearcherS engineering and-environmental design have

attempted to investigate aspects of complex problem-solving.

HoWever, these studies have tended to,be more general'fand.open-

ended than the of.basic.prohlem-solving.

Typical studies were performed by Dixon (196,4',, Ranstrom and .4 Thenman (1965), Frischmuth and Allen (1969'), consisting of obT.

servations of work doneby practicing engineeron their real-

worldproblems, using notes,' tapes, and intervie10. The results of thdse studiesiwere general models of the design process

expressed as "flowcharts" (Frischmuth and Alden); and "need"3.

. "engineering", and "product" dimensions or development stages' (Ranstrom and,Rhan).

Similar studies were performed by Mitroff (1969) and

Reitman (1970)'1 using more detailed thinking aldud protocols

to investigate -s ecifiaTas ects such as designer's attitudes

-.and other sUbjectiye factorsi and interactions with "open-

.,ended" :or "ill- defined"informjion,ipSpectively. The rer-

- , w stilts of these investigations suggested that even in reltively

constrained 1:roblem-solving situations 'there was considerable dependence 'on individual interpretations.

Partidular controlled design studies were conducted by meister and Farr (1966, 1967) using subject groups of10-20

engineers workingon pre-specified instrument panel or console,

. design problems. The experimenters provided design 'specifics-

'<3 2 4 15

... tions and background information; including data on human factors requirements, and employed observation of;Subjects at

work, subject comments while working, and in-depth retrosPec- ,/ tive interviews. These techniques were used to ,deteimine the

extent of human factors information utilization. The results

indicated that the subject -:designers generally used a-much more ) superficial: problem analysis than had been anticipated by the

. ) experimenters, and that subjects usually ignored hdMan.factors data piesenteddn the typical handbook form."

Research studies in environmental design have been less numerous,41 but follow the patternt associated with other dis- 4.

.ciplines. typica$1 simplified experiment was used by.Krampen , ,(1965),.withclatsroom students working on Ikaphic layout._ d problem with highly constraind prbblem spec ficationt.'Think-

. ing aloud protocols were.generated. and used to clemonstrate'to

Students.basic steps in problemsOlvingc9sUCh A "definitioni1!

, "solution", and 'verification".

similar expeiment was used by Eas'tman (1960). with as large number of subjects solving a LEptcelrling11,ta, using ahighiYiconstrainedformat with specific rules,fof lOcationof elements., Relatively detailedthiAkifigraloud

protocols were used in an information procetsing 'analysis, identifying "operators" drtransformativs and "tables of

connections" Which indicated different applications of the de-

sign,rules. The work was also used to demonstrate "search 25.

O I. 16 A strategies"-identified by Newell and othersas "generate and *

test" (tria and error) ;"means-end analysis'', (sequentially

applied constraints); and "planning" (solving problemst by

subsystems) .

Another study by Eastman (1970) used a more-open-phded N.

ett ...... 4 . ...-,- problem-solving the design-of a bathroom layout,'-With , V ' Minimal requirements and an emphasis'on individual insight andpast ekperierice. "Analysis of problem-solving was.basedi

' on thinking aloud protocols'and graphic.SketChes. ResultsAesulfs

ihdicated a correlation between .fhe. fo4m of the requirements .

,, and tHe-fr representation by subjects';,and cited the superiority

of'dependence on information stored in the 'memory over.4quire-

. .e.--, . . 1 .

. . Iments giyen with'the problem..

. ..

D. Research Implications

.The major observation from: the review of related studiet

,is that there has beeia lftt'lePo 12 or no research related,specifi-

cally to design methods. Where research,;hqs been repted,t design, the emphasis has beenon,studying how_desi9n practi--. tioners use traditional, intuitive methods rather than Consider-

, , , ing the effect of alternative improved methods. The.work does

. . . . suggest the possibility of observing and analyzing design be

havior, but it is necessary to go beyond the consideration of ., ,'Li,,, limited problems and specific, mechanisms to consider design

. . .

. problem2dolving in greater.detail. In particular, it is neces-, , - t. r * .- . L sary to begin filling-inthe specific behaviors associated

, . e 17

with the major stages or overall approaches used by designers,

and to begin describing how different-types of information

interact throughout the design process. To accomplish this,

design methods resear% ch must not only.test°and cOmpare.alterna- , tiveMethds,but must alsoddlop tools for Studying and anal= yzing complex problem-solving behavior with a rigor which will

provide a sound theoretical basis for understanding the me-

chanisms and interactions which are involved.

In another aspedt°of the related research, the "thinking

aloud" technique does not seem to be effectively applicable

to design methods research. This technique has been criti- 0 cized in termsof: a) its potentially inhibiting effect on

. problem- solvers; bY the difficlilties yith confusing termin

. ology, ommissions, and inaccurracy; and c), the effortjp transcribing lengthy problem-solving sessions (Bloom and

.Brodel, 1950;. Miller et al., 19:69). An alternative technique

is required which. could offset these disadvantages and add 4 greater control in terms Of 1) accuracy in determining sequence

and chronology of events; 2) st,indarized coding of information

and responses; 3) identification of relatiOnships betWeen

° elements "in the process (Bloom ana Brodel,.1950; DeGroat,

1966, Forehand, 1966)

" PRESENT RESEARCH APPROACH tf The pUrpose c.f.- this study was to make a pilotattempt at

design methods reSearch,'using design methods as the major 2 18

. research variable, in an expetimen:tl setting designed tQ

generate .specrfiC behavioral data about the .effect of meths

.on the designer ,subject's prOblem-sol*Ving process.' This

attempt Was'basedon 'implications of the related research

,and,the nature of design methods as previously described. f.4. Comparing Design Strategies

f Design attategiesAere selected as methods whOS'e effec7' 4 tiveness could be.usefully compared in terms of their promi- ,

,ent'sn role in the deSign methods literature, and their impact

throughout titre problem-Solving process. Strategies have been

. defined as "plan Of attack, methodology,.or approach", which

1 . is charac4eiZed byl

An fteta,tive series of steps defining -tile-direction or pa;te'r'n'of action to be followed by an individual Or group in, achieving a purposeful activity (C. Gregory, 1967) . .':.;, r ' ( 1 'AY .. ,' Asindicated earlier, strategies were identified'by extrapo lation in several engineering design studies;' and in someof

Eastman's work. Thtoretical,discussions have occurred in the work of Nadler (1970), Jones (1966), Archer (1970), and

C. Gregory (19x6 7), among others.

. ;t,: ,Strategy differences have been described by C. Gregory (1967) as a result Of-asurvey of strategies Whichdemonstrated

variations in terms Of: a) specific steps mentioned by some

authots and omitted by:others; b) combinations-of steps under -

more general 'terms; c)transpositions in the order or sequence

a 19 of steps; d) differences in the total number of steps. These differences may lead to different strategy impacts as described with the specific experimental hypothesis on pages 38-.39..

An important aspect Of a comparative study of design strategies is the opportunity to refute current misconceptions e

that either strategies have no effect on' the designprOcess or

A all strategies are essentially the same. This latter attitude is `suggested. by Eder, (1966) referring to a given strategy I, example,, "all methodologies so far .proposed fit into the de-

sign sequence outlined above.

13: Complex Design-Task --..,. 4 i The pbservation of -a'subject.wOrking on a relatively . 4 e complex design problem-solvingtaskwas determined as the -most appropriate setting to compare the effectiVeness of.

designstrategies., This determination was based on the need to obtain more controlled data i general on complex problem- solving, and, need for sufficient scope to determine strategy

erects on a:range of,behavlOrs within the des *4/1 process.

For. this research such a task would involve the designof an

environmental setting such as a' room or simil space, aCcom7 . t. modAting a 'range of activities related to apecific purpose

or funCtion; This task would be considerably more complex than

a simple logic or layoutpkoblem, and would have a somewhat t.. broader. scope than Meister and Farr's console problem of

Eastman's 'bathroom. The need for research- t this,level has A ' 29 ' . 20 0 been aqknowledge1 by Green (i966) as an "interest In-complex:

or as they sax 'rich= experimental settings Sothat the complex structure of manes behavior can be displayed".

C.' Observation Technique An experimental technique which generates data.on thesub-

ject's use of "informtibn' within the.design'process was

identifie0d as most appropriateto design mehodS research.

This was based on they understanding developed earlier that information processing is considered to be an important element

./ . in design problem-solving and armajor areaaffected'by design

methods. Such a technique would'develop an information.pro-. cessing protocol, a 'record of the individual informationitems

used in problem-solving, genera,ted as the.information wasactually

. ,used, and including Manipulations and relation4.ips associated with specific information items.

The key to the technique wouldApe'an informationbank,.a. colIectiOn of information in-various categories coveringall

'aspects of the problem-solVing task. A. separate information bank 'could be'pre-specified ,by the experimenterfcr each design problem, and subdivided intO separate items. Theitems

could.then be printed on individual cards and,physically: selected and manipulated by the subject as an analog topersonal

notes or mental manipulations. This techniqu'e was intended to

.provide a relatively fiatural working medium,simplifying the

processes of.Inforrh4tiOn search, retrieval, and manipulation, and providing.for a direct recording of designbehaVior in 30 0 ' 21

terms of.information patterns. This would be in contrast to

the indirect thinking aloud approachhibh°concentrated on

. . subject perceptions. By making theprocess literally observ-

. , . ablethroughthe use of sets ofinformationcards,,it should i be 40osSible to obtain S standardized, highly accurate, highly

reliabl record, with a'clear.reading ofsequence,.duration,

and rela ionships

Whip this techniquewas distinctly different from the

. approaches AlSed in most of the related' research, it was suggested

\ . ., bycontroll\ed.inforMatioh,formatsused in many of the probi.em-

... 1 -\

. . solving studies.\,'' 1 Although the use of_ informationitems,as a .4 \ design .mediumis somewhat,unusual, this approach has been sug A '\ gested by several design practitioners, who haverecoMmentied

r2Cordingand manipUlating informirtion-Lusing index cards or

slips of paper( t;rnet4 te, 1967; C,/Gregory, 1967;JoneS, 1966): In a theoretical sense, information protocols are consistent

with .the view Of:th design proceSsdescribed by several.

\ authors as an informatiOn image being continually developed and refined in progressing from,an initial problem definition. . to a final.Solutith. (Bdrnette,-.1967;S, Gre4ory,;1966;,Fore- \ hand, 1966; Krampen,'196Mil:Ler et.al,1969).

E. Exrimental,Design

A -3)3 factorial design, comparing three designstrategies, used to solve thee problemswith three subjects using each strategy, was determined as anyappropflate scale forthis pilot

research, providing some variety and comparison of differences. /

o 22

,.- within the resources available to the experimenter; This

, . 'offered particular, dvantages since by comparing three strate7., 0 . gies leiwas. not necessary to use a separate.coiltrol group

(using no strategy).. By comparing strategy effects over

three problems it wouldbe.possible to check on'the.generality

and consistency of the strategies, with'soMe control over

differences in.subject background and 'experience which might

have favored any given problem. It was.determined'that each

. subject should use the same Strategy for all: three problms, because of the likelihood of confuion and contaMiRation if

subjects were aSked_to change strategies between problems. This design also permis a statistical analysis of variance

to determine effects of strategies, problems, subjects withih

strategies, and strategy=problem interaction.

,. STRATEGIES

5.=-Step 10,7Stei. .15 -Step

Subjects (1) (2) (3) (1) A2) -(3) .(1) (2) (3)

.I Prob-, II lems i

1, If ;-&

. .Figure2-1EXperimental Design

E. Subjects'

\ 1

' Advanced'environmentaldesign students were initially ,

1 identified as a.general.,subject type appropriate tohis

research.. This was based on the assumed need for4subjects

able to solve complex desigh problem§ in a reasonably. brief-

3 2 23 period Of,time,'and the relatively aarge time committment re-

gtited for orientationariNfor 'three Prob/em-solving sessions. Ztudehts also seemed desirable in terms of their availability

on camp's,their generally high levelof interest and motiva-': tion, and their relative flexibility in working habits as com-

154rtd with,profesiOnals.

3 3 CHAPTER III INSTALLATION: Development of Experimental

, Materials

introduction:

Specific experimental materials, oblem types; test

strategies, information banks,. and apparatus were developed

using controlled systematic procedures. These procedures

were used to provide the best possible tools for this research, with a comprehensive description of,the development process for use by other design methods researchers.

TEST PROBLEMS

Problem7sblving.tasks were selected using criteria devel-r

oped and applied,to problem elternativesthrough .a series of questionnaires submitted to a , committee of consultants (the experimenter's faculty advisory committee).

A. Establishing a Problem Area

range.of,problem alternatiVes was lImited.to facilitate -Criteria and problem generation. Environments associated with college classroom buildings were selected in order that their familiarity to subjects could reduce-the tinge required for problem definition and orientation. ;Such environments

also: a) are familiar to the experimenter; b) offeria vari- . ety of settings; and c) have a likelihood of existing informa- \ 4 tion and expertise available..onthe campus.

B. Advisory. Committee

The advisory committee was involved because of the breadth 25

of expertise represented by the following academic departments

and subdisciplines:

1. Induptrial Engineering (design methods and systems)

2. Industrial Engineering (human factors, ergonomics)

3. Psychology (engineering and perceptual psychologY)

4. Computer Science (information, systems)

5. Urban Planning (architecture and environmental design)

These fields_include aspects relevant to environmental design and the consideratiOn of research tasks and experimental de-

signs. Faculty members should also have a sensitivity to facilities for higher education.

. Delphi Eirocedure

An adaptation of the "delphi procedure" (Quade 1968;

RdsOhery 1969,Yused a series of questionaires,A permitting

the .Committee members to no,te the responses,of their colleagues.

.as,an additional factor in' making subsequent decisions-. This - allowed the committee to participate in a simplified dialogue and search for a consensus without physically meeting. , Two questionnaireS were 'used for criteria selection and a. final questionnaire was used for applying the criteria t .problem alternatives.

D. Criteria Review Questionnaire

'The first questionnaire presented the committee witha

t tentatiVe list -of criteria for their review and comment.

Criteria were generated by theekperimenter based on the needs 35 4.

A 26

of the-experiment and. the characteristics of problems which

might, be evaluated (Appendix A-1). The specific criteria

titles were as follows:

1. Comparable to other Problems

2. Environmental in Character

3. Availabilitymof Background Information

1 4. '.MOtivates'Sub)ects

5. Understandable to Subjects

6. 'Permits wide rangeofiSollitiohPossibilities.

7. Reasonable to Expect Solution within Time Constraints

Criteria presentation \included: a) a brief review of the

, delphilp ocedure; b) an explanation of the initial choice of

problem area; and c):a simplified deScription of the role of

.0o,, test problems in the experiment. A response sheet provided

for comments on the individual criteria and on criteria that

might have.,been omitted. The results affirmed the proposed

:criteria and suggested minor modifications mhich were included in arevised criteria list for the secondquestionnaire

.(Appendix A-2).

E. Criteria Rating Questionnaire

On the second ques'tionnairip.the co ittee members were.

asked to compare the different criteri .and estimate the

relative differences in importance. he revised criteria

were presented to the members with an expanded set of defini-

tions to-aid in understanding (Appendik A-2). The response sheet required abbindicatin of differences on 4 linear scale 3G 27 as an aid in visualizAtion and a means of insuring comparability results., The results:Of the questionndire are presented in Table 3 -1, showing the ratings. for each triegrion nutherically translated from their linear p. 'The 'rat--;

irigs were frequently ncohsistent, and in'-several instances I memberS assigned very ifferent ratings to the same criterion

(A, B, D, G). Given the mixed result's, it was not possible to confirm' or-reject an'y specific criterion, or to assign any meaningful weighting.

c Table 3-1Responses"On Criteria Rating Questionnaire'

(numerical equivalents of linear positions, 10 = high)

CRITERIA RESPONDENTS AVER/

- A B D

. C . A. Comparable. With 5.7' , 0,6 3.6 2.5 Other Problems

B. Environmental-Design, 9.9 10.0 2.4 .4.5 6.5

Task .

C. Availability of Back- 9.0 10.0 6.9 9..19 9 . p

ground Info/I:nation °

D. Motivates Subjects ' 1.8 , 8.4 8.7 4.8

E. TiMe Constraints 8.4 9.6 .7,2 6.3 . r4.,

F. Comparable Within_ 6.6 10:0 9.0 7.8 8.4 Problem' Area ..,

G. Uniqueness of Prob- 0.6 5.4 :9.3 3.8: lem

0 o

F. Problem Selection Questionnaire'

. In the third questionnaire, a SeAected set of criteria

(Appendix A-3), were applied to a number of problem alternativeS. developedbyte'experimenter to represent4 environmental systems with h-a range of components or elements to be.provided., Prob - lems were eliminated froM the larger set of-alternatives in the educational area if they were too complex in terms of variety of spaces; activities, or unique technology. The typical classroom Was alsd excluded as being too simple under present interpretations and taro complex if thoroughly designed for new teaching t ch`niques. The final set of alternatives

I . (Appendix-A-4) was Subdivided into three different categories to maintain the distinction between problems, as shownbelow:

Group I Group II Group III

A. Faculty Office E.,Dept.'.Conference Campus Snack Room Bar B. Administrative Office F. Lab Discussion J. DOrM. Floor Room Lounge C. Research Office -G. Teaching Discus- K. Departmental D. Teaching Asst. sion 'Room Lounge O ice H. Audio-Visual Room Coffee Shop

A.paragraph description identified the alternatives, without. descFiptive titles in'order to minimize bias in terminology.

One response sheet was provided for each of five criteria, with cues representing high, middle, and 1Gw values (Appendix

A-3). Cue statements were included at.relative intervals

38. along, linear scale.k The ,rsponse format required the .

t , members to rate the four alternatives in -each group,_wilth the

'Understanding that the best problem ii°eaCh group tlrould be , used' in the, experiment.

The results of the third questionnaire are shown in Table

3-2, again using: numerical equivalents to represent linear.

positions. The results were Qnce more varied and contradic- . tory,*and in some cases comMittee.members completed only a

.kao,ortion of, the questionnaire. ,:llowever,.he results identi-

fied several problems as overall high scorers. The scores were used. in a further screening of the-problems by inspection.

The final selectiOn# were made as follows: (I,) the faculty

waswas relatively more clear -cut than the TA office with likelihood of considrably more background discussion in'the

literature; (II) the departmental conference room was more e appropriate than'47.he two classroom-types.which seemed too

41. open-ended, 'and.the audio-visual laboratory which Seemed to' e. be technically difficult; (III,) the campus snack bar was less technical than the coffee shop, the departmental lounge was too similar t 'the conference room, and the dOrmittry lounge

( . was too remote from the classroom building. .The'seleCtions seem to provide a representative set of problems within the

bOunds'of the criteria. -In retrospect; despite' the incon- sistencies in the questionnaire technique, it does seem that ti the mote explicit examination and decision-making'resulted in

a-more.rlgoroUs selection of problems than would have been

likely 'using less formal methods.

L. Ks) 3O Table.3-2 ResponSeson Problem Selection Questionnaire,. (numerical equivalents of linear positions, .10 =

. 01==aL , litILL.:.1.:Al.,TE24Ui.(4111,-S , r: ) C` f Y'((; ).... Co ) .: ( ) ( ) , ( ) , ( h...51111111MIN arable

. .. . , To II :,1111111 .58.51,111.5

(, Cter C 1. , IN .0 1-1 Li- 111/1111MINIBM2;°

, D k.: 7-.5M.017.0 5 . 5 1 .54.516.5 9 5 8. ,f,..0 arf..2..,

;oti- 1. .)0.52.0 5.02.0'.09.0 ,.0 '.06. 4.

gates 1 2.0 'N.0 %.0 Sub- 4.0 9.0 9.0 .0 9.0 r-/ 011E1111 Teot,p C 2.02.0.h.06.0 7.05.06.58j.3.07.56:5.0 6.04.00.08.0 9.406.04.09.01 .00408. .0 T1.53.0'2: 5.050.0 6.511822.01.59:0.9.0

Time 0.09.0(A.09.0 .01111 .04.-1111111' ; : 4.5

" (Dr- So /u- BIM9.09.09.0 9.06.'9.08.01.8.08.08.06. 41* tion C1:.0111111116.0Ilac.08.04.016;0 .07:54.5 nib8.02.04.0.S.0: :-.,.0 3.08.04.0110-0'8:05.0: 0

'5.09.511112.0ME4.074. 0.512 i 8.09.50.5

:van- .4.04.0/I.04.0'4. .4.04.04.0 9... 404,09.. able I nfo7- ':51-2.0 .06. 0 IN .0..01111116.4 . .0

O. ation Ili1.01..00.0 9.511111.015.0 0..59'5.4.5

'am).- (f.0'31.0q.09.01111EININIMINTIMIN arable.M(,.4111 ..0 ithin1511iii IIIIMEININI6. .TEM xob- C 2.04.0MIEN .01111 .0MEIrr-.71160 gems 1 6.011112.03.51/11114.0111.8.0118.ill6.01211

.bso- 0. 5.0 11110.0110.0' 5:0

lute- ,

lit9511117 114 8 11 '110 1101111102 7, :

indicates different respondentsArerfotall respondehts. .an.swered.:eilery -criteria question, T indicates r.total. "Absolute" refers to one respondent whoated i.11 the :probl,emS as a' whole,without using ,specific criteria. 40 31 .

TEST STRATEGIES *

The test strategies for this experiment,were deveToped,

using a national survey of.design practitioners,to obtain

a uniform measure c5f current opinion, which was -hen usedas a framework for strategy formulation by the experimenter.

A. National Sarvey Questionnaire1. . The .national survey was based on a questionnaire mailed

.-todadividuals prominent in the design methods literature Of

:environmental:design and related fields. The purpose of the

ar.14stionnaiie was to present alternative apptoadhes to design

strategies in a standard format in order to obtain the most

Current viewpoints stated in a readily comparable manner.

Materials -for thd survey were generated as aY. "steps",

,listing alternative operations which.might be includdd in .a

design strategy; and b) "assumptions", describing alterna.7 tive approaches which might be used in formulating a specific

4et of :steps in a design strategy..TheNcstepS were based on a

°, synthesis of a number ,of design strategies (Appendix B-1)

with an emphasis on steps which seemed to have general acceptance, but which indicated, basic differences in meaning. . A total of 32 steps (Appendix B-'-2) were identified in the,.. following general categories:

a. Definition Solution Development

Planning 'f. 'Evaluation InfOrmation and Organization -g. Implementation and Follow- Through d.Solution Generation -° 32 a similar way, the assurnptiOns'viere-zenerated from the

design methods literature;- although in this instance'thecon-

cepts, were usually not stated exPli.64'and had to beextrap-

olated on the basis of overall approaches to designstrategies.

In the final outcome, 19 basic assumptions (Appendix B-3)were

generated in the following categpries: ,

a. Strategy Function c. 4pecific Operational Approaches

b. Design Process d. Overall Problem-Solving Approaches

The survey requested respondents to indicate thesequence of steps for an effective design strategy, and to signify

their' agreement or disagreement with the assumptions which

.were "offered. In bath instances the order of presentation,

was varied from the groupings indicated above, in an effort tolbreak up obvious sets and encourage independent judgments.

Forty prospective respondents were identifiedon the basis of demonstrated interest in design strategies, and questionnaires

were mailed to the4 individuals along with covering letter of'explanation and a pre-addressed and stamped return evelope.

B. Survey Results

A total of 13'respondents, representing Important methods

areas, responded totiii'questionnaire. The results are.shown

on Tables 3-3 and 3.-44 and summarized'in'Appendix B-4. The relevance of the questionnaire was essentially confirmed,

* . since each step and assumption was cited at least once; and most were mentioned four or pore times, Typical, step results,

included a) support for the.commonly recognized sequence of

z. 3 3

"definition", "information gathering and organization",

"solution generation", "solution development" and "evalua-

tion"; b) twenty-four of the steps cited by a majority of

the respondents, .although with no consistent patternor s2querice; and c) an average strategy length of 18 steps,

although in some cases steps were combined to approach.a 10-

step strategy. Most importantly, minority groups of respon-' dents selected specific steps not generally accepted, and suggested sequences of step usage different from the general

pattern.

The assumption result's confirmed most of the assumptions, with at least minot acceptance for assumptions considered to

be more "systematic;'. An important aspect was the observation that.the respondents frequentlydid-not discriminate

between assumptions that were intended .by the experimenter

to be conflicting, or contradictory. For example, the "Stra- . tegy func-Eion' assumptions were intended to represent mutual1y exclusive approaches, yet some respondents agreed with two or

more of-these assumptions. Although. the responses May have

been due, in part, to the phrasing of.the 'assumption state,-

Intents, It appears that there is a lack of a clear understanding or approach on the part of practitioners, which might be

aided by an appropriate display and comparison. of these conl-

cepts in the test strategies. A

34 Table 3-3 Step Responses on NaticSnal Survey Questionnaire'' (numbers represent order of inclusion in strategy sequence)

ST-.1,E;

Definition , Platnin InformatiOn ( (7. .(h), (5. (6)c7) ("7,) (9)(10)(11)(12)(15)(14(15)(16). ( i '3, 4, 1 :-..- A 2 2 1-J - 4.1.'-

:70 13 1 .3 -6 16 15. q 10 11- 12.18 7 17 .. - -. . ,

C . 1 8. D 6 2 3 il 5 9 la 11, 12 ',17 14 E -3 2 11 1 5 6 710 -1.3 .1' -16 '12'

F 2 1. 3 C4 6 12 13 14,, 'l G . .,. H. 2 .1 .., I 1. 2 4 4 5

;-:: , 2 -1 6 ' 7 L 6 1 3 2 8 5 4,7 10 Al 12 9. .' ri 2 1 2 2 .2*- . 2. .2

T..10 7 7 9 10 8 8 4 7 6 7 7 6 5 .3

Imp?. Generation Development . Evaluation (17 (18(19(20)(21)(22):(25(24)(25)(26(27)(28)(29)(30)52)

A 4 I 5' 6 5 55,' 6 6 B 2 8 19 20 21 19 1422 17 23 25,

C .. 14.. .17 19 D.. 13I 15 18' 16

E 15 20 23 22 21 ,2/1-. 29 18 25 19, 27 26 26 50 F .8 9 10 18 7 16.15 lci. ,

G , H 5 5 6 6 6, 6 9.'66,7 9 7 9, 9 .8

-_...9 8' 11 r 5 - 7 10 '3 6

.6 10

K 1 .1 ) 2a 25 P 13 16 17 19 2 1, 15 14 22 20 23 PI- 10 2 13 - M 3. . 8 14 -...... 4-7 .a T 1 ,7 6.8 6 5 7 8 8 5 4 6' 8 8 9 .

A -M indicates respondents"; C,G..omitted this, section; T=total. 35 ,Table 3-4 .AssumptiCh Responseson National Survey Questionnaire

. .1. "x" represents agreement withassumption. ASSUMPTION'ALTERNATIVES Function Process v Operational Overall (a)(b)(c)(d)Se) (h) (f)(g) (i)(j)-(k)(1)(m)(n)(o)(p)(q)(r)(s)

A , x . - X X . B , x x x x C x- x x x x. x x x x ,X X X D' x x ,x. x x x. x x x x -. , F x x x x x x x G x x x x x \L

. II x x xx,x x x ,\ x x x x '

x x )c . x xx x x J x x, x,x-%x x x x x...... xx x x x.x x , .. L x x x x x x x x-x,

M x x x x X X 3i T 6 8 8 . 9 6 4 6 3 5 5 8 4 9 5 3

NOTE: A M indictes /7esporidehtsi T indicatestotal, for all

. .t.espondents,.. I C. Strategy Development

`The developmeht of the specific strategies was based on e the xpetimenter interpretationof the survey results,Modi-. fied y.the.requitements of the research Study. The 'major

o. experlthental considerationwas the "comparability" of strategies, requiring the provision of distinctvariations which would be likely to produce measureable effectSon design_ performanCe.11,The degree' of guidance"ineach, strategy was 0 45 6

. initially varied by specifying three differentlengths or num

- - . bers.of steps in the strategy seq4ence. This approach is

suggestedjoy the. Strategies,,, of various lengths. as shown in

Appendix P.-l; Lengths of 5, 10, and 15 steps. were selected .

In er, to have comparable numeric' differenceS, mhile main-- , taining tWstrategies within manageable lengths.

The structure and content of the strategies were also

varied in ways which might highlight the differenceS,,pri-

marily, through de'veloping the strategies in increasing orders

. . complexity (Appendix13-5). The 5 -stepstrategy presented-, the simplest, most pasid approaches, essentially redefining

the majordivisions in the deSign process, apd forcing reliance:,

on_individUal intuitive-approaches,. The 10-step,strategy was

based on a more traditional model, using the general sequence,. h and most popular steps and assumptions, identified in the

. . 1V survey. The leVel of detail provided was increased over the

5 -step, strategy but the,10,-step alternative followed the wo,st

obvious pattern's,' and required considerable individual

interpretation., The 15-step strategy wasdeveloped by the experimenter as a theoretically "best" design'strategy, ea utikiziiii:presilmeably more systematic concepts pre-tested srT,

. and confirme4Vby7at ,least a minority of respandentg in the

survey. This strategy included operational instructions for:

initiating the problem-solving activity; controlling informa-

tion releVance; and4sdlUtion.dev,elopment;;,,. providing specific

r:.

46' 37 . Y design aids. to guide thesubject throughoutthedesign process. The. three strategies (Figure 3-1)were then assumed to include

differences in-ulength, detail; and techniquewhich would dir- dctly'affect the quality ofcietign performance.

Figure 3-1 Test Stategy Step Sequende

5-STEP STRATEGY 15-STgP.STRATEGY I. Defining'The.Problem . . 1. Identifying Design Task

2. Gathering Data 1 2. Determining Cperational DefinitiOn 3. Developing Preliminary Solution 3. Determining MiniMum LimitatiOns 4. Detailing The Solution A. Developing SolutiOn. Targets 5..Evaluating Solution

. Screening. Solution Targets lop-svp STRATEGY

6.: Gathering Data . 1. Determining,User "Requirements 7. Pro&esing.-Data° 2: Determining Solution. . Identifying Subproblems Constraintp,, 1 9. Devel4ingSulqproblem - 3. Gathering pata' Solutr6ns

4. Organizing Data 10. Integratin g Subproblem Solutions 5. ,.Developing Conceptual Solutions 11. DeVeloping $.01ution. System Alternatives1 6. Developing Subsystem, Solutions 12. Detailing Solution Alternatives 7. Developing Overall Solution 13. Evaluating Solution 1ernatives +. 8. Detailing Overall Solution 14. Optimizing Solution

9. Evaluating Solution 15. Refining Solution 10. Revising Solution. 4 7 38

In the final form of the strategies, an effort, was, made to preserve strategy differences while minimizing extraneous

. . . . : faqtors as follows: a) strategies were nOt-intended to

"trick" the subjects, each of the strategie's was workable and presented as straight-forwardly as possible; b) roman numerals were used to identify strategy steps in order to highlight the: important functioris of each single stepv c) step titles were kept as uniform as possible between strategies, except for specific differences in'peaning; and d) both titles and explanatory definitions were reviewed for clarity andfambi2 guity.

D. Strategy Hypotheses, Specific hypotheses to be tested in the experiment were developed. in terms of assumed differencesin the strategies

(Appendix B -6), the general 7fypothesis and subhypotheses' are listed as follows:

General Hypothesis:. Different strategies will 'produce signi- ficanteffects on design problem solving.

° The 5-step strategy should generally bemore ineffi- dient, produting unsatisfactory solutions.

Hyp, 1-1: The 5-step strategy should require more time for.' Solution.

. . . Hyp.'l -2: The 5-step strategy shbuld require. greater'effort gdtting started on prbblem-solving.

. , . Hyp.,1-3,: The5-step Strategy-should _be highly redundant with informatiOn selected anda used. c- r . , Hyp; .1 -4: The 5-step strategy should show significant impuover. ment in efficiency(bVer repeated tei pt\sessions -( Hyp. 1-5; The 5- stepstrategy should produce significantly poor solutions, improving over time. 46 39

Hyp. 2: The 10-step strategy'should be relatively easy to apply, but should be generally conservative, and somewhat inefficient;

_Hyp. 2-1: The 10-step strategy should facilitate the start of problem-solving with little hesitation.,

Hyp. 2-2: The-10-Step sttategshoUld display considerable redundancy and inefficiency, 14 ha relatively. great con- centration on details. a 2-31-The,10-step strategy should rely on practical con iderations ra'dier than conceptual approaches.

k. Hyp. 2 -4: The 10-step,strategy should show relatiVely slight but constant improvement.in efficiency over tree test sessions-.

Hyp. 2 -5:) The 10-step strategy-should produce moderate,. traditional, solutions with little improvement. over time.

Hyp. 3: The 15-step strategy shOuld be overall the mogt efficient and effective._

.,Hyp. 3-1: The 15-step strategy should provide direct; effective definition_of the problem.

Hyp. The 15-step strategy. should utilize information 'selectively, with an-:-efficient ,problem 'development.

ti Hyp. 3-3: The 15-step strategy should concentrate on ,conceptual information, developing broad solution implications.

Hyp. 3-4: The 15-step strategy should be relatiliely efficient Anitially, with little changeover time

Hyp. The 15-Step strategy should produce consistently 'high-level solutions-with an emphasis on thoroughness and innovation.

INFORMATION BANKS

The of _the three information banks involved: identifying-the kinds. of information needed, generatinginforma7 4 tion items from the literature, and structuring the infOrmation

for the subject's-use. 40

A.. Types.- of Information

Major types of information, applicable to the three

problems,' were identified fromithe test strategies which;

either implicitlyor.explicitly, directthe subjects toward a fhe'acquisition. of different types ofzinformation and the expression .of different-Concepts.. Information-needs were

deterMined in the areas df: a) defining the problem; .b,)

deVeloping the problem and solUtIdn requirementsr; c) speci-

fying rthe final solution. Specific "definition" -information

mentioned in the,strategieS'inoludes.: .11 user. requirements,

2) solution constraints, 3) external constraints, 4) -design task deScriptors, 5) operationaldefinition statements; , :covering both detailed and minimum' limitations. PrOblem.

"develdpment".information is not- specified in the strategies,

exCept,for the- direction to "gather"-information, but alterna-.

tives commonly identified in the. literature (Appendix J) ".

include: 1) user characteristics, 2)- user activities,

3) design factors or-principle5, 4) man-environment research

informationLynd.5) background inforMation on similar. problems. "Solution specification" information is identified in the

strategies at various'levels including: 1). conceptual solu tions or solution targets, 2) subsystem or subproblem solu7

tions, 3) solution elements to be included'in7overall'solu-

tions,and 4).solution spd'cificationp or element details in

final solutions. Evaluation information would not require a a separate information type since it would refer back to earlier

criteria. Process inforMation would also be needed,to indicate' a0 4,1

ti specific ±echniques.Or types of relationships\used in pro-

cessing the information. . \

Information Selection

Specific information for the three problems was identi-

fied from a variety of sources, most of which-wou 1d be avail- -able to a practicing designer, The different sOue types are identified in Appendix C-1 and the related lite atute is

cited in the information bank bibliography (Appendi How-

. ,

'ever, some source, examples are: a) articles, text , dnd

. handbooks, related to environmental design; .b) curridp-

lum materials; c) planning Materials used fot designi g.edu-\ , cational facilities.' The seatch for-information wasas\'Comprel..

hensive as possible. AdditiOnal details might h'aVe been located, but in most cases these would have been beyond the

reach of the typical designer.

The selections of information from. these sources were

controlled by the experimentet. The experimenter. essentially, acted as a design practitiOner preparing information fot:his own project, but including an'eXpanded range of information alternatiVes to allow fpr different subject approache.

, Selection procedures inclu@ed: a) literallyrecording.infor

mation as given; b) screehing information for applicability

ar reinterpreting it in a more, useable form; c).fabricating

information uniqueto the 6,10geriment (as in the "client"

requirements), Or.unavaille in the literature (new items .fot O

"vending"). This fabrication,. however; was kept t.;la minimum

and was always. based on general design principles. It shoUld be noted that with the exception Of Clearly outrageous state-

ments, -ale information was not checked for.aCcuracy or rele

vance, since it was assumed that in the real-world the designer

is often presented with uncertain information and it is one

of the fUnctions f the strategy to aid in dealing:with,such

infOrmation.

-4), . C. Generation

The assembled informationWas subdivided to forni speci-

fic information "items" as shown in Figure 3 -2. This inVolved

generating:' a) lists of single items; 25) .modified

brief statements; longer statements representing defini-

tions or cOncepts;.and.d) drawings of solution.elementS or

typical'layouts. COnsiderations in generating the items

0 inclUded: 1) logical and Consistent subdivision of larger.

;concepts;. 2) familiarity and .understandability of terminolOgy,

and definitions;. 3) -ease of combining iteMs.into complex,. expressions; and 4? control of item quantity in each type'

'category to provide a range of alternatives (usually 10-:200 withOut overloading the subjects

D. Information. Structure

The collection of individual items was organized in

order to: a) facilitate subject lyation and use of items;

and b) to simplify the coding and inte.L.pretation of items. 4 52 O ; to.SERVING participanes) (food, drink ( tardi,-games)PLAYING nY'(1)fS DISTANCE FRflI SEATING FRESH FRUIT rig TO DISP,EAY 8' MINIMUM ;(or.vegetables) H-0 HORS D'OERVES- t ICE /4 , 5CD soOp CHARTS (end graOhs). 7.1 DISPLAYS s O NOTE PAD TWO-PERSON( of Aesk TABLE) / 44

'Each item was given a specific locatiOn ina illera-chical System including 1). major information'furiction,(uSing an

alphabeti.'ccharacter.); 2) specific inforMtion characteris,

tics (usually by "tens" digit); and 3)- individual itera.

sequence (usually "unit:' digit). Tflis informationAl struSture

4 was governed by; a) 'rough sequence of use, to fe.PCili-Ete

locationand retrieval; ,b).randomization of 4 specific- use sequences, to minimize probability of,a straight sequence o

fi selection; c) randomization' of information items lithiri.

Categories, to avoid experimenter. blas-j_n determining item

. importance. Terminology. in organilational. headings.was Chosen

to maximize identification, and recognitior'l; and_minimize simi.

laritieS to terminologpused in defining test strategies. -

Category description's are given in Appendix C-2., The main d v headings used for all three informationbanks'are.shown as

follows:. e

Definition Information K. General InfOrmation A. Problem Descriptors Solution Description B. Process Descriptors Genera -i. Element Classes C., Overall Requirements Z. Solution Condept$' D. Information ReqUirements W. Graphic Elements E. General Requirements Element Specifications Development Information . . Solution Elements, F. User Types ,. M-N. ,Material Elements G. Action Types 0-0 Furnitureo Element H. Design Considerations R -S. Equipment Elements J. Research Information-. T-'17. Ancillary Elements .J

:TESTA.PipARATU The development of the apparatus represented & key . , r..:element in facilitating the .practical appliCation of the

I. experimental materials in a real-life-like setting. The

! piLocedure used was to identify.a set of working requirements

. based On the. research needs, and then to determine the physi-

, cal comporients which would best meet these requirements.

Y4 A!. Operational Requirements The major consideration in apparatus design was to

permit the subjects to work as naturally as possible, per- forming a number of diffrent operations as described in

Appendix C73), and listed by major headingsbelow:)

r. Information Seledti ')n

2. Information Grouping

3. In orMation Relationship

4. Information ,Disposition

5.- Information Modification 3 6. Information Consideration It was considered important to permit all subject operations to occur with a minimum of effort, and with a natural flow of visUal_and physical movements.'

Recording Requirements .

The apparatus also had to accommodate the recording of

specific data required for the information processing proto-

cols, encompassing the following dimensions described irrdetail I in _Appendix C-4:- 4, 5 5 46 A. Identification

B. Sequence

C. DuA.ation o D. Description

E. step Behavior

It was important that all of these recording operations should

be accomplished as unobtrusively,as possible, minimizing sub-

ject distractions and seconlOtry task burdenS. ...

C. Practical Requirements

-Additionalirequirements were considered for the best use

of the experimenter's efforts and resources, including:

a) the use of three sets of apparatus, permitting simultaneous

running of.three subjects to reduce the ampuiftof time required

for testing; b) economy of constructing and transporting

multipl&sets of apparatuslic) durability of apparatus to

withstand repeated useage and handa&g; and dr4illowinimal de-

, pendence on experimenter for apparatus operation. In longer

terms, the record produced by the apparatus. should be con- ,

, . venient to,handle and process in coding and analysis.

D. Design Process Information Recording, System (DEPIRS) DEPIRS (Figure 3-3) represents an integrated set of

components adapted to design pripleth-solving research, which

should'be ideally suited for.this study and readily applicable-

to future projects. The apparatus development is shown in , AppendLx D-1, withthe detailed specifications in D -2. The basic approach uses physical information cards which are

56' 4 47 selected and manipulated by subjects, with a photographic record taken automatically at pre7determined intervals,pro-

Vidipg"crala on informationus The major elements of the''..ap:-

Paratus include: a) a 16mm motion picture camera, with b). an attached timing mechanisM, operating' a single7frameexposure

... release every 30 seconds, recording the manipulationof c) formation items pre-printed on'light cardboard backed bya-- small magnet, Whin allows them to adhere to d) a 3' .x 5' metal chalkboard, resting on e)''''''"a removeable base;. after the cards are removed from f) a three-ring storage binder with metal pages_ Standard chalk and erasers could be used with the items to perfirm necessary modificatibns or'Clariffcations'.

Figure 3-3 DEPIRS Apparatus

(r)

Scale: 3/8 "= 4

t. 48

DEP1R-S was dedign for use in a classrOom at the School

of Architecture, UW-Milwaukee (although it could be easily

adapted for other locations) which was particularly suited fof.

' the experiment (Figure 3-41-' with.:'a) movable display panels'. . . which could be arranged t&5form:test "booths "; b) adjustable

spotlights to illuminate -.he display area; c) work tablet to

support the apparatus; d), chai"rs for seating; and unused

alcoves. for storing larger apparatus ,2.1ements between.sessions. The apparatus,was set up as shown, follo.wing the prodedures

described in Appen'dix D-3.

Figure 3-4 Test4Room Layout

Scale: l/8"=

5G 1 49 'TEST SUBJECTS - Subject selection ws based on a determinatiogofthe.

characteristics desired in a subject population, identification of a suitable popUlation, andseleation ofthe beSt!

possible set of subjects. .

A. Subject.Reqjkrements.'

Subjects were previously identified as students trained.

a-tan advanced level in 'environmental design problem- solving.

Additional requirements .included: a) membership tin a size- able pool from which a uniform, subset,gould'be drawn; b) -parti- . cipation in a common standard curriculum; c) some exposure to

formal design method's, without being'trained in any single

strategy Or method;d) high motivation tO.cooper.ate with a

somewhat unique and tedious design task; and e) ability' to

spend time on three all -day test sessions in addition.to

orientatioA.and,study time% 0

.,B. Subject Selection

THe nearest available students-with suitable character-. istics were graduate students at the School of AtchiteCture- . University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (the department On the Madison campus has few students and their backgrounds are very diverse). The students in Milwaukee were reviewed with the aid of a 'cooperating facilty member to identify individuals who

had completed course work related to the scale of th'eproposed

test problems', and who seemed suitable in terms of level of 59,

o 50

. \ comPetance.fand potential interest.. The records ofthe candiJ-

dates were reviewed to 'insure a.similarity In: a). undergradu ,

.1 . ate.educat.ion, graduate,prograM, c) work experience, -(11

. academic performance. Using. thisinformation it was possible

to iden'ti'fya matched .group of,nine subjects with several al-

ternates. ,The r,nineT. students were further divided into three

equivalent groups on the basis of :the faculty member's class

-experience with the specificindividuals.

M I

°C. Subject Recruitment

The motivation of subjects became a major factor in the

final recruitment of prospective test subjects. Initially, 0 the experimenter, aware of the effort involved in. the experi-

. pent, had specified a stipend of $9:0' for each subject. This

seemed to be a substantial induCementi averaging $3/hour for

f .three and a half day's Work. However,' when the students were informed of the nature of the experiment and the stipend, . .

. . only six.. o'responded.the nine candidates .responde, The experimenter,- ' then deterMined'that many of the studentS held outside jabs with an. adequate income and therefore the stipendwas not

sufficient to induce Students to give up time near the' end of the semester. ConseqUently, the stipend was raised to $150,

and on thiS basis the recruitment was' satisfactorily completed.

60 51

CHAPTER IV - IMPLEMENTATION: Operating Procedures

Introduction: S.

The procedures used by subjects in theexperiment were

left up 'to the individual subject's own working patterns. In

contrast; specific prbcedures Were required in attempting to insure a thorough orientation of subjects before the experi-

ment, and in generating meaningful results from the data re-

cord after the experiment. Additional procedures demonstrate the'experimenter's responsibilities in handling the apparatus, and the methocIfOr running,the experiment.

ASUBJECT ORIENTATION

The orientation of subjects had two main purpOses

a) presentation. and intarpretdtion. of the strategies, to-in-

sure that 'subject's would be able to use a given strategy in'

practice; and b) familiarization of subjects with the tasks

to be performed, in order to redube accommodation time in

the test session.

A. Invitation

, A memoranduM was used to inforM potential subjects of

their selection for, the, study, and to .briefly describe the

nature of the task and the time committment required. Sub- jects were requested to-contact the liason faculty member

. . to register'their acceptance and to request any needed clari7

fication.-

ti 52

B. Orientation Meeting..

A Meeting. was held- with the experimenter, the liason

faculty member, and six of the subjects to answer questions

about tie experiment and work on scheduling (additional sub-

jects were handled-individually), The experimenter expanded

on the information provided in the invitation,_ avoiding th-e.

specific discussion of'problems, or strategies. The bulk of

the meeting was concerned with making, decisions to a) run,

the test sessions ow"three consecutive weekend ; b) work on

saturdays; sundays, and mondays; c) start th sessions at

9:00 a.m.; and d) schedule-the weekends within the time re-

maining iE the school term.

C. Orientation. Booklet

. , An orientation booklet was prepared for distribution

to,subjects one week before the first test session. This

booklet provided instructions for the experimental task for use

as a reference throughout the experiment. The contents 'of the

booklet are listed below, they essentially pres.ented-materials

.covered elsewhete in this report:

1. Procedure SuMmary 2YExperiment Oveiwiew

4 4

, .-. 3: Design, Strategy Introduction" I .4.-Design Strategy Description

5. Information Bank IntroductiOn4

62'InTormation Bank Structure

7. Experimental Apparatus

1. 6.2 53 8. Using Information Items

9. Using Notations (chalkboard)

10. Ptetest

Tentative.Schedule of Test.Sessions

A major fundtion of the'booklet was the distribution of

specific ,test strategies to their respective.users, listing

the specific information for each strategy under "design

. strategy description"-, while holding the,rest of the booklet'

constant. The largest amount of spade in the boOklet was ,\

used for orienting subjects to Ispecific functional aSpects

of the experiment4 An attempt was made:to describe the de-

1 tails as fulty, and operationally, , 'as.possible, without making

reference to the problem types, in an effort to preVent ad-

vance planning,or-thinking about a specific method of solu--

tion.

The preteSt was designed to serve, as a study aid and to be used in the pre-Session orientation as a check on subject

comprehension. The test used "matching" and-'"fill-in-the 7. -blank" quettionS to verify subject understandr ofothe design strategy and its appdications, and the structure and use of the information banks. .Some questions were left open-

ended'in ordet to elicit general questions anp uncertainties ;

about the materials.

D. .Pre- Session Orientation

-The exgerimentet met with the three subjects who would

be using the same test, strategy on any given test day, at

o 6 5 54

the start of, the test session, taking aboWt one hour onthe

initial sessions to cover:, a) :review of the pretest and dis,-

,ctssion of the test strategy, with exapples-and reference to

questions raised one. the pretest; b) a demonstration of the .apparatuS',and its use, literally paging throUgh the anforma-. r banleand reviewing the information contained in each

section; and c) a brief statement of the problereand adis-

cussion of its implications,stressing an innovative and.

orealtive-approach.

Pre-session orientations were given on all threeweek7y

ends with the subsequent sessions takingless:otime to cover . the prbblem statement and new information. In all the

sions the subjects were encouraged to ask' questiOns,and ori-

entation was continued until subjects appearedconfident in

comprehending their task. An effort was made to insure uni-, .fortuity between orientations for different' groups, usinga

standard formatand repeating similar information.i the

same way..

EXPERIMENT PREPARATION The preparation-,for the experiment consistedof working

with the apparatus so that it would be fullyfunctional at

the-beginning of the test sessions:

Pilot Test

. , After fabrication was completed, theeapparatus was

6 4, s. 55

assembled'for pretesting The set-up was revi wed to chetk

4-* for completenessandconvenience of operati . A graduate

- student in Industrial Engineering was asked to review'the

orientation'. booklet, and then to use the apparatus in an,

:abbreviated test Session. The results of this evaluation,

0 gtnerally confirmed the applicability of the orientation,

booklet and apparatus design..Some suggestions were made

for the pre- session orientations including:. a) :clearly

erplainingtthe operation of the apparatus:, and b) stressing that subjers were not to work competitively. Technical suggestions included: 01) writing descriptive information on

the chalkboards to identify each film record, 2) increasing

the camera distance to cover a larger work area, and 3) 4sin4

formal 'written logto record subject questions and comments''

during the test sessions

z. 7 B. Transportation

The completed apparatus was transported to Milwaukee two days.before the first test session in a station wagon which readily accommodated: .the-three chalkboards and base (in a loldedpositidn); three tripods; and four boxes con7

taining cameras, informatiOn banks (in storage biriders) and

accessories. The experimenter.and one assistant easily lo4d d

and unloaded-these materials and installed them in thetest

site.

s I

C. Set-Up P I The apparatus was set -upinthe est, area following the 56.

IproCedures4detailed inAppendix D -3.. TI;e major asPects in

clUded: aj clearing and rearranging thetesVcoomto accom-

modate the apparatus,. b) placing 'the larger apparatus items in position, unpackingand distributing the materials in the work areas. This probedure:lasted only a few hoursuwith'

the. heavy moving accomplished the previous evening, and the

final details completed before the pre-session orientation.

The interim use of the room required this .Set-up to be,-re=

peated on each of the test weekends._ n P RUNNING, THE EXPDRIMENT

The procedures for r'unnitig.the teSt.sessions were- '\ ' the most part'open-ended,'allowing subject 'to'york Out prob- 0.

. , lems in, their. own Way, With a -few formal aspects used to

. . maintain .experimental. cOntrol. The overall timing of the

experimental session is given in Figure

A. Subject Operations

At the Conclusion Of the pre7session orientation, each r- subject took qpogitiOn at one of.'the tet st stations and wrote , out identification .information on the'chalkboaYd. When this was completed, the cameras and timers were started to begin, - the recording process. Since,the timers operated at fixed intervals, no external.time=keepipg was required..

Once the cameras. were started, the subjects began work-

ing, usually looking through the iteMs in the information banks, starting with materials related to problem definition. 66 4

57 Table 4-1Times.Recprded for Experimental Sessions

(figures ,indicate time at which event ,occurred in 'each Session)

EVENTS 'TEST SESSIONS

-', Problem I Problem II Problem III ' SAT 'SUN MON SAT - SUN MON. SAT SUN MON 10-st15-st 5-st10-s 15-st 5-st10-st'15-St 5-st

Start 8:00' 8:00 8:00 8:00-5:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 Set-Up ' Start 11:00 9:45 9:30 9:00 9:159:10 9:30 9:15 '9:15 Orient. . . Start 11:5011:1510:30 9:30 9:45 9:40 9:45 9:30 9:30 Testing,. Lunch 1:0512:3012:30/.12:3012:4012:4012:3512:0012:30 Break e 1 - Restart 1:50 1:05 1:45 1:15 1:20 1:40 1:35'12:50 1:45'

, Testing '' . Winding 4:00 3:30 3:15 4:00 5:25. 2:50 -- Break Restart 4:15 3:45 3:45 4:10 5:35 2:55

Testing- , , End 7:45 7:00 8:00 5:10 5,:20 6:15 3:254:30 :00 Testing

End 8:45 8:00 9:00 6:10 6:20 7:1 4%:,.2-5:30 6:00

Session ,

, ."gnd Testing" ;represents time at which last subject stopped Working on the problem "End Session" represents time at Which allcards were replaced inn banks, subjects were dismissed, and experimenter completed'

trrdown . .

Subjects werefree-to work at their own pace and,patterri,

within their interpretation ,,of....:the..clesignstrategy. The only ,formal requreMents, were that they should indicate the strate-

gy step they were using at'any Plading 'an appropriate . S . 1:*. indicator card in the display area; and that on the first prob--

e - . .

. -

. - - -

5 .

- - '

- -

- - . -

/ 01 1111011111irolNEL,1113-1 sMON111.111111MIIIIMMI=JESMNCIMNdlMbeffihM SISMMIMOMMMIMMIUMMIIIMMVIMUMSOMS SS so mssuessmsmemlssOwiwisnwimssm.ommEmmumm.....pm S U ram= ON nal= II ME MN CMS ME MIMI MONOCIeramillUI nu we Mg Munn NM WWI.=riXliouseras.molsesumosomme 11111111111111111211.1maisimmilmw Es..um c:::=1 clrMM:.17.;.111EM NEMEMIIIIMMEN 1111111011111111111111111MIMIIIIIMIllsolonlammesssissolsmOmmnrrmsamssimweisstax euzlillIMIGN MEMNON MEM IIMENFITMINI sEN IMEEMMUNMIIMMIUMOMMIIMUMMISIMUL.71Rs Esimm2111111MONSIMMumemssinsumsmommeemeammamm MINIMUMS O M NUMMIIIMINSIMMISMISMINIMMISMassussINIMMN RE Esszsmosimssasuumamonummassommummo olmimmrwTwm essiosssmamssusssonassmososemosememissos oouo silicosmirnillall11111111111111MINOWNWHIMMEMMIMpm oLTIIIMINIIIIM1111111111111111MIIIIMMINIMIIIIIMI161111111111111111111111111MOIN1111M messurnmsammouromminwees eussama .:111.51. MIME IMMIIIIIIIMMINMEN11111111111 iiPI_FamIMIIIIJE 11111111401111111/51111111111Z11111111. I . mmals I 1111/11111 11111INIErar7rvnileitliT71::71MIIIIIMINIIIIIIIIIiimm 1 linliZaZJONIMInlillINMEI imosnammussmssowssiumousumIMOOK3hAillibilw1nki&ANWINWOMOOMOMMIHOMOMOOOMMOMMOMMEMMOMMEM ilosommmommeom smus N EM I ,1111 111111111 iiiIIME SVISVII 11111 _ Ell MN INIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMM11111111MINIMMOM1111mmumeallMMENIMII1111111111411111M111.111111MIIMMIEMIINIM MN MIMI ammellomOomilWriummisommernaMMEMOMMENNOwsumwoolornmsIimIMMONEMMailmIN11111 111 1U OM 110111111M0111M111111111111111111111111111111MMINE111111111111111IMMIMOIllOg IISRMIIIOes

- - I

- . . 59'

B. Experimenter Operations 9 4 The experimenter's major role was as a monitor, super- ° vising subjects and apparatus to. guard against accidents or

difficulties. The experimenter did not interact with the subjects duringthe experiment, excet for a few briefs questions

shown in Appendix E-1. The relatively complex camera set-up

was checked frequently (Appendix D-3) to insure that the record was being made satisfactorily.

C. Break Periods

A lun'cheon break of approximately one hour was scheduled,

t which time the cameras and timers were stopped. Subjects were cautioned to. avoid either looking'at each other's work

or-discussing the experiment during break periods. Both this period and a similar mid-afternoon break,were used to rewind

the cameras. After each break, all subjects reassumed their

positions and the cameras were restarted. Informal, restroom,

,A and'stretch breaks, were permitted for individuals, but the

cameras remained in operation for these brief periods.

D.. End Session

The conclusion of work on the test problem was left to

the discretion ofeach individual subject. Usually the pat-.

,tern was:' a) one subject would announce that his work was

completed, b)'the_camera and timer for this subject would

be Stopped, c)° shortly thereafter the other subjects would Conclude their.work (this could take as much as an hour),.

6G , 60

d) aftei a given subject had completed his work, he wouldbe

requested to returnhliiStj4cards to the information bank.

E. Subsequent,Sessions

A similar procedure was followed for a1.1 nine test sessions

. over the three weekends, with some variatns: a) design acti-

vity started earlier on each successive weekend, 'b) the afternoon re-winding breaks were omitted in shorter sessions, and

c) the coordinate`, system was abandoned in favor of direct graphic layouts after the first sessions.

F. Debriefing Meeting.

A meeting of the nine subjects was held shortly after the last test session, in order to obtain retrospective observa-

tions on the experiment. The subjects were asked a series of

queStions which are given with their responses in Appendix E-2.

The questions covered the following areas:

A. General Impressions F. Reaction to Informa- tion Grouping B. Representation of Real Problem-Solving Processes. G. Reaction to Informa- tion Bank C. Ability to Follow Test Strategy H. Different Ways to do Experiment D.Diffe41ceFroM Normal. Strategy I. Reaction to Apparatus and Method E. Learning From Experiment

DATA PROCESSING

Once the experiment was completed, the film record gener- 61 ated in each, test session was displayed using a "single-frame"

16mm projecto?. Data was retlibvedoby means of a frame7by- k frame inspection of the film record. The resulting data was

used.to generate a, variety of "performance" measures, using

,both Machine and manual tabulation.

A. Data Coding

A coding procedure was used to translate observations of

.subject operations on-the film into a form convenient for

'further processing and evaluation. This coding procedure was developed as a means of effectively and efficieptly represent-

ing the data in a form suitable for keypunching."The coding

methods and "conventions" are described in Appendices. F-1 and F-2, essential feature include:

1. Identification 7. Group Relationship

2.Frame Number 8.Relationship Type'

3.Strategy Step. 9.Disposition Type

4. Information rtems 10.Verbal Type

5.Information Status' .11..Graphic Type

6.Information Grouping

Using the coding system it.was possibleo review and code the films relatively easily, noting only changes occur-

ring between frames. The completed coding sheets were sub-

mitted to the keypunching service. A total of 17.,743'cai.ds were punched.and later transferred to magnetic tape.

7 B. Computer Tabulation fl

A considerable amount af.data was available in terms of:- . a) information use, b) groUpings, c) relationships, and d) modifications; recorded by: 1) time, 2) sequence, and

3) strategy step for each 'test session. For the Purposes of. this report, within the.time and resource limitati"Ons, it was.. only' feasible to use a' summary of this data: tabulating total scores four each measure Over each entire test session. A pro- ' gram was written to generate frequency counts and related statistics for infOrmation item selection, reuse, and groupings.

Details are hbwn in Appendix G-1, :Major information types are. listed as follows:

1. Item Selection (Class and subclass totals)

2. Item Reuse (total reuse, total reuse/item)

Grodpings (total'grougs formed)

4. Grouping:RunS (length of group"sequences)

5. Total Number of Cards (data) The program was somewhat complicated due t the-number of tabulation listings and statistical. functions t the data could be.read by the computer very directly using the item code. and group numbers.

C. Manual !tabulation Manual tabulation of additional data variables was employed due-to the relative expense of program..writing. This tabulation wa..9 based'on a print-out of the data cards in an easily readableforma0Appendix G-2). Using this method of 7 0 63 hand counting .the followingmeasures were obtained:.

. Number of Frames/SessiOn

2. NuMber of. Relationships Formed .

3. Nuthber'Of DispositionOccurrences 4.. Number of Verbal-Notations

5. Number of Graphic Notations

Although this procedurewas e-consuming, the process 'was simplified by noting only abso ency of occur-

rences rather than specifictypes weth h category.. In .addition, these variableswere by their ture less numerous

than.he information item data' taburagaby computer..

SOLUTION EVALUATION

'A separate proedure was used to generatemeasures of solution effectiveness, basedon the'solutions.as presented

in the film record, rather than theitem-by-item coding.,

This process used diredt inspectionby the experimenter and a jury of expert evalUators to identifyand order solutiondif- ferences.

A. Solution Record

Solution data occurred on the film recordin. terms of:

. a) graphic sketches made on the chalkboard,and -b) specific

inf rmation items-related to the solution, Th graphic images 4 eliterally copied . from the film,. usinga projection and

acing technique, including notes andspecifications written.

With the drawings. Related solution information itemswer

usually indicated by their placement/or conteXtand their code 1.

1 64 ntimbers were recorded in the groupings shown by the subjects,

fot later decoding\in written form.'

B. Solution Format

The soluion data was reorganized for presentation to

the evaluators and for general reference (Appendix.H-3, H4):

. a) the subject's drawings were re= drafted using-a standard

format to-fit an 81/2 x 11" sheet, b) a- perspective view was generated by the experimenter from the subject's drawings,

c) the square footages of the proposed designs were estimated,

and d) a solution specification sheet was generated, listing

the solution elements selected by subjects, screened for dupli- cates, and arranged with informative "element type" headings.

C. Solution Evaluators

A panel of Iesign professionals was used to review the:

solutions in order to establish meaningful, expert compaiisons.

Individuals were selected on the basis of their professional

standing to include a variety of .orientations, toward problems of this type, 'including:

1. Campus architect, UW-Madison, member AIA.

2. Partner, local architectural firm, with prior.experi- ,ence in.the design of classroom buildings.

3. ProfesSor, Department of Environmental Design, with-' experience in educational facilities_design,

These individuals were approached by the experimenter' who explained the nature of the evaluation task and secured the Cooperation Of each person on the basis oftheir interest,

7 4 65 withla small honorarium for the effort involved. Evaluators were given three weeks to complete their judgments..

1, S'. D. -Evaluation Criteria.

ci Evaluation,criteria were generated by the experimenter to assist the professional evaluators in making'their judgments, based On considerations commonly applied to design, solutions, formulated .in terms.of the materials available

for evaluation (Appenokx H-1) . Specific criteria titles were:

1,Comprehensive 4. Aesthetic

2: Effective 5. Innovative

3.Efficient 6.Coltiplete

E. Evaluation Package

Materials were assembled and, aCkaged in a looseleaf binder for. use by the evaluators, providing explanatory_ informationsin.a form which would be cOnvenient,to handle. and review. Major types of information included: 1. Description of the Experimental Task

2. General Instructions for Evaluation 3. Description-of the Criteria 4. Listing of General Tequirements

5. Listing of Specific Problem Statements and Require- ments

6. Nine. Solution Drawings for Each Problem

7. Nine Spedification Sheets for Eath Problem 8. Ranking and Rating Sheets for Each Problem

7J The general and specific requirement statements (Ap-.

pendix H-2) were deVeloped directly from the informationbanks d' 80 that evaluators would haVe available to them the same information given. to subjects.. The solution ;drawings and, speci-

-- fication sheets were presented front and back ind plastic

o sleeve so that they could be used together, and could be

removed from the binder to facilitate cleci'sion7making. The evaluatorS were not informed of theuse of'differentstra'- tegies and the order of-presenting the nine solutions for each problem was randomied to eliminate strategy groupings and

order effects.- Subject sorutions were identified-only by

a code letter representing order of presentation. The evalu-

4 ation forms provided for a two-step judgmenti ranking the solutions-td each problem, using pre-printed boxes; then,rating the solutions to show relative differences using the code

letters written along a cOntin ous line to indicate 46Qmpari sons with "best" and "worst" e( pected solutions.. The results of this evaluation are indicated in the following section. with the other experimental measures'.

F. Solution Characteristics,

A separate manual procedure.was,uSed to generate solu-

tion characteristic me-asures,.as an effort to.reinforce the

evaluations. TheSe measures were tabulated from-an inspec

tion of.the solution drawings, and specification sheets.

Details of the development are described .in Appendix I-1, 67 characteristic Types included:

1. Number of.Elements. Listedin Specification'Sheets

2. Number of Details Providedin Solution Drawings 3. Estimated Square Footage 4. Number of Room Divisions

5. Number of FunctionalRoomPrreas

6. Number of Changes inFloor Level

7r Toy

.CHAPTER V - INTERPRETATION: Results and Implications

Introduction: al"

The experithentalresultwere quite eXtensive.with a large number of individual measures of'subject.perforthance

and solution' quality generated from the experimental.data.

However, the usefulness' of the results in determining the effectsof design strategies was limited by the great vari-

.1. . - ation in .subject responses pithin strategy groups and the 4. A, . lack of distinct strategy differen.ceon:major measure's such

o __as overall inforpatibn useage, totaltimerequired for problem-

solving, and overall solutionquality. Despi'tethis, there were a considerable number of suggestiVe differencesin the , response of strategy groups on specific measureswhich could

be discussed in terms of different strategy characteristics. Based On these suggestive differences and the overall config-

uration of the results, modified by subject Feedback in the debriefing sessioni.itis possible to develop' some tentative

ithplicationS for future research in design.metho.ds and for

environmental design methods in general.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. The major emphasis .of this experiment was on the devellAp-

) Ce' measures describing the subjects' use of ment of T,,petform information while solving the test problems. Consequently,

the major part of the results covers Measures related to the overall patterns of information use, and the frequency of

selection and reuse of information within specific informa:-. 70 69

tion type categories. N. much smaller number of measu es were

generated from:the inspection and evaluation of the olutions

developed by the subjects. All of.the measures are esCribed.

in detail the appendix and summarized in the bbdy of the

report. An additional type of result,-the response given by subjects in the debriefingL session are listed in Apendix E-2.

N., Presentation of Results. In the final results, seventy-one separate mesures were

generated for use in this report:The distributi n of these

measures, by category, is shown in Table 5 -1. In reading

this table it should be observed that category # summarizes

use characteristics.oller all types of informatio , while

,categoltes#2 #5 repres nt use scores for Jiff -rent types

f information. The spe ific measures within,e ch category

are described in Appe ix i-1,.and individual Subject sdoreS

Table 5-1Distribution of Measures (figures kepresent number of measures estIblished ineach category)

TYPE OF MEASURE. # OF MEAS.

1. General PerfOrmance i 15

2. Definition Information lo.

-. . . 3. Development Information .10

4. Solution. Description Information 10

5. Solution. Element Information 10

6. Solution CharacteriStics 7'

. \

7. Solution Evaluation / 9

-ALL 71

- 7(j 70 for each test session are presented in AppendiX 1-2, following. the format described in Figure 5-1. For reference purposes the average scores for each strategy group over all three problems are. presented in Table This table lists all of the measures with the exception of the overall solution ranking_ and rating scores which are averaged in the final entryon. the table. The measures in the table are identified. by abbreviated desCriptive title, and specific. important measures are further identified .intheg discussion of specific measures. It shOuld also be noted that the scores for each measure represent frequency counts for the indicated dependent vari-. able, except for the solution evaluation scores in categOry

#7 which represent the average of the evaluators! rankings and ratings, in which "1" was 'the best poSSible score.

B.. Analysis of Variance

An.analysis of variance was applied to each of the measures in-order to determine a statisticalmeasure of significance for'difTerentexperimental variables. This analysis was used despite the acknowledged high variability. in-individual subject scores and the lack of statistical power in analyzing responses from a small group cif subjects..

. . The usefulness of the test was considered to be its ability \ to highlight special effects within the mass of data as a basis for further discussion. The anlysis was based on the model shown in Figure 5-1. Using this-model, levels of significance could be computed for the effects of: the test r

t - 71

Table 5-2Average Strategy Scores- (figures represent average 'strategy scor, Usually. "frequency'ci. on a, giverl measure, averaging-three.subjeds over threeprQb- _ lemS. within a s6.4tegy groupi. see Si:on.Figure 5-I)

. .

TYPE MEASURE STRATEGY TYPE- . MEASURE . STRATEGY-

5 10 15 . 510'15 1.1 1.1.1 # 4730-'56199 2.1.1 PrOb- 10 2.1 '6 ems Select. em De scrip Gen- : *.. Def- eral 1:1,2#' Card634/768580 ini2., 2.1:2 Proz- . 15 Per-' Generated' tion ss Descrip 77 for-7 Info= - . 1.1.3k Era,-? 83.4.68872 2.1.30ver- 23.1 16 M an be rma- mes Requrd ..- all Req. , tion * . 1.2-.1 # '90115.92 2 It- oel= 2.1.4:Gen= 151,1 10

ems Reused ect- eral Req.. . Ma-. ..- jor ion 1.2.2 # Re-139215170 ALL 6335.3

Per- use'Occur.- ; ...,/ for- -A, el4A97 mance . 3.1.1 Act-,.. 2519 -9 t Dev- ion Types . . 14, 29:3628 elop= 3.1.2 Des-. 36'26.21 ns Formed ment .ignCon6id. 1 25 Info- 1.30 961 3.1.3 Re67' 253424 , a= P earah'Info. "- Seco , .* -4, ion ndary1.3.2 # Di-Z11186 $el 3.1.4 'Gen, .13191 Per- spositions ect- eral Info-. . for-- i ion. mince 1.5.34 Ye- 4 811 ALL 999872 rbal Notat. . V , 1,.34'4 #;Gr= 4 -4 A 4.1.1 Ele--1817 6 aphic Not. I 4.1 z. Solu- ment Class 14.1 # Se- 6,E6543 1. 4 tion 4.1.2 Solu- 3220Z, Comp- lect. Group Desc-,'tionConcpt _ ript- arat- 1.4.2. Re-457952 4.1.3 Gra- 4 6 ive' use Groups' ion Sel- phic Elem.' Per- , . 1,4:3 Avet. , 4 4 6 for-g , 4.1.4 Ele- 6 9 a manse Sel. Gp. Sz.. ion ment. Specs 11.4.4Aver. 3 ALL 595249 - feu. Gp. Sz. .

Underlines ind gree of signifiCance, 1 =...10, ., 2.= .05, '3 = . ...1. * indicate6 a iAer'level of significance, on one or ,more individual prOblems, than shqwn by underline.

8' Table 5 -2' continued' 72

.TTEE JTEASURE STRATEGY .TYPE. A ;MEASURE STRATEGY ' O

'' . 5.10 lq , . 5 1,0:15 .. ,... 5..1.1 'Mat--,. 2313 8 5.2.1 Mat- 6 5 2 5.1! e ials .2 erialS

Solu Solu- , / t,ion 5 1..2 Fur- 1114 8 Lion 5.2.2 Fur- .,91.9 , . 6? Ele--4 nitilre Ele- niture 5 , meat went 6 Ed 1671 8 5.2.3'Eqd- 12.13 5 Sel ',-- '5'1°3 u- ,ipment yr;"'.' ipment ect-, * used * , inn. 5.1%4 Anc- 14'h310 5.2.4 Anc-- 11 '8 6 . illary il].---al---- . ALL AlliL , .- 384820 '61- .r/7 34,

. ; .

, . 2.2 2.20"Prob7 6.1..1 All 02410883 6.1 lem. Descrip pef- Solu Sol'. Items

ini- , 2.2.2°Trec-. 5 0 4 tfon. 6.1:2 # SO= 355628 ti on:- ess Descrip Scope-lution.,Spec. Info-.'N . , 2.2,.3 Over- 7 819, 6:1.3 # Dr- '1416 1:'3 rma- Lion all Req. awing; De t. Re- 2.2.4 Geri;- 2, 641 # Sq-- 11271.3 6.2 used, eral:Ree. are Feet' -, Sulu - * ALL 161053. Lion 6;2.2 # Ro- 4:4.6

. Para- on Division_' 4 , met,. 3.2.'l Act- 1629.5 6.2.3 # Fu- .,.2 7., 5. ers . ioaa Type's' nction Area . elop- .3.2.2Be-s- 142427 6.2.4 #Le- 2 2 rnent rirm'Consid,. ''- vel ohatie'd info-o7 .).20-Res- tO27'1 7..1.1. Qom- 5 .pa.rchInfo. 71 - preliensive- lion * Solu Re- 3.2.4.Gon- 81112 tion 7.1.2 Eff-

1:5 uced'eal Info.' Eval- ective uat 7.1.,.x.Eff... 5 ALL 389045 don -' V', icient':.

. 4...2.1 ,alae-2 16.224 7.1.4 AesQ- 5 5 5 4 .2 0itt.___' anentClass ,t-.r., thetic I

1 tion- .4.2.2Solu-25.; 6.- 7.1.5 Inn-, 6 6 vest-tionvConont' evaive

0-."-.44.3, Gra- 1 :1 2 a 7.1..6: Corm` - 6 LI , 11,c L'' i3.en. Viete .,

ised: 4.2,4 '1,je- ,_ 2'6 1 ALL 3332,28 risen ?; br,c,cs

4 ; r 73 strategies acting over the three problems; the interactions

between strategies and test problems; the individual test

problems themselves; and the variability of the subjects

within strategy groups. It should be noted that since the

test problems were presented to all subjects in the same or-

der, the egfects ascribed to problems may also represent

sequence effects. As an.additional test, the data for individual test problems was used to determine levels of signi-

ficance for the effects of strategies on individual problems.

However, it was assumed that these results would be less,

important due to the smaller amount of data involved.

FigUre 5-1 'DAatrix,for Analysis of Variance (indicating data configuration for 27 data records)

SUBJECTS

. S1 S2. , S3 X11 Xlf X13 X21 X22 X23 X31 X32 X33 P1X111X112X113SliX211X212X213.T21X311X312X313S31P1 P2 k121X122X23g12X221X222.X223S22X321X322X323S32P2 P3 X131X1.32X133S13Xf31,X232X233S23X331X332X333S33P3

. X11 X12 X13 S1 X21 X22 X23 S2 1.X31 X32 X33 S3 X

MODEL: Xijk = X + Si + .(SP)ij + Pj + Uk(i) (UP)kj(i) Xijk = individual score on a given measu e ,5t = overall average Si = test strategy (Si = 10-step; S2 =5-step; S3 = 5-tep). Pj = test problem,(P1 = Office; P2 Snick Bar; P'3 = Conf. Rm.). (SP)ij = strategy-problem-interaction Uk(i) = subjects within strategies (UP)kj(i) =,Error Xik = individual subject using a given strategy Xik= average score for' individual Subject over all problems

4 S5 74 average sc951a^for each strategy over all problems Sij =. average score .for each strategy on a single' problem Pj = average score for each problem over all strategies

C. Significance of Results The outcome of the analysis of variance is summarized in Table 5-3 and the respective levels of significance are. indicated on TOle 5-2 and on the individual results tables in Appendix 1-2. The most important obServation is that even including significance, at the .10'level, the overall strategy effe,ct.was demonstrated on only 8 out of 71 measures.

Table 5-3Distribution of Significance, (figures indicate number of measures 'which display a given level of significant difference for each variable)

SIGNIFICANCE EXPERIMENTAL .VARIABLES . StrategyStrategyStrategyAll ProblemSubjects , Overall/ProblemxProblemStrategy W/In St.

.61 2 2 8 12 13 30

..051 4 6 '10 20 7 16

.10 2 '8 6 16 12. 4

EST (12) (0) . (0) (12), (0) (0)

ALL 20 16 24 41*. 32 " 50 NOTE: "EST"represents measures which displayed consistent strategy overall differences based on inspection of the data, but below statistical significance *indicates total number of measures which displayed strategy differences, adjusted for overlapping variables.

This result is statistically-within'the area of a random dis- tribUtion of.effects. Additional strategy effects were shown for indi. dual problems, but again the number is small- 84 7 LI

as compared with the total measures. The effects of strategy interaction with problems were somewhat more numerous, sug-

2esting the possibilit f some difference between strategy

groups. However, these interaction effects are difficult to define and still affect only a minority of the measures.

This overall low level Of significance is modified slightly

. by a grouping of the different typeS of strategy significance with measures where some effects were estimated but not

statistically significant. This grouping includes over half the measures but at 'best can only serve as an indicator

possible significance confounded by other experimental

variables. In particular,.the effects of individual problems and variability of subjects within the strategy groups appear

to have had as much if not greater influence.

The lack of significant strategy effects is further emphasized by referring to Table 5-2 and noting the lack of significant differences for most'of the overall performance

measures in category #1, and the absence of significance for

solution measures in categories #6.and #7. Even in measure 1.1.3 # Frames Required (by definition, twice the number of Minutes required for problem-solVing), the apparent signifi-

cant difference in time was based on a highly abbreviated third

`test session by the 10 -step strategy group, attributed to sub-

-ject misunderstanding of the experimental task. The strategies therefore did not appear to demonstrate effects on the

measures, of overall infoination use, amount' of time or effort 76 required for solution, nor were the solutions produced by

the different strategies significantly different. The ini- y

. tial, basic conclusion is that the experiMent was not suc-

cessful in demonstrating comparative differences between

Strategies.

EXAMINATION OF MEASURES

Each of the measures was examined7by inspection, after the initial analysis of variance, to determine if any sug-

gestive differences were present that might cOntribute-to

a better understanding cpi.the results. The-examination con-

centrated on measures where some level of significance Was

present, but alSo Included measures where consistent dif- ,- ferences could be observed by'lignoring the scores of at most

one subject in each strategy group. This-latter approach represented even lower levelS of significance, but did make

some-allowance fof the high variability. in subjects. In,con- ducting the examination, the emphasis was on interpreting

apparent differences in terms of the meaning of the' measures

and their interaction with the expetime9t.al variables. ThiS was largellrbased on the experimenter's experiende indevelop- ing the experimental materials and a general background in

environmental design.° The purp8se of the examination was not

to fgrce concluSions in the absence of meaningful significance,

but rather was included to demonstrate some of the Capabili-

ties of the experimental method 'and raise some, questions for-,

further experimentation. 7.7

, A.. Problem Results The effects of the test problems on different measures were important because of the attempt tocontrol the selec-

tion of problems in order to minimize problem effects, and because problem effects operated across strategy groups providing a basis for comparing specific strategy differ-

ences. The differences in average problem scores are shown in the individual measure tables in Appendix 1-2, but the

summary of types of effects for differentnumbers of .measures

is. provided in Table 5 -4.: This table indicatesproblemof -.

fects:in various different configurations. The most preva- lent configuration was a descrease in the scores between

priDblems). This decreasing effect. does not appear be due. -to the problems themselves, since there is no ovious tie- .) in with problem characteristics, but rather appears toindi-

cate a sequence effect- over the three testsessions. The assumption is that the subjects became more selective in their

utilization of 'InforM'ation and related activities due to all

increased familiarity_ with the experimental task'. However, this,may alsorepresent a. lower level of motivation with

repetitions of ,a similar task. Specific measures demon- , strating this effect and possible interpretations:are given

1.1.2 # Cards Generated - shows a steady drop between each.of

the three test sessions ,(p=.01), perhaps due to greater ef-

ficiency in information handling. 14 Table 5-4 Distribution of Interaction Effects

f . - (figures indicate number of measures on which a given variable displayed an effect with a given configuration)

CONFIGURATION VAIIABLES , -Type SessionProblemStrategy Perform. Strategy SOlution

5' 0 15 5 10 '15

All 7 6* 0 1* 0 0 3* Steady II I-III__ .134 Down . SAM . II 5 Up

ALL 19* 114 8 19* 0 0 '3*

. I-II 16* 10* 0 IDawn IIIII 8* DECREAS- 2* Down ING * 17117T11 9* 1 8* 0. .2* 0 Down

ALL '33* 6* 24*.. 6* 0

I-II -2* 6 0 0 3*-

Up' 1 1-,

II-III ' .INCREA - 2* U p ING I-II-III 1* 0

Up '..

ALL 1* 0 5*.

NOTE: Interaction effectg' occur.When a-gisiven variable influ- en)es the data in definite directionover the three test sessions (I, II, III); for strategies the interaction represents a direction taken-by one strategy, while_ the other two strategies move in a different direction * indicates that a majority of the measure displayed a significant interaction effect at least p=.10 For Strategy Solution, a decreasing direction indicates that the solutionS are improving

88 79

.1.1.3 # Frames Required indicates a major drop between the jSec;nd and third sessions (p=.10), suggesting that although.

the level of information proceSsing decreased from session I

to II, the discrimination required additional time.

The individual measure groups reinforce the decreasing pat-

tern with 3.1.5 All Development Information Selected and 4.1.5 All Solution Description'Information Selected showing a steady

decline over three problems (both, p-=.10). In addition .the

drop in Frames is paralled by 3.2.5 All Development Information.

Reused (p=.i5).

. There was also a noticeably differentrestAnsegivenOn

problem aI, apparently due to subjecf. interpretation of the Snack Bar as a larger scale problei than theother two. The

effect i,s.first noticed on 2.2.3 verall Requirement.Informa7

tion Reused, which increased in frequency in coMparison to

problems I and II, although not significantly, suggesting- that more effort was required to define the more complex

problem. This effect is reinforced bya similar pattern f

4.1.2 Solution Concept Information .Selected, apparently indi

cating'a corresponding increase in solution complexity. The

assumption' is also supported by a decrease in 5.1.2 Furniture

Elements Selected and 5.1.3 Equipment Elements Selected (p=..C)1,

.10), w4ch jr.ight.be expected where these elements were less

important at the larger.Vscale. -The scale assumptiOn is lithrally confirmed by the relatively hither levels shown in

P6.1.3 # Drawing Details, 6.2.1 # uare , 6.2.2O'Room 8o

Divisions, 6.2.3 # Functional Areas (p=,05, .10, .10, .05)

B. Performance Results

The effects of strategies bn problem-solving performa while lacking strong signifiCance; did display a number o differences which could be related to the characteri ics of the specific Strategies. The effects for strategies over k all problems are indicated in the average scores sho n on

Table .5-2: Strategy-problem interactions are based on he' strategy, averages for each prOblem 'shown in Appendix 1-2, and key relationships are represented in Figure 5-2 and in

ff Appendix 1-3. The range of strategy- problem interaction con7 figurations is ,shown on Table 574.. Important measures related to overall performance, .problem-solving information,, and solution element infoAnation are desciibed below with possible interpretations:

1. Overall Performance Measures (Category #1) The indicate a number of.strategy differences affecting overall performance; demonstrating different. basic strategy. approaches.

1.1.2 # Cards Generated'- The 10-step strategy tended to generate more data cards than the other strategies on all three ptoblems, although the effect wa\only-significant on probleth (p=.10). This represents a' high level of.aCtivity on all measures. Similar: effects appeared on 1.3.2 # Disposi-

fr el F3g712e 52.... rypical Strnlegy-Problem Tintelction

400 STRAT. 1Z00 r ;;ThA_ \ \ Ei X A . 4 .. - ...... ,...... 5 :.. o 15 ----.. '10 A '10

1 .II III JI III i?..LOH,EtlE; FROBLES Inte:raction p .01 IInteractionp = .05

I 11 III I II III 1:11013LENS.

inte:;,:action p = .01 Interaction AD .01 82

tions,(p =.05.), reflecting a large amount of activity with

__individual item cards; and 1.2.3 # GroupsFormed (I, p=.10), indicating alarge selection and reuse of items (see 1.4.3,

1H4.4). The impression is that the.10-step strategy tends to encourage greater concern:with detail in handling information.

The effect of the 10-step strategy is also apparent in

the problem interaction on this measure, with the 10-step

showing-a dramatic decrease in the number of cards used,- as

much as 300 cards between each session, while the other stra-

tegies remained steady (p=.05). This pattern is repeated on

# Dispositions,#. Groups Formed, and 1.2.4`# Runs Formed . (p=;05, .10'. The pattern is particularly evident for

3.1.5.All Development .Information Selected (p=.01). The

suggestion is that some initial confusion resulted in very high acfivity on the first problem with'a second re-evalu-.

ation taken after the second problem.

The 15-step strategy demonstrates an_aiternative interaction.effect on this measure, with a slight but noticeable drop inactivity betWeen problems I and II and then a rise

back up again on problem III.. This pattern, generally occurs

on various measUres in' parallel with the 10-step steady de-

crease, patticularly on Dispositions; Groups., and Runs.

Examples -of-the pattern on specific. measures include: 3.1.2.'

Design Consideration.Information Selectict(p=.01); 3,2.4

.General Information Reused; and.3.2.5 All Development Infot-

mation Reused '(p=.05), In comparison with ..the "Problem Results', these suggett, . that the low number of, data cards for 83

the 15-step on problem II may be duebasensitivityto

scale with a simpler development-use for the larger scale problem.

1.1.1 # Information Items Selected'.- '411edrop in overall

activity for the.10-step strategy is iepeatedon this Measure

between problems I and II, with the otherstrategies steady

4p=.01) This:reinforces theassump lion that the 10-step

group made an essentially random selection of informationon the first problem, which was correctedon problem II.. A similar pattern occurrson 1.4.1 # Selection Groups Formed

(R..05), and the area of impact-is dicatedby the non-' significant but distinct repetition of thepattern on 2.1.5 re .All Definition Information.Selectedq and 3.1.5;All Development Information Selected-

1.1.3 # Frames Generated , The 5-step strategy required noticeably more time to complete thedesigntask, p rticularly

as compared with the 10-step strIegy (p=.01). In comparison

1 4. to 1.1.2,.this suggests th he-5 step strategy, s less

efficient, requiring more.time to accomplish less info ation processing.

The interaction effect on th s measur6'showsthat the 15-Step Strategy remained:relati ely steadyoverall three problems, while the 5 and 10-ste strategies showed a.majbr

decrease in frames between II an III (p=:01). Since the

0 84 frames for the 15-step were initially low, it is possible that the other strategies were deyeloping more efficient procedures over the three sessions

This assumption 1s reinforced.in part by 1,3.4 # Graphic

NotatiOns, where the 15-step was noticeably high on problem I .

(p.=,05), despite experimenter attempts to limit graphics in favor of a !"coordinate" system. The suggestion is that the

15-step group completed highly developed solutions on I,.whic)ia required graphic expression. In addition, 1.3.3 # Verbal

Notations showed a relati'vely high level for the 15-step on problem III (p=.10), raising the possibility that the 5 and

10-step groups oversimplified their procedures by the third problem, while the 15-step wassti@operating at high levels of complexity.

2. Problem-Solving Information (Categories # 2-4) These measures indicate different responses to information types or categories, including both selection and reuse of information in each session. Specific information differ7 ences suggest clues to basic strategy philosophy and approach.

2.1.1 Probi_em Descriptor Information Selected The 10-step

. 4 stfatagy was low .overall on this measure, particularly for problem III (p=,10). This' type:'of information talas used to define the problem in general terms before beginning the detailed definitiOn, and the low utilization suggests'a.less structured approach to problem definition. The effect is reinforced b/ 2.1.3 Overall Requirement Information! Selected, 85

, v . .

. which was very little used by the 10-step groupon problem

III (p=.1.0), appatently reflecting an overSimplified delfinLL-

tion on this problem. n contrast, the I5tstep group was

noticeably high overall on 2.2.1 Problem Descriptor Informa,-.

, . tion Reuse, particularly as,compared with-the number of these..

. items selected, suggesting a greater concern.with formulating the initial definition.

, 2.1.2 Process Descriptor Information Selected The'5-step .Strategy was very high on this measure, with the,other stra-

tegies showing negligible scores (p=.0,5). This information. type was unique,' listing alternative design-techniques" or.

'heutistics" rather than problem information, and the asSump-

. tien is that the .5-step grdup was uncomfortablemitiP their

open-ended strategy and used -this information to further.

clarify,their design activities. 'c 1, , 0. . . , ' A parallel effect' showed .the 5-step-group 'witha signi-

. , A -0 ficantly high score on 2.1.5 All Definition .Information Se-

-... . lected (p=..01), suggesting that in general the strategy used

a-more diffuse search process in attempting to defil:ie the prob-

, . 4, .. , lem.. This is supported by. thelligh level shown on 2.1.4

General. Requirement Information Selected (III, p7.05), an

information type which was considered to 'be marginilY tele-7 vant, and was inclUded in the information-bank:yrimarily.for,

the sake of completeness,.

tr -436

31.1 Action Type Information Selected-t Both 5 and 10 -step

strategies were high overall on this measure> with the4 5-

step particularly high (p=.05). This effect is important

. - since this information type simply lists a?ternative'lactivites, A. which might take place in.the,probleM environment,. andcon - centration on an-abtivity-by-activitylahalysis.see ms-bo,be

aninefficient,' mechanical approach in a limited, probem-solv-

. . ing session. It should-1Denoted. that the,la-step group tended 1 to be,7ry high on Reuse (!2.1) of this ihfdrthation,

vWf.*atinI that the items reCeived more than asual'attention.

. -;,ii:10iT4ir effect-is event Ele ent Class Informa-,t'

;

, .f.iWt-6.1.ected, with both' str-ategies rela mely high on this

listing`oafalterpative general types of sol tion elemeh,4

:uggestimg amore'tiogged,mpil.ical 'approach.,

,--- 4.1.2 Solution Concept Information Selected -.In contrast with

. e ), the above, the 10-step strategy was low-ovet&11)Oh mea"-- e . 1 sure (D=.111), 'which include 'aonceptUal statements describing

variety-of solution approachee and diMenslons.*Thipinforma- , Of tioh.allowed subjects to sketch out solutions in general terms,

before, beginning detailed development, and the low utilitation

confirms the more pedestrian approach. V Although the.5-step

strategy was high on this..measure, 4.2:2 Solution .Concept

. ------IlmEormatLon Reused, shows a much higher level of applibation

. . for the 15-step group. In particular, a s1g4ificantly high ( score'for.Reuse on problem V(p=.10) suggested thathe 152 a6 4'

87 step subjects were abletocqmprehend and utilize.Illieinfor- z. 1 , 1 .A. . 6...' mation much earlier than the other strategies.

4 3.1.5 All Development Information Selected - The 15-step

g/toup was generally loW overall on this measurp, although

high subject variability preented significance. The assump-

. tion is that the.5'- p approach wasmore economical and selective of information used in:development, with a high dependence on ovefall conceptual informatiOn. Inecomparison,

the 10-step strategy Was high on this measure. and particu-'

"Iarly high on 3.2.5 All DeveIOpment,Information Reused.

_...0=.05),tand 3.2.4 General Information Reused (II, p=.10) . 4- The impress'ion is that the 10 -step spent gonsiderable amoUnt

of effort on "busy work"; since the 'research" ihformgtion

was only marginally useable givens the time and scale limita-

tions; and the "general" inforation as largely concerned " N , with:Trevious\traditional solutions. It should benoted

that. ,the 10-step group did not make correspondingly high use

of Design Consideration.Information.,(3.1.2, 3.2.2), considered, by the experimenter to be the most relevant design development

informatibn.

i 18 . 3. Solution Elements (Category #5) ... 4 , . Although the selec6.on andreuse ofsolution element \0

i . _ . , . / , information aid not show many significant strategy, effects,

there were some indications of differences in this area. > / 88.

Furniture Elements Sdlectea'- The 15 step strategy

displayed the sensitivity to, problem effect "mentioned earper

with a noticeably low score on this measure for problem II,

'and an increase on III, while the other strategies remained

thesame letwedn (p-='.05), presuMeably. r`t de-emphsizaing furniture at the larger scale. ThigaPsump-.

tion is supported by 5..2- Furniture Elements: Reused, on'which the 15-step had,anaverage score of "0"-on II.

An Ninlierse effect for this strategy was noted,on

. Research Information Selected, - where' the 15-step was notice- , ably higher on Ii, presumeably indicating layout and perceptual . informlion.appiied_to thelproblem. Another indication of

.sensj.tXvity.diffSrenCes was observed in the interactions on

4.2..2 -Solution Concept Information Reused, where the 15-step

used fewer concepts on II, while both the 5 and 107-step.

groups increased their useage onII. Appakently, the other

I I .strategies responded. to the change in scale by making greater

use of More gendral conceptsc whilethe15-step simplified its

. approach (Note:'the 5 and 10-step strategies showed only

'minor "serisitivity", responses, ree Table 5-3).: 4

Ancillary-Elements Selected The 5-step strategy displayed si4nificantinteraction effects do this measure, binbreasing ix use between ali three problergsi while the

, 'other strategies were steady or d creasing) (p=.05). This'is a made particularly evident-by "sign.ficantay higher levels fok

9(6 O a 8.9 - 0- ) the 5,--step on problem'III for both Selection; and Reuse

((5.2.4)(p=...05. .10);.The:information ;type rep-resents a Oon-

, . 4 .cern with spatial enclosure and-mecHanical, , systems, leSs , , . - . central, . .to Solu.tion .development, and the asSumption' is that' i 5-step group ignored orminimitea-thes1,e aspects due to

uncertainti'es about. solution formulation on the earlier prob'- 0 lems and later increased. in-oonfidence and wasable to 4 explore the solution in greater depth.

C.' Solution. ResUlts 8 The.twoettempts to compare solutions, by measures of

different'chatacterist±cs, and by- expert evaluation', had.

been inended to demonstrate differential strategyP'effects.

-However, the results 'indicated considerableNuniformity k)etween

strategy_ groups, particularly- in comparison with the. variations -

.g. . . . / . _ , gin.prbbleff-sloIving peiformance..The examination in this area,. . . , . . therefore,-is basedion the passible'dmplicatiOns of relatively .

. :,.. Islight differences between scores.

1. Soluti on Characteristics (Category #6)' . These measures were developedin an attempt to identify. objective differencesinthe solption approaches taken by

subjects in different strategy groups.. Due to the general

uniformity in Solution drawings andspecificatifbns,.there were very few meaningful differences in this area: A mincir.

interaction did occur on 6.1.3. # Drawing Details' where the

5 -step reMained steady while the other\I strategies

99 fl

c 90

increased in detail on II,.presumeably in response to scale.

Another measure, 6.2.2 # ROom Divisions shove ;the 15-step ,

strategy high, on problem III (p.=%05) suggesting the main-

'" tenance of a high level of complexity on `the .final problem.

2. Solution,Evaluation (Category #7) AI The.solution evaluation measuresi .generated by,a pro-.4

fessiOnal jury of, eVaiuors', were intended to proVide a

9omprehensive comparison between. the solutions produced by

subjects in different strategy groups...' However, the re- _ suits of the evaluation wele- inconclusive, the evaluators

themselves were highly.variableand, the results of their-.

evaluation as shown. in Table 5-2and Appendix I-2-averaged

. , out to verysimilarsoores,well below significance. Despite

1/4 ! he,qudstiondblesignificance, observation of the data does

O suggest, that the 15step group. may have produced slightly

: . ' better solutions, bOth in terms of all .criteria: 72:1 All

'criteria Ranking and Rating CoMbined;.7.2.2 All Ranking Cri7-

, . , -,. teria; and 7..3 All Raking Criteria;'and specific Measure's: 4 . , . t , - i 7.1.2 Effective, 7.1.5,fnnoVativei.and 171.6:Comi)lets. ThuS

. . there iS.some'suggestion that the.15-steP.-gtrategyi.s more . -..1 .. 1

. useful; providing effective, workable solutions, although , not necessarily superior in comprehensivenesslOr efficiency;

maintaining an innovative solution approach (as stressed =in

the problem statement); and maintaining a complete, thorough 1

. solutidn specification,

0.4

100. -

t 91

Interactions on the evaluation,were sigilificant (Figure

5-2), with the 5-stop strategy showing a definite improve-

ment over the three problems (fgr all criteria) while the 10- step showed worse scores after the first problem, and the 15-

, . step was steady to slightly worseon the last problem(p=.01).

The assumption is that. the 5-step demonstrated a learning

effect, while the'l()-step produced acceptable resip_ts only

with the greatest level of activity. The 'IS-step displayed relave consistency after ,starting rathersuccessfully, and,

the drop in quality on the final probleth may havebeen due to the evaluators misinterpreting the high level ofsolution complexity which wascontinued by this strategy (in accordance

with, experimenter's definitiOnofthe problem), while the other strategies simplified their final solutions.

0 D.Subject Results , The variability. of Subjects within strategy groups

1 - _apparently was a major factOr in lowering 71e levelof signi-

, fiscnce. for the strategy effects. The extent of the.variabil-- 1. . .10 :ity is shown.' 2n Table 5-5, which indicates that all subjects 4 ;. . \varied uniquely from the other Members ih their groups on ,., at' least so f e%measureS,' and.thatthe directiOn Of the differ-

ence in 'frequency scoresand evaluation scores was seldom con-'- ,- sistent. This suggests a'high level of essentially random, Personalize& inkerpretationsof the problem and strategy

A with -in individual subjectslowev , an examination of.some

ti O S. 92 specific subject behaviors may help inIunderstan'ding some of

the,strategy group scores:

_ AparticUlar subject effect was apparent in the evalu ation of the solutions. For all Crii.diia subjects within- 4 straVeg.ies were significantly different (p= .01)4, in particu- . r lar, two of the siabiects using the I5-step strategy were con-

.sidered to beTVery successful.(compared. with all other sub-,

jects, With only-one.Subject,in the 5-sLepgroup.as success-.

ful), while the third-subject scored very poarly, also in

comparison with all other, subjects) . 'It is possible that

the two subjects actually represented-the effectiveness of

the strategy, while the third subject.(with an unusual'ap-

e broach, described below) was mibinterpreted by the eaivators.

.° Table 5-5 Distribution of Subject. Effects

STRATEGY PERFORMANCE --'

Difference 1. 5-Step 10-Step 15-Step 1 2 3 1 2. 3 \]. 2 3 _ HIGH 3* 3* 19* 2* 5 21* 4* 4* 12* 4 3* LOW . 3* g* 2* 4.* 6 1f '6* 15*. STRATEGY SOLUTION Difference 5-Step 10-Step, 15-Ste? 1 2 -3 l' 2 3- -1 2 3-. HIGH -1* 1*. .0 1* 0 0 0 0 .5*

,LOW 0 .0 1* 6 0 0- i 5* 0.:

NOTE: fewindicates that the majority of the Measures4Uisplayed .- -asignificantisubject dffect'at least p = .10- - For Strategy Solution, a lowsgore indicates a "better" solution

10r 93 The third subject in thie 15-step group also diSplayed unique and significant differences in sedection andreuse of. 1 two major types of information, scoringvery high on problem-

related infoimation (generally p=.05), Wh4.1e.having lowor

negligible ,scores (averaging 4 items to the groupaverage of

52)foF solution element information (p=.01). While this may

be:explairied in part by an outer- concern with pkobleth develop'-

ment; the accompanving.solu-Uon graphics_ a verlecom- prehensive solution rendered ingeneTal terms...

. Additional subject effects indicate general strategy 0 group trends, consistent in themselVes, carried to extremes

by individual subjects.- Thus( one subject-in the 10-step

group showed an extremely,high reuse level particularly for

various types of deve6.opment information (usually p=.01);

-while one subject inthe 5-step group displayed consistently

high leVels of selection fdr all information types (usually

p=-01). These confirm. major strategy effects and suggest ways ,in which individuals might haVe disallowed significant

effects. t.

E. Debriefing. Results

The.debriefing session, after the running'of the exPer1- P . mentoffered the only introspective response from the, sUb- jects and was directed.to responses tothe.experimentl for-. -t mat rather than the effect of strategies. In general, the

responses shown in Appendix E-2, suggestedthat theexperi- .. 10) 94

mental task Maas accepted for .the mos part! by the subjects.

The basic approach; .taing,the in ormation. bank and teSt'ap-,

paratus, seemedl/ to be wOrkable'with minor revisions. Although. there were some reservations aboul the artificiality of the

- experimental situation, there seemed, to be overall agreement,'

or at least lack of strong disagreement, that the .experiment was

31 able to accurately reflect design problem- solving and utilirza-

, tion of strategies,.:

CONCLUSIONS .

';,he conclusions drawn from this experiment can only be 0 general .1.1d suggestive. The high. variability. in the' summary

d4t4 091-e'S not permit conclusive judgements about strategy

ferences."The larger mass of data on the details of problem- salving had" not yet beenNprocessed, and while this may add a/

. better understanding of design. activity, it is also likely to be highly variable. Despite the high experimental and-subject variability,, tentative directions are discernible,,ingicat2hg indications .for further research.An asterisk * after a word indicates that the 'statement did have statistical significance

at' f east at the:5%level.) -I.

. Suggestive Strategy Differences_

'.Given that a statistically significant difference was not F c

obtained:among the strategies, some actual differences observed ' in the examination of measures can'be expressed as suggestiv'

conclusions. They are Specifically'compared to the,experi- Mental hypotheses listed on i pages.38-3'9.

t.c

1O4 95,

1. General Hypothesis n The actual number of strategy aifferenbes and the'consis-;-:

tency'bf the -differences in line with hypotheses about strategy

effects,sug4est that strategy significance is masked by, subject

variability. -Etrategy6differences are apparent throughout the average strategy scores (Table 5-2), and pr-mounced.differences

were evident in strategy-problem interabtions (Table 5-4). Although

not-statistically significant, the diferendes are too numerous'

to-ignore entirely.

2. 5-,Step Strategy

An apparent low level of effectivenes for thiSIstrategy . was demonstrated in-part.by theadditional time required for . arriving at a solution.,, and the apparently random-selection

. and application 'of information.-Overall, the suMects did I;e-

quire more time.for solution*, particularly. as compared. with the 10-step, Strategy group (Hyp. 1-1).' The subjects did deMbnstrate

. an apparent uncertainty-fin beginning problem - solving wjth a

relatively high selection* of defsnition information (Hyp. 1 -2).

Although it was not anticipated, the ,extensive use o5"f' process

descriptors* to supplement.the strategy. steps, _clearly disting-

uished this strategy group. The quantity of information selected by this group was notnoticeablyhigher than the 10-step. strategy, although the average number of selections were somewhat greater

_(Hyp 1-3).- contrast, this Strategy did not.showtmuch change

in efficiency (decreaSe in selections) over time. ,'particularly-

as compared with the 10 -step (Hyp. 1 -4). The solutions produced

by this strategy d improve over time*, 'particularly between 105 t I

prdblems I, and II (Hyp. 1-5) However, the solution quality

appeared competitive or Superior to other strategies after the

first problem. This wtrate4y.id appear to operate better than

had been anticipated, in many ways aimilarto the 10,-step, but l some difficultY'mas shown in handling information and in the t ddvelopment of solutions.

3. 10-Step Strategy

This strategy portrayed an apparent uneven performance

with an overconcen about details. This is.suggested by the

overall high levdls. Of actiyity. Little difficulty was noted

in the initial phase of problem-solving with a relatively con- , ,servative selection and reuse of definition information (Hyp.

2-1). In general, this group displayed a considerable amount.'

of activity with a high number of "data cards generated and a

.high reuse of information, particularly in. more peripheral type

categories (Hyp.'2-2):: Subj&ets did show a low use s.if conceptual

informatiOn, particularly as compared with overall high levels

tor other categories ItproveMent irk efficiency.

(de'crease in activity) was clearly demonstrated* although. at much

higher levels than' anticipated, suggesting a 'superficial treat-1

rdent in latet-.,problems (Hyp. 2-4).. The data generally indicates 1 low Aevels of solution quality for this strategy, arid inspection of solutions suggests their more conservative aspect (Hyp. 2-5).

. HOWever, thei decrease in quality between problemS I and II was

not anticipated, and suggests an additional factor of disillur

0 sionment 'or overconfidence, 'This strategy,,then, 'representing 4 highly typical approach, ds:aPPatently7.workOole, but it

106

5a produces only a Moderate level of performance:

4. 15 -Step. Strategy

This hypothetically best strategy; Was sli4htly but.corm

sistently. more efficient and effective In comparison With'h

other strategies. These subjects appeared to establieh,systQm/,

1 atic definitions as indicated by a substantial .telection of) probleedescriptors and a generally high level of definition

activity (Hyp.3 -1). The subjects aid indicate lower levels ..of information selection in most categories, partiCularly thoSe

lesscehtral'to problem development (.Hyp.3-2)., In Contrast

'the subjects did show high levels of selection. and uee of conceptual

information (Hyp. 3-3). The subjeCts did remainbrelatively steady on Most measures, with allowance for the response to

scale differences on problem'II (Hyp. 3-4).-The. solution _ratings

. were slightly but consistentlybetter, particularly on specific

criteria such as comprehensii/eness and innovativeness, which 4,

had been stressed in 'he problem stat6ment:t.. These results suggest that.this is a definitely workable strategy with poten

advantages that could be explored in further study.

. B. Research Approach Additional general Conclusions may be reached in terms of

the overall approach to design Methods research and experimental,

techngfle deMonstrated in-this'study. These-are impci-tant be7

' cause of the pilot aspects of this research in.,.attempting tp indicate a'nei area for experimental Study. The ability to perform design methods research appears to be strongly supported, if dot conclusively established by this

107 .

study'. The review of literature and related,research indicating'.

) th need for this type of research'were reinforced by the national.

". survey of design strategies which-indicated both -a level'of

"k, common understanding about design strategies, and a signiZicant variation in responses anc conceptualizations which could be

.resofV by 'objective study. In addition, the acceptance of."the

est strategies by. the subjects, and thesuggestivedifferences ! ..,

...... `in performanOe by strategy groups indicate possibilities' for

. further e xperimental studies. Thi8 btudy,. then, despite the .. i problems with variability, does )not diminishhe relevance of

design methOds research.,

The experimental task itself did. appear to be useful in

studying the design process and the effects of strategieS,

. although further refineffients are:indicated. In most cases, the subjects were ableto'function well using the information bank8 to develop an understanding,of the test problemsand develop

meaningful sgUtons. This 'approach does appear to generate

. a considerab'le body of .useful' data on design Performa cewhich

i can be used to demonstrate,and compare the effects of design

. 3

A particular question was raispabout the effectiveness of the techniques for evaluating the subjects' design solutions,

u . The qqantitative measures.of solutioncharacteristics did not

seemtb adecitiately.describe or -distinguish betWeen the different.-

. .solution configurations. .'he "subjective evaluations also''did

not appear to be consistent in es.tabiishing SolUtion qualjit.

There is apparently a need for the development Qf more refined.

. JOG 2

e5 99 '4 techniques for solution evaluation both for experimental and,-

practical purposes.

DISCUSS' N

g ' %. ' --;(7 The major issue raised in. this study is the variability

,sin subject perfbrmance which occurred, despite extensive attempts

to producecontrolled, differentiated behavior. 'The experimenter

)'' attempted to select a highly uniform groUp of sublects, provide

- a constrained set of teSt problems, utilize a standard information

bank acid experimental task, whille using specifically distinct

strategy guidelines.Despite .this effort, the differences be- 4

, tween. subjects.within the strategy groups were overwhelmingly

more :significant than the'differences between the groups using

different strategips. In Other wordsl.e15enin a relatively limited prOblemsolving situation, subjects using identical

strategies did not,generate statistically uniform 'scoresonia perentage of measures. The explanation f iYthisvariability is not clear-at this

limp. One explanation would suggest that the design strategies

. . . , by their nature x-have a negligible effect on esign performance.. .t. :- This does not i seem consistent with the observed suggestive.

strategy differences. An alternative explanation would be that individual strategy interpretations and ingrained personate design

r' styles cphfounded.the strategy effedtS. This would be consistent. with the ge erallS, accepted cone pt of the.deSign task as an

individual, intuitive, creative .act. In this- case, a given

. strategy would likely be implemented only,, partially by the subject,

utilizing aspects° which. were compatible with theSubjecM3

7 100, . . , k * . ' .personal approach, and rejecting or reinterpreting conflicting

)i)conCe'ts.

The problem for the design methodologist is-therefore to

402,' . develop strategies which canbe acceptedAy'individual designers 4. and to present strategies in a manner which is understandable

anduslable. The design .methods researcher must insure that the methodsing studied are actually implemented. by the aubjecta'i :1. and tha't indicative d4ferences in performance are- captured by

the experimental technique:

A. Design Methods: Research

The resultS of this research should not discourage -an

interest in the study of design methods, but should rather

Stimulate furthertattemptsto develop useful techniques. for

investgatirig iihe impact of 'alternative. methods otnthe design .- process:. In this regard, the results to some degree support

- . . the utility of the present approach With 'further refinements. Subject variability'wouldbe a major concern in further

. , refinements, and could be treated in a number of ways. Some variability could be controlled. amore extensive orientation= and training program to insure that subjectscould and would use

the test methods. Patterns of variability associated with,dit-

r 1 ferent methods could be identified using larger groups-of subjects..

,More sensitive performance measures could be designed to identify specific effects, with problem formats developed to permit greater extremes of behavior.

In other areas, the'ctime and effort limitations for subjects

could be reduces!' by *designing apparatus with more convenient

4 V 101

means for information preseritation and manipulation,'possibly

involvingigome form of mechanical assist&ice. The information

data- could be supplemented by an expanded 4raphic capability

and sdme fqrm of "thinking aloud" technique for recording verbal

comments': The. information items themselves could be modified'

to cover different. aspects of'environmental design problem-.

solving as well as problem- solving in fields such as'Urban

Design, Product Design, Machine Design, InduStrial Engineering.

0 "3e 1 - With appropriate modification this-basic approach cquld

. also be used for, investigating a range of,problem-solving

behavior's. comparisons Of4methods could.be.used pith alternative

strategy ,configurations, as, well as different heuristics and

decision- -making techniques. Basic information processing could.

, be studied in terms of types of information, forms of information

presentation; alternative options for-informatioAHMariipulation.

In addition,'more funkamerital studies could be made of the

p'sychological and cognitive aspects of d0ign problem-solving.

In the immediate future, more specific extensions.. of this'

study could alsobe considered .

1. Further analysisof the 41ready,collected-dat'a in terms of

. the dynamics o information processing within the test sessions, -identifying patterng of information-useage associated with

each strategy step.'

: 2. Additional experimentation using a simplified experimental

. . , task.; with more extensive training. and a larger.subject.group.

to increase the consistency of results.

.3. Development and'experimental comparisdn of refinements 1.02-

. in the 15-step strategy, using different strategy and problem 1.1 variations to determine the most1 effective combination.' of steps

sand procedures for environmental design.

B. Design. Methods Implications

I . In a larger sense, this study ,and further research in design

methods should lead to a'better understanding and application of design method by practitioners in environmental design and

related fields ToAthe extent that differences between design'

strategies were indicated, they present a,challenge to traditional

assumptions aba t the negligiblek. effects of methods and the

essential simi arity of alternative methods. If real differences can be identified between alternative Methods, then it is importan

to search for the best possible methodS, testing.and comparing,"' -

methods of all kinds to determine their applicability. for PrObleM-

solving: In particular, the suggestive results of this study'.

appear to tipport-thepriolionents ofmore "syStematic" 'methods, stressingdetailed, operational procedures, dirpted toward a

whole-problem viewpoint, with a controlled appliction 'of problem-

'solving information.

The possibilities for establishing meaningful differences betWeen design strategies also pkesent a challenge to design.

educators in terms of identifying the most' appropriate design methods and presenting them as effecyyely as'possible to design'

' students.' This, suggests thp heed fora.more formalized design

methods curriculum involving a comparative analysis of alterha-., tive methods and.theit,applications to different aspectS of 103

design. information processing. In more geperal.termsf this study indicates the'iMportance of understanding how information

is used to generate a-final solution, and suggests teaching

approaches, using information banks, and recording detailed in- /formation protocols, as a means of demonstrating and reinforcing

problem - solving behavior.

The broadest iMpiications of this research go beyond the on,cern with specific design methods or techniques to a consid-

eration of the entire design process. This.studyis intended serve as one aspect in the development.of a Ccmprehensive

S--cience-ot-designf,-,directed toward making the. best posgible use

of the designer's resources in producing the best possible

'design productl. The .underlying assumption of a designscience,'. . supported in part by `this research, is that design isa rational

activity which -can be Made explicit and. that through study and

,understanding the efficiency_4nd effectivenessf design: activity 07 cap be signilicantlyimproved..

. 104.

BIBLIOGRAPHY %

1. Alexander, C ..,"Information and an Organized Process of Design", Poceed2ngs.of tho Building Research Institute,

Spring, 1961, pp: 115-124. .

, 2. Alexander, C.; NoteS'on the Synthesis of Form, Cambridge', Harvard University PreSs, -1964.

3. Alexander, C.., "Houses Generated, by Patterns",Berkeley, Center for Environmental Structure, 1969.

4. Alekander, C.; Ishi; kawa, S.;' Silverstein, 161.i? "A Pattern Language which Generates Milt_-Service Centers", Berkeley4

Center for EnvironmentarStructute, 1968. 1

1 5. Alger, a. R. M.; Hays, C. V., Creative Syfithesis in Design', Englewoodqi-Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 1964,

6.Ameral, S.,' "On the Mechanization of/the Creatiye Process", IEEE'Specttum, 3, April, 1966, pp./i12-114.'

jl 7.Archer, L. B., "What is Good Design",-Design,'May& 1960,

Archer, Lt B., "A Systematic Method for. Designers', re- '

print from Design, London, 196T. . 11

9. Archer, L. The Structure of Design Processes, London, LongmanS, 1970.

10:\'Asimow, M.,Introduction tO Design, Englewood' Cliffs:N. \Prentice-Ha1l,..1964. , 11. B nham, R., "C'hill Dawn in Colorado" Industrial Design, August,) 1965 Pp.s38-41:

I \ . -. 7, 12. Barnettu J.,f"Changng Patterns in a:'New Age"; Architec-

turar\Record, July, 1966; pp. 249250. r

,13'.i.. Blake, J. E.,:"DesignIby System ", .Design, April, 1962,

P. 39. r.?

. 14. BlooM, B. $.;'-Brodel,L. J,.,"Problem- Solving Processed. of 'College ,Students:, Suppl';'Educ, Mono4r., No. 73t- Chicago UniversityiVersity of Chicagoi Press, 4950, , . 15. Borko, H.,'ed.-ComEille_Applicatios in the Behavioral Sciences, Englewood Cliffs, N. 7J:,' Prentice-Hall, 1962. 105

16. Buhl, Creative Engiceering Design, Ames, Iowa, Iowa State,University Press, 19,60.

17.. Burpette, C. H., "A LingUitic Structure forArchitectonic. Communication ", in Coates" and' Moffett, 1969, p.p. 101-120.

Campion, CoMputers in'Architectutal DeSign,,N. Y., Elsevier,. 1968.

19. Cheetham, D.', "Training Design Co-ordinators" .Design, September,.1864,;,pp.

"0. Clarkson, G, P: E.; Pounds, W. F. "Theory and .Methio0 in the ExplOration of Human Decision Behavior " ;,Industrial Management ReAdnw, 5, 1963, pp, 17-28,

, n 213) Coate's,G. J. Moffett, K.M., eds.', Response to Environ" ment, North .Carolina State University; Student Publica- tioris of School of Design, 18, 109.

22.. Corkill, P. A.; Guenter, R. F., 'A Systematic Approach t'd Design", American Institute 9f,Ardhitects Journal, Decem- ber, 1968, pp. 75 -77. * 'A

23. De Groot, A. D.',."PercePtion and Memory Versus Thought: ' Some Old Ideas and_Recent Findings", in Kleinmuntzi 1966, pp. 9 -50. ...

24.'Dixon, J. R., "Design and An A Conflict of Interest ", "Journal-of Engineering Eduo ion, 54,7, March, 1964, c pp. 243-245.

25. Dixon, J. R., Design Engineering: Inventiveness, Analysis and -Decision, N, Y. le McGraw-Hill, 19.66.1 26. buncker, K., 410n Problem-'Solving".,' Psycholbgical' Monographs,

. , Whole No. .270 1945.

27. Eastman, C.-M., "Search Strategies'for Space Planning", Pittsburgh, Institute of Physical Planning, .Carnegie- Mellon Universit, 1969. -

, 28. Eastman, C.' M.,"On the Analysis of Intuitive. Design processes", in Moore, 1970, pp. 21-3k

'29. Eder, W. E., "Definitions and Methodologies", in S. Gregory, 1966, pri.. 19-31.

* . 30. Feldman, J.4 "Computer Simulation of Cognitive. ProceSses", in Borko 1862,,pp. 336-359. 113 .106

ciW 31. Fetter, W. A., Computer GTaphics in. Communication, N. Y.', McGraw-Hill, 196.5. _

1 32. Forehand, G. "Epilogue: Constructs and Strategies for Problem-Solving!ReSeareh", in Kleinmuntz,'1966, pp..355:38.34 , _33. Frischmuth, D. S.; Allen, T:,J.,--"A Model for' thelDescrip- tion and Evaluation of Technical Problem Solving ", IEEE -> Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-16, 2, May,' 1969, pp. 5864.,

3 . Geddes, R. C.; Spring, B. P., "A Study of Education for Environmental Design ",(AIA Report), Princeton University, 1967.

35. Godde,H.; Machol, R. E. Systems Engineering: An'Intro- duction to the 'Design of Large-Scale Systems, N. Y., McGraw -Hill> 1967.

36. Gordon, J. J., SyneCtics, N. Y., Collier-, 1968,

37. Green, B. F. Jr., "Corr t Trends in Problem Solving", in 1. Kleinmuntz,. 1966, pp. 3-1 .

I rt. 38. Gregory,. C., The Management of Intelligence: Scientific Problem-Solving and CreativitY,'N. Y.,,McGraw-Hill,,1967.

39. Gregory, S. A,, ed.,,The Design Method, N. Y., PlenUff

Press, 1966. '

40. Guilford, J. P., The Nature of Human Intelligence, N. Y., McGraw:Hill,.196777

41. Gutman, R., "Site Planning and Social Behavior",'Journal of Social Issue's, 22, 4, October,.1966, pp.. 103-115.

.42. Handler,' A. B., "'The Place of Social Science in Architec-- ture", Architectural Science Review, 7,4, December, 1'964, pp. 124-13t.

43..Hellthuth, J., ed., Cognitive Studies, .Volume 1, N, Y., Bruner4Mazel, 1970-.

44. Jay, L. S., "A Systematic Approach to; i-rOblems of .Town and: Regional Planning" in Jones and Thornley, 1963, pp. 11-22,

4,5. Jay, M., "Environmental design: An Introauction",,Design,

February, 1967, pp. 4448. . 46. John, E. 1,Z; Miler, J. G., "The Acquisition and Applicatipn ofInforMation in the Probem-Solving Process", Behavioral Science, 2, 1957, pp: 291-300.

0 116 107

47. Jones, J. C.., "A Method of Systematic pesign" in Jones and Thorniey, 1963, pp.53-73.

448. Jones, J. C., "Design Mpthods Compared ", Design, August,' 1966, pp: 32-35; September, 1966, pp. 46-52.

49. Jones, J. C.; Thonley,- Conference on Design Methods, N. Y., MacMillan, 1963.

50. Kaiser, C. H., An Essay on Method, New Brunswick, RLitgers , University Press, 1952.

51. Kitts, L., "A Comprehensive Perspective'for the Pfanning and Design Dispiplines", in' Krampen, 1965. .*

. 0 ,52, Kleinmuntz, B., ed., Problem Solving: Research Method and.

Theory, N. y., Wiley, 19,66, '

53. Krampen, M., ".Design as Creative Problem Solving" in Krampen, 1965, pp. 3-19.

54. Krampen, Design and Planning, Na Y., Hastings .House, 1965. A . 55, Maier, N.'R. F., "Reasoning. in Humans. II. The Solution of a Problem and Its Appearance in Consciousness", J. Comp. Psythol.,-.12, 1931, pp. 181-194.

56. Maldonaldo,T., "The Emergent World: A Challenge to.. Archttectural and-Industrial Design Training"-Ulm Journal, 12/13, 1965,' pp. 2-10.

57. Maldonafdo,T., "How ,to Fight-Complacency in Design Edu- cation", Ulm Journal, 17/18, 1966,. pp. 14-20,

58Malone, R.,'"Essential.Design%.IndUstrial-Design,, . February,

.'19604 pp. .56-59. ,

59. McCrory, R. J:,,"The Design Method in Practice", in S., Gregory, 1966, pp. 11-19;

60. Meister, D.; Farr, D. "The Methodoldgy of Control Panel Design",Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, September, 1966.

61. Meister, D; Farr,. D. E.,. ."A FUrther Study of the Use of Human Factors Infprmation.by Designers", Canoga Parke Calif., Bunker -Ramo Corp., 16 March, 1967.

62. Miller, G.. A.'; Galanter,-E,I Pribram, E: H.., Plans and the Structure of Behavior, N. Y., Holt,

117 rc 108

63: Mitroff, I. I., Engineering. Design: A Case T'echni5logy and Social . Study on the Interface Betweenithe Psychology of Design", IEEE Transactions on Engineering.' Management, EM-15, 4, December, 1968, pp., 1787187.

64. Mitroff, I, I., "On th,e Social Psychology of Safety . Factor: A Case S.tudy in`the Sociology of Engineering Science", University of Pittsburg, Graduate Sbhool of Business;-1969,

65. Moore, G. T.,. ed., Emerging.Methods irLEnvronmental Design, and Planning,- Cambridge, MIT Presg., 1970-

66. Mousgrove,.J., "The Dangers of Scientism",Architectural heview, July, 1966, pp. -9-11,

67. Nadler, G., Work Design: A' Systems Concept, RevisedEdition, Homewood,' Ill., Richard D. Irwin, 19.70.

68.'Newell, A.; Shaw, J. C.; Simon, H. A.., "Elements of a Theory of HumadProblem-SolVing", psycholoi.Review, 65, 1958, pp. 151 -166. 69. Newell, A.; Shaw, J. Co.; Simon,,H. A., "Report an aGeneral Problem-Solving Program", Santa Monica, Calif, Rand Corp., 1959. 70. Newell, A.; Simon, H. A.,:"Compter Simulationof .Human Thinking", Science, 134, December 22, 1961,pp.2011-2017.

71. Paige, J. M.; Sifion, H. A., "Cognitive'Processesin Solving Kleinmuntz, 1966, 1p. 51-119. ) Algebra Word Problems:!, in

72. Pare, E.; Lyman, F.; Kimbrell, J.,Introduction to Engi- LittELailiarl, N. Y., Holt, Rinehart, 196-3.

Passonneau, J. "In Search of Theory IV", Arts andArchi- tec)ture, April, 1965, pp..124-25. '

74. Price, D. J. deS., Science Since Babylon,'NewHaven-,'Yale University Ptesg, 1961.

15. Pye, D. W., The Nature' of Design,' N. Y.,Peikhold, 1964. 76. RanstroM, D.; Rhenman, E., "A Methodflof Describing the Development of an Engineering Project", IEEE Transactions on Engjone ring Management, EM-12,September, 1965, PP. 79-86.

77. Reitman, W.', "The-Uses ofExperience: Open Statements, 1117-Defined Strategies, and IntelligentInformation Processing', in Hellmuth,.1970, pp. 210-229.

118 t 109

3 o 78. Roe, P. H.;,Soulis; G. N.; Hands, V. K.,_The Discipline of resign, Boston, Adlyn and .Bacon, 1967.

(k, 79. Roylance, J. T., Engineering Design, N. Y., Pergamon Press, 1966.

I 80. SiderS, R. A., etal., Computer Graphics;aRevolution in Design, N. Y., American.Management Association, 1966.

81. 'Simon, H. A., TheScien.Ces of the Artificial, Cambrid9R, .MIT Press,1969.

82. ,Starr, M. K.4 Product Design,andiDecision Theory', Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-HAll, 1963.,.,

. . Studer, R. G.; Stea. D., "AtchiteCtAral Programming, 'Environmental Design and Human.Behavidr",.46urnal of' 'Social Issues, 12, 4, 1966,Y pp...127n1-3,6;

, . . . :84. ThoMas,.E. L.,.,"Problem Solving in,Design",, in KraMpen,

. 1965, pp. 1-27 . . I . 85. Thornley, D-.G., "Design Method in-ArChitectur I - Edutcation' in Jones and Thornley, 1963,.pp. 37-52.

86. Van derRyn, S.-,. "Problems apdPuzqles"; American Institute of Architects Journal, January.,, 1966, pp. 37 -42.,

87./Wason,.P. C.; Johnson-Laird, P. N:,Thinking and Reasoning:, . BaltimoreA Penguin Books, 1968. ,'.'-

88. Whitfield, P. R., qief;brt on Visit to America to Di.cuss

Creativityin Engineering, June 17-July 15, 19687, , ,

Institutiori of.Mechanicaltiigineers. ,

,..,

8 . Wilson, W. E., Concepts of Engineerings System Design, N. Y., McGraw-Hill, 1965. A 90..Zwicky, F.; Wilson, A. G:, eds., -New Methods,of Thought and Procedure: Contributions to the Symposium on Method-

, ologies, N- Y., Springer-Verlag, 1967. (i

.119 4 APpEi4DIX.A TEST PROBT;EM DETAILS twelvetol,theofselectionThese selection appendiCes problemcommittee of'test.problems, criteria .a.ternatives describemembers,3and used th'e=details in includingpresented questionnaires_piesenteda description theinvolvedto the,committeethree of thein sets thet c. Appendixon the final A-I -seleCtion guestiqnnaite. Initial Problem Selection .Criteria _Thisreview 'lisfs 'questionnaire", theocrj_teria as with presehted accompanying onthe "criteriadescriptive . bymaterialalphabeticsentedeach characteristics criterion. torelating.:i4 the characters committee in thisthe in in selectionparentheses.'appendix, the order ancrapPIicatippbut shown 'were by. pre- the of Note that the criteria were grouped o- C

O -1 a GENERALTEST PROBLEM CONSIDERATION: (SELECTION CRITERIA CRITERIA Related -t.p'overall problem DESCRIPTION - --...- - forcharacteristics, experimentation. requirements /., Environmentalcan inthis Character problem (B)be solved as an environmental , . de4gn tls'ed as a check and a defini- andinvolving.task. interrelationships, 'Does a'Complete,range the problem foulingrelate of environmentaltoa totIkUivinga specific elements topicor work- area environmentaldoton in.fact to insure represent designthat problems tasks.,typical -. parableing environment., from other largerrelatively environmental.systems. complete in itself and se- . Availability areaproblemisof itLlikelyBackground that is hasrelatively that likelyInformation backgrOund been'the,objecteasily (C) available..information of concern'and. Isfor this this. an A mechanicalrelativelyHinforma-tIon-banksn'couldinsure that considerationeasily material developed. for tothe be wouldandinvolvedonesstudy interpreted:forbe in available the pastthat suchinthecan the bethat problemliterature. straight-forwardlY sufficient Are inforthation the factorsresearched dr`.' .. . Needs ofsubjects as.inpr- SUBJECT CONSIDERATIONS: preted from the evaluator's ' . . background. - . . Motivates Subjectsis'this .(D) problem likely. to-be'bf interest to the student. l An attempt to insure full.and . thatinvolvedIs there the studentrelevantenough varietywill to humanbe andmotivated and challenge, educational to call are uponconcernsthe questionshis fullsuch task.subj-ectsenthusiastic on thiscooperation difficult of , , solution..creative pdWers Are the and materials attempt togenerated produce inthe connection best possible. with ./ --1-, -' . thiS problem likely to be of future social use. . . a : ''-- rt. H TEST PROBLEM SELECTION CRITERIA continued -CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Understandabledonecan thi"Sbetoand ableSubjects toproblem determineto understand (E).be defined an appropriate generally in-such whatsolution. needs Areto bethe . a way that subjects beA tioncheck more that based.readily some on graspedproblems the assume than might - -4 . Reasonable enV.ironmentconceptsto Expect involved Solution be visualized generally Within Timefrom familiar, 'Constraintsthe problem can deseription; a coherant (G) others. - , . , 1. involved,problemprocedure,can- this reasonable problem numberwithin ofbe thein activitiessolved, termstime allowed offollowing theto benumber(8 considered,a-.reasonablehours) of _variables yap.- . -Is- this . A problem-solvingscalepracticallem and Scope check 'abilities.of on the the prob -, compared wSth typical. % RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS:cultyations inin determiningtasks and types a solution.-of people inviolved, di.ffi-.' Utility ofc' the problems__ in Permits Wide-.P..angeis this problem of Solutionsufficiently Possibilities complex and (F) non- ci- earcut A termscheck ofon ,researchproblem fl goals 'exi-- _ 0 likell'tions,that different understanding,to require problem-Sol7ing subjects and sequences--to make apprOaches, significant of operation defini- .de are-. . ; bilityence ofto strategyinsure,the effects' influ- if - - / cisions and prodice distinctly different-solutions:0 . ..preSent. . -, . ; . . possible..Are-sighificantly different solution alternatives . . -k---,1- . - . -- \ Comarable istotiweleris this_ipcoblemOther difficulty, Problems likely', familiarity(A). to be,_ -tocomparable subjects, to other.nUmper,that prob- of var- might lRe selected. Is there equivalent: rela- . result.A arenecessary tO bp..compared cdnsideratidn rfOr con- if c?..f.,the0 three problems . . .. meat,iables claSses; to be considered,'such that elements similarity 'of ofone elements problem ormay ,..!le- 'be .. etc.si:stency .OVeffects, learning F - 'generally compared to parallel aspects in other problems. ' ' )----t...) AppendixThisthe lists"criteriaA =2 the ratingcrit ria questionnaire as provided ",tb manythe QEcommittee the' criteria On Revised Problem-Selection Criteria revisewereassummedtothe subjects" repeatedresults definitions to befromofwas under.experimenter thedropped the,to first'questionnaie, first from questionnaire;the contro'i;list., since_"understandable "pei'mits bUt itwere was given 4 improve understanding; based on wide added.area"'asinrange favor of listedofsolution "comparability belowz aossibilities". 'uniqueness. et soltitionswi waso also dropped problem was also in problem ,

D TEST. PROBLEM SELECTION REVISED CRITERIA CRITERIA. DECIPTION A. COMPARWEproblemIs TOthis areas whf_ch.may'be selected? EXC/h.e,the-7Problem problem areaOTHER likely to be.compablether PROBLEMS A onrestatement first _questionnaire.- of criterion . .is-there equivalent imo4nt o.f.Znfo*iatio--t8.be number -of envirbnmental ariable consid- asso- 3 , - , ered,ciated-with the,.:gegieral scale of environentai set ing, and range . , expectedfamiliarVt.i to average college Student? 1-1 . , ILl'ENV,TRQ;41 . . , f.P.o.this problem represent a typical environmental .2z 41kA L DESIGN TASK . . Resatement of criterion.. . 1, acoherantdesign typical-'range task? environmental tX: of environmental system, a systemcohsiderat-ions which, includes and he problem setting:- a relatively , tedelements; -types likelyof environments to be generalizeable or settings`? to other rela- . , C. NhILABILITYWill.the OF BACKGROUNDexperimenter INFORMATION be.able to locate sufficient _ . Restatement of criterion. w ., ) meaningful information to be presentelTto the subject? . beenEX: Isresearched this problem in the area: paSt,- one related that-I-Tslikely -66-7-0-tber to areas have - 4 . which have been researched,- primarily compoa'ed-af . . _... e D. MOTIVATESelements SUBJECTS which have been researched? , . Will the Subject-be motivated to call upon his full Restgtement of criterion. , . creativesible solution? powers and EX: attempt Is the toproblem produce indicated: the best onepos-.. fort , 4,one thatwhich is alikely common to solution have some has impabtin: already termsbeen accepted,of I - . cultieshuman well-bein9-, i'n determining one thatpresentsa solution? challenging diffi- . . P. E.TEST REASONABLE-TO-EXPECT PROBLEM SELECTION REVISEDSOLUTION CRITERIA WITHIN TIMEcontinued CONSTRAINT2 CRITERIA , , 1.. DESCRIPTION Canant'solution,through the subject the deSign.process, withinproceed the from.the time cto allowed arriveproblem -(8 at statement, hrs)?some coher-EX: - Restatement of criterion.- of Isscale the or. problem number to off be variables,considered: capable manageable of being. in terms :. . ter..].1Caliar,handled or potentially without interpretingunfamiliar informatiorG excessive amounts famil- ofenough that solutionS_can.be determined straight7 - , F. COMPARABILITYfovwakdly? OF SOLUTIONS WITHIN- PROBLEM AREA t . .. parisonWillEX:same theCan roblem of solutionsthe probleth-solvin desiredarea beproduced areasimilar of orby. problem-solvingenoughptrateg subjects to 'variables? permitfor thebe: cOm-' g b'.em,Newtreatmentssults canobtained be ofcompared thefrom samepro- variousin the a check that the re=-` Strainedsetunambiguously,definediforward enough of solution that subjects leadalternatives, to-a can relatively identify'the be straight-. con- solu- data analysis.. ortiap unnecessary space without digressions. the need for wild speculition . , A G.. UNIQUENESS'clifferent OF orPROBLEM unique with regard to other problems generally comparable, is . mi the problem area ,terionNew, # A.,a qualification while problems on crir- EX:solutionssuchthat-subjects Doe-8- produced'inthe problem will earlier-experimental areanot.'.simply suggebt: reviewdifferent sessior reworkalt ns?' na- notshould be too be similar.similar,. they should tive sets of information-to be considered,*N a diff rent A . set of solution variables to'be selected, different . toaskas,required?.activities or functions for which a 4ifferent design , , . ..----- Ul1-- f.; Appendix A -3 Final Problem Selection Criteria task"usedinThis the andfromlists "problem "uniqueness the the second criteriaselection.questionnaire-, ofquestionnaire, problem"as presented:on controlledby with the"environmental five evaluation -the criteria experi-' Sheetsdesignwere middlementerthearein accompanied.evaluationthe in(2) generatingthree and low majorsheet by(3) problem...alternatives "cue" groupings. atvalues intervals statements on the representing linearwhich and werescale. placing'them. highlobated.on (1), In this list the criteria sA

TEST PROBLEM SELECTION FINAL CRITERIA . CUE Comparable:lems to Other Prob- ,CRITERIA- . lemsThe problemin the otherhas a-great two sets, many or a features similar to prob- comparable match can. . be made with- selected problems .in the other two sets. , features.and some differ= . The 'problem -has some.similar other problems in the other. _ . : epeesThe,:.prOblemtwo,sets: in comparison-with is considerably different from .other_ , :' prob- Availability of Back- . 1. .The problem-spaee. is an importantlemsleMssity which. and one the miAt design be'sejected of this from spacehas . the other two sets.- beenin discussedthe, univer= ground Information , Design and '-' Educationextensively literature, both'formallSrand or this isinformallyin similar to other-prob- ,. o lemS in business or-industry Which--have ' been studied . extensively. . z. . for granted. in.the. o . 2. This problem space is usuallyonlydesign. taken generally of university in the andliterature. other facilities-and is treated - .:> . -.This problem space is of no particular. interest or, is so Motivates Subjects '. 1. The functions assOciatediaithbynewthem;fic studentsor thismention unique.and space theto in in beproblemsarethe conceptimportant, 'design associated or or educational with that it has, been given no speci71 'personally relevant to developing.a sat-_ literattre considered --,The functions.sfactory associated design with solutionthis space are are likely to be challenging. usually . . i,. , taken. for gianted, azd the solution is likely td cibe just- H A, a rearrangement of standard o . elements. .4 H--A . TEST PROBLEM SELECTIONFINAL CRITERIA continued . ,.._ CRITERIA . 3. This problem is generally noconSidered interest toto-students be- trivial in or the.university,:about of all that . CUE . , . is possible-is some minor reworking of the standard solution. . . Time Cons:traintsc_ . . = 1. While reasonably challenging,. sivesolutioni and requiring the a sizecomprehen- of the 'problem, number of Vari- 4.e ables,the problem etc., ,should reasonably. permit subjects to solve 8-hours. - _ . . , . 2- The-problem'is somewhat complex involving anumber of . . _ difficultyfuh-ctionS in and finishing subsystems'for within wi}ich8 hours. there might be some . 3. The problem is highly complex with many interacting sub- . .° materialitsyStems would and orbe .socome'upvery open-ended`or difficult with a solution for unfamiliartosubj.ects subjects'to in.8 hour's'. organize thatthe Comparability Within . . .1..While there is no obVious solution, the nature of the Problem . . ,problemcomparison.should is such contain that enoughalmost pointsall alternative of similarity solutions to .permit , - . 2. The problem is somewhat more openended in' nature arid . thatsolutions there maymay bebe significantly-difficulty in different comparison. to the_point , . ,.- . 3. The' problem could be solvedg entin aways; number permitting'little of widely diver- or no comparison. . , - o . Ca'I-' Appendix A -4 Test Problem Alternatives vidualindicating,theThequeStionnaire",providedThis statementsarelists problemg6nerations. to thethe basis alternativesubdiliidedcommittee-on accompaniedby'descriPtive,material for the problem into grQuping8the their"probleM statements anddifferent-groupings. °theselection whichindi- were J.

4. 43'

, ' TEST PROBLEM ALTERNATIVES- , . I. , . PROBLEM STATEMENTS , 'DESCRIPTION . L-- Work areas for single indiVid- - _ . tanttals, aspeet repreSenting of higher an .educa-7 impor7 ., , e , r specifidtion facilities,.emphasizing fundtions and activi7 A.. .ThiS spaceteaching. should providefaculty officemember. facilities Primarily forthis one spaCe will be . la highlyRepresentsties typical and aindividual "Facultyenvironment Office".needs. files,lessons,personalused for journals; desk-work 'andcorrespondence, involving reference reading, .books. with Preparatiorl Accommodationa limiteg.use of of in classroom building. ,. studentsshbUld be ormade other for. faculty one or engagedtwo visitors, in review students, of work grad - B. .This spateadministratorOther should materials provide whose and officejobsome involvds limited facilities'for aindividual great dealone instruction. of student . Or" Ofn.ce","anRepresents'an alternative "AdministratiVe con.- . ore 'emphaH-. -con-woric ace. will Thebetw involveuse en of desk thereading work space-will-be anddifferent interviews. materialsroughly Primarily with somethe desk' divided ees,sisfiguratin, on s udents with s interview- <, willmostly-interim,filingdictatibri usually and bewith telephoning, one and to afour few.refeenCes.and stud9nfmighinvolve.limited, s, consistingInterviews . . _ . _ 1 , C.. This spaceofusually materials shotid pfinfOrmaldiscuSSion provide and form :office` preparation. facilitieS with for twosome shared viewing j. . Represents .a."Research Office" individuals,a researcher and one assistant. The space I a somewhat more Complex'alter- ' withwill generallyeither individual be used forfrequently different absent ,desk from work tie activities space. and,native functions. with added personnel. , -P-' .joUrnalsiandwriting,Desk otherwork dictation, willreference involve Or materials.'Accommodation typing reading, using review extensive of-materials, files; I 0Ni TEST . = PROBLEM ALTERNATIVES ,continued .. _ sixshould participants also be madeengaged for,regufar in discuSsion, conferences note takingwith. four and to 'PROBLEM STATEMENTS -'3"-Research Office" cont d. DESCRIPTION 4 , review of materials, some graphic or other audio-visual . \ aids may be employed:. . . D. This spacebookstheallygraduate student's shouldandbe.used paperSigrading,student provide forown deskteachingstudying. office work preparatiOn assistants.facilities activitiesLimited resources forofincludingThe lessons, fourspace of readingwill refer-and usu- tionaltentRepresentsstationsflected'plah Office', space, with-somea"Teaching treated,asinvolvesfor the common 4Assis-eddi- worka re- - chinesence materials may be sharedjoy and posSibly the1our.-TAs. typing or Periodic-, calculating 'one ma- or facilities. . of.clude.othertwo materiatsvisitors grad willor individualstudents generally or instruction. befaculty students, engaged but_May in review. 4m- -- II. . :increasinglyWork areas .for small groups, important in new .s . - approaches to education,- ern- . _ phasis on group interaction E. This space shoUld provide meeting/instructional facil-. . Representsand communication a "Departmental aids. -ities,partmental formentalmarsand-graduate involvingoffices. various numbersmeetings and or Combinations conferencesstudents ofor facultysmall in .ainformal general sem- relationship,toditcuSsion.andThe major use.of hote the-space taking will'bewith some for gra- de-aSsumpticin depart-highly MoreandConference thanchairs. a chalkboard,Room"; another table, typical facility, with thatIroom,needs audio- visual aids. Secondary uses might include . phicior . eating lunches orother'tecreational activities,' card- - reading.playing etc., or individual studying or recreational . , . TEST PROBLEM ALTERNATIVES continued . F. This space should provide instructional-Memonstration PROBLEM STATEMENTS Represents a Laboratory Dis-' DESCRIPTION . berstructionfacilities and/or inteaching-assistant 'In chemiStry, connection physics, with and a etc.,laboratoryfrom.ten for to aused facultymem-fifteen for in- cussionized, technicalRoom", a morealternative. special- ) taking.demonstrationssttudentS. Provision Thit withspace should somt will beinformal be maae used for discussion.andfor wet primarily 'and-dry lecture-, notedemon- . - G. This spacestrationfor ashould faculty-member experiments. prOvide instructional andor limitedteaching audio-visual assistantfacilities and aids.- from ten -Representssion Room a ","Teaching another-major Dicus- ,: orto seminars. twenty students The general .participating use of space in discussionwill be for Sections a com- pactsneedsarea, of cl includesssroom design. some as-- . binationing and ofsome.graphic lectures and 'aids group and discussions display of forstudent note- work. tak- . . - IOther uses may-problemsand include readinglwriting,individual instruction, working either on at the stu-, . . H.. This spacedent's should or instructor's provide facilities work area. for eXperienc- PresentationRepresents an Room."Atidio-Visual ", a highly . ing (vewin, listening) °a variety of audid-Visual aids- , fifteeninvolving students. an instructor, The primary a technician, -emphasis andwill from._five be on pro- to native.specialized, techniCal alter- , ,viding'for.161. their'.combinations. theety presentationof media including andSecondary experiencing slides, uses mayfilm, Of'a irfclude television,-tapes vari- note ,-- III. smalltaking group during discussion. and alter the presentation and informal . Lesg formal wok areas for . dining and recreation, often . t slighted in facility design, bility.emphasis on service and flexi.- . r,) TEST PROBLEM ALTERNATIVES continued PROBLEM_STATEMENTS. f.. DESCRIPTION . I.: This spacemarydentstionofr shouldusefacilitiessforonecold as of aand providepartthis hcit -8paceof snack fooda major willtofoods,-with twelve beclastroom1puildingThe ielated' . 'twelve the storage and dispensingdispensing andfaC111ty, consump- staff, or stu- 'Bar",:a. preparation and pri, . usuallyRepresents minimally 'a "Campus treated. Shack typical-functioni include small c . consumption of food. Other related uses may . . j. This spaceonegroup should to discussiontwenty provide students andrecreational individual as a- floor unit of a ;large -dornii7 reading or studying. facilities for ., Lounge",RepresentsfunctionS an at aimportant "Dormitorythis scale. campus Floor - . varietytory complex. of light-recreational The major:.use of activities the,space willincluding be for talk-a read . . k. .ing,studying,broughting between to theteleviewing;floor area; residents-or games some (cards, food couples,. maychess, be recreational providedetc.) or may-also . K. This spacebeings, forused. should oneparties, Secondary to provide twelve mass uses graduateteleviewing may:include students (football, recreation/study facilities periodic floorand meet:,periodically inaugurations). , RepresentsLounge",.an a ' epartmental . AP. mportant amenity small groups of faculty, related .to the ctegartmentalrea.infreguently proVlded. , ,The primary space use will be for a variety.of recreation - . ,zines,altalking activities, eating-drinkingcoffee in small light. groups. reading Secondary orof brownnewspapers, usetmaybags, books,include maga- in-informal . L..Thit-formal spacesmalltion shouldseminars, facilities provide birthday involving food parties,preparation three food to andfive consUmp- staff and .vending. from of a A alternative.,moreRepresents a "Coffeewith food-pro- Shod ", a spec-glized, technical -classroomincludefour building,dt to thirtya preparation students,,.dormitory: area Primaryfaculty, for fountain space or staff and as a part short-order use'will con-, cessing on the . e premises. . c cussion,tume'food.items, with game -Secondary'provision playing, uses forparties, individualmay include or films.'- small'1Foup s and groups to' p dis- . APPENDIXThese appendices B des-cribe the details involved in gener-, TEST STRATEGY DT ILS 9 pothesesdevelopedSurveyinclUdingating theof derivedthefromdesign development the frommethodologists,strategies Survey, differences and with to 'results bethe.experimental and betweenused the.strategies ofin thestrategies.the Nationalexperiment, hy- AppendixThis listS B-1 the major steps iden 'List of Design A-rategies ied by various authors velopmeritgenerationopinionbyprodes8.either general as on Theseof.design.strategies design typeof.thespecificthe strategies Nationalor.application Strategies -Survey. were test'or and assembled as strategies. aquestionnaire asource survey acidfor of.existing theorganizedand de-.the models of the design BASICLIST OFSTEPS: DE4GN STRATEGIES , F. Wallas (Whitfield) , 3.°Sketch Designs A. Archer 1. Preparation of a . 1%3.2. Preparation IlluminationIncubation 6.5.4. Prototype'DetailedMarketing,Appraisal Designs Construction- SpecificationProduct Performance , - 4. Verification 87. ProductionProduction. PlanningDesign 3.2. EstablishmentDevelOpment of of Design the Design Resources A.OPERATION Alger TYPES: .0_ .4 10. Production9. Tooling and Sale - 4. Evaluation of Design Solutions 3,2.-Specifying1. PropoSingRecognizing Solutions' . ;_ .E. Falcon (Whitfield)'2.1. PreparationInformation B. Christopherson1, Conception 5.4. EvaluatingDeciding on Alternatives a SolutiOn 3, Evaluation. Creaton 3.2. 'RealizationCommunication B. Alger (industry)6. Implementing . 5.6. Implementation Selection C. Jay 1. Recognize F. Hykin . . 4, 1. Survey 2. Define . 2. Plan 3. Conceive . 4i1. Recognition '3 Implementation ,. 4. ApplY '4r3.2. DefinitionPreparation D. Jones 1. Analysis 6.5. CommunicateEvaluate - 5.4. AnalysisSynthesis / 3%2. SynthesisEvaluation C. Alger (university)1. Analysis ' 7.6. EvaluationPreparation . ,E- Roe .2. Synthesis . G. Murtha (processes) 2.1. SearchIdentification for a Solution of a Problem : 6.5.4,3. RevisionITplementationOptimization Evaluation and Decision 1.3.2, Orientation GenerationTranslation - 3. Evaluation of ' 4. Development ''. 4. Selection of the Best SolutionsSolution _ D. Archer .,1.2: POlicy Preliminary Formulation Research'. 5.6. Formulation Eva]uatiOn _ H1..)ul ..H.-Murtha. (protocal)LIST OF DESIGN STRATEGIES continued 7. Retrospective Evaluation E. Murtha (veneral:modea) 3.2. Design'Solution Problem Concept Use Problem . B. Dewey (Guilford)1. Recognition of a and Analysis, 2.1.4.3. FormulatingInitiatang bevelopingDetermining the thethe thePro4...15m Prob4m-Informatior Solution I. Murtha (functions)1.5.6. Definition'Solution SolUtibn Fdrmalation EValuation Solution Developdtent 3.2. Suggestion of Possible Analysis of ProblemProgramtheSolutions F.-Osbotn 5.(Whitfield)11-Orientation, Completing.the Pointing' Solution Up the-Problem --- 5.4,3.2, DesignDecisionComputationData Generation *. 5.4. TestingJudgement of ofthe the :SelectedConsequences SolutfOn 4.3.2. Preparation,Hypothesis,Analysis,:3reaking Piling.Gathering, UpDown RelevantO4aterial.Pertinent Data C) A.PROBLEM-SOLVING: Burnette.2. DirelpiVe and Instruc- ProblemPost7Design. Identification C, Dewet, (Whitfield)3.2.1. Possible,Difficulty Solutions FeltLocated and Defined 6.5. Incubation',Synthesis, Putting Invite AlternativesPiecesIllumination Together I. tive Statements of ,-Suggested 7. Verification,., Judging 4.3. Conoe0Ualization, Collecting arid DiscriminatingPurpose. Data D. Gagne1. Statement. of the SolutionConsequences Accepted Considered G.t. Rossman 1.(Whitfield). Need, or Difficulty ObservedIdeas .'and-GrOUPing ofElemenIs-Organization, Relation '" 2. Refining the-.Problem by ProblemDistinguishing Essential 2.3. Problem Available'Informagon Formulated Surveyed 5. Forwal Mediating' . Features, . 6, Ekperienoing4"Recdrding ResultsProbleM-orOdt-PlanRepresentation of.Carkying- Solution of 3. 4.Searching Verifying for the. and Solution Formulting Hytpotheses 5..7.6. SolutionsNewNeW .IdeasIdeas Critically TastedFormulated -ExaminedSolutions Formulated . SYSTEM,LIST OF ESIGN: DESIGN STRATEGIES 'continued - . , D. Roe(pattetn) . - , 9. Implementation and 'A. Maas 2.1. IdentifyingTranslating Objectives,Objectives 4. Organization2. Drawing Upon of Ph sical Problem, - Initial . Rectified EnvironmentCommunicationDefect in the o. 3. Using Criteria to Into Criteria . EstablishmentProducePhenomena of Con- So That Can ti n F. Wilson 1. Establish Criteria 4 4. Optimization Devise Plai4s 4- . StraintS Uponarice Perform-of Solution , : 2. Create a MatheMatcal: 5. Evalua ion of Conseg'aences I ,4. Collection or Generation ofance Several Methods for _:, -3. Establish Component Characteristics B. 'Mac Rae (Whitfield).4.3.2.1. Probl.emIdeationProblem DefinitionResearchIdentificationPhase 6.5. CharacterizationEstablishmeht of ofCriter- FinancialSocial,Constructing Ecoribmic, Factors Solution 7.6.5.4. EvaluateTestOptimize SubsystemsComponents System.and Redesign From the Mathemat ical Model i 5.6. Judgment Test - Solutionis Alternative Selection of -: ENGINEERING DESIGN: l. 8.7. Formulate,Coordinate Plan - E. Roe (morphology)7. Optimization of ,Design . A. Buhl 2.1. Determine Exactly the s.tablish a Problem Area C.'.4adler 9., Attion (Ideal System) I I.-Defect in Environment .7. . Nature of the Ptoblem. 2.1. 3.Develop Determine-Function Gather Ideal Information System .3. ;definition4.2. NeedofDevelopment Design Analysis of Design Problem 4.3. BreakCollect DoWn Pertinent and Study -InformationInformation . -4..Suggest 5.AlternatiVes Select a SOlUtio. 5..Development of Alter.'" Criteria . 5. Assemble and Analyze Information into Various 9.7.8.6. InstallReview TestFormulate the the.and System System theSystem System 8.7..6.. SelectionOptimizationAnalysis ofof FeasibilitySOlution, native Solutions . Study thePos,sible SelectConfigurationsMerits ofSolution Each and 0 10. Measure and Co4trol Performance to be :Used 7. Sell the Chosen SolutionH --..) ) 0 ^ *: B.LIT DixonOF DESIGN (design 'STRATEGIES process) continued F. Pare 5. Synthesis of Alternatives ro . l'Goal Recognition 1. Problem Statement, 0Identi 6:. AnalysTh and/or Test . .5. -Solution'Sp4.2.3. TaskEngineerin Concept 'Specificationcification 'Formation Analysis . 2. Design Specifications, mentsInvestigation,fication and Require- Research y 10. Communication9.8.7. DecisionOptimizationEvaluation "6. Production7. .Distribution,- Sales, Servicing 4.3. 'ComponentInvestigate. Design, and Evaluate Possible-Solutions , Y.11. Wilson Implementation1. Statement of Needs and Interrelgted Analysis , -.1..-Dixon Define .(e11q4peeting the Problemsis ''analy- - 0.-- , A G. Rogers 5. Checking the Design . . , _ 3.2. EstablishPreliminary Feasibility Design Objectives 4.3_2. ComputationModelDevelopment Formation of a Plan *2.1. StrategicReconnaisance, Objectives, Salient Features ., 5.4. Development,.Research,Prototype Construction Information:Gathering 5.G. Checking Evaluation ImplicationsTranslation,. Dpisioen 7.6...Tedt. FTkal De'sighand Evaluation, .-- .., 7. Optimization . 3. Alternative Strategies,- 8. PrOUuction and Constr*- D. Bder 1. prelithinary Analys . is 4. Alternative Tactics, DesignSketch-Diagram.s. Development .9. Operation and Maintenan6e tion 3.2, SynthesisInvestigation . 5. Implementation A.MACHINE Doughtie DESIGN: .i.------J.4. Development . . . H. Rosenstein (Whitfield) 1. Statement of Purpose of E.Eder and5. Gosling Completion '2. Information,1. Statement Collection, of Problem; Formulation of Needs . 2. Select Mechanisms for Machine 1. Specification of the RequiredSolution 3. Modeling, ,Parameters, Organization .. 3. petermine -Energy and Desired Motion 3.2. Realization Formation .of System Models . 4. Value System Formulation, Variables .4. Select Material Forces 17" 5.4. Layout Optimization . Constraints, Criteria 5. Determine Size . cotv LIST OF DESIGN STRATEGIES continued .2. Program.Flements B. Freundd. 7.6.Apprehension Make!.Modify Drawings Members7 of Task Judg- ment' and Manufacturing- A.ENVIRONMENTAL Archer'6. (1965)5. DESIGN: Production Model Sales and 5.6.4.3. Working PresentationConstructionPreliminary .Drawings DesignSupervision .5. Selection4.2.3. AnalySisGathering ofSynthesis Materials of Data ofMembers Scheme for Loads 5.4.3. DevelopmerltSynthesisAnalysis ProgrammiTigData 'Collection '. -E. Geddes and Spring_7. 1.(AIA)Follow 2.Identification, Formulation,AlteY-natives Through Goals, leeds-, Limitations 7. Drawings8.6.-Calculation andFinal Specifica- Total of Design Dimen-... tionS.forsion-s Member. '6.'1. Validation Given2.7. Requirements GivenCommunication ResburcesArcher (1969) 3. Prediction, Consequences tiveofstrategies,for Alternatives, AnalysisForm, Cont,nt, Procedues intui- Process C. MaIe'ev 3.2.1, StatingAnalyzingSeleting -the the-MechaniSm,the Problem Prgblem 5.3.7.6.4. Identify .IdentifyPostulateEstablish ResourcePerformance System DecisionsContext .Laws Laws Laws 4.5_ Selection, Management, Find Implement Alterna- Alternativeancetive RequirementsBest Meets Selected Perform- -5.,6. Revising Making Finalthe. Design Drawings'"binaryPreparing DeSign Material,the Prelim Stresses C. Asimow1.9.28 FeasibilityDetermineDeterminePreliminary MeritsPerformance Study Design F. Royal Institute6. Evaluation, of:British Examine Con rectionSTaken,sequences Feedback of Action Cor-.. D. Myatt 1.3.2. Initial Breadboarding Idea, Expres- the S el'eeningsion of Need 6.43. . PlanningDetailedPlanning forfor, Des? Consumptionproduction Planning for Distribution 1.3.2. Inception FeAsibilityOutline ProposalsArchitects '- 4. Prepare-theProto- Machinetype Model Concept, D.. Burnette1.7. PlanningClient Contact for Retirement. 5.4: Detail Scheme Design' DeSign . 0N)

O . LIST OF DESIGN6. PrdductionSTRATEGIES Information*continued- C. Draper:JLewis) , 4.3. Strategic Planning ;-- 7. Bills of Quantities . :1. Careful Sqrveys and Operational'Planning . 8: Tender Action Inventories. of ResOurces , 2-.2.Project 11.16.Feedback, Completion.Operation Planning on Site :3, Appraisal4.YCOnSidered2. Analysis of the of Situa-Opinion the FaCts tion . . 9 A.PLANNING: Hallett D. Maas' Identifyingtives the Objec- .. 1. Clarify.the Field 2.'Translating Objectives . . . . - . 24 Anticipate Unchangeable-- Action . 3. Using criteria 'to Devise. into Criteria . 3,.. Analyze Controllable Elements Within the Respect Field _ 4. OptimizationPlans ti . 5. .Evaluating'the Conse- , .. .clUencesto Alternative.Conse- or ,Ends in View guendes . . .4. Present Actors with the Options Among Which a E. Reedy,(Maas>,l. Collection of Needed . Choice will 'be Made and : 'qInformation. Action Taken. 2. Prepare Tentative nal; 1 _ . B. Jay , BaSedInformation Upon Analysis Of , 1. Survey, Present and .Pro- ..3:. Search for Optimal Plan '' .2. porthulation of the Plan, posedistias SystemCharacte'r- . ByIncremental Modification-and Analysis .POlicies, Phygical- - : F. 'Schaffer 'Design - 1. Research . ., 3. Implementation, Control of Development /----",.n 2. FormAlation of Objec- tives 4 , H4E) Appendixdescriptiveon:theThis lists National B-'2 the material "step Survey "' explaining -questionnaire, alternatives the basis whichaccompani:ed werefor theirprovided by brief Net-tahal Survey Step AlternativeS presentationmeaningnotfunctionalinclusion. used and in 511e,stepsapplication, categoriestowasthe variedquestionnaire, are to althoUgh aidlistedsome in degree. andunderstanding here'undetthe the categorieS order genera], oftheir were * ,

0 - - . (A) NATIONAL, SURVEY STEP ALTERNATIVES STEP STATEMENTS DESCRIPTION A. Definition Steps . , _provide requirementsUsually used toof .initiatethe. problem; a design. Variations strategy, _Occur basis for establishing the nature or . .. -nationin degree involved. of specificity and types of infor- . 1. Definition Of-the Problem . . Considered as one of the basic Step's, a gen- , . i 0 eral concept of-definition whiCh must be . Examination of the Probleni timilarreinterpreted to the inabove the step, designer's .open .t.0own broaderterms- . , . interpretation. : . . Determination of NeedS Involves,"client" More_needs, specific still veryInformation, open-ended. usually 4: Determination of Objectives . , 'A common approach-, identifying'major goals, . contraints,:usually:provided.byclient.objectives. or purposes as overall. problem 5. Determination of PerforMance Requiretents ,1 mayMorerequirements beoperational, provided which by definitio client thp_Aoluion-must or throughdesign- satisfy of particular 6. Determination.,,of'Solution Resources , # Useder's examinationeither for initialof the problem.definition-orlater , . I' \, onin the the search design for process a,solution. to establish boundries Determination of External- . -. Also used alternately at different-points in Constraints . , factors-the,design'prooess, such as legal to orestablish physical external laws, un- D controllable variables, etc. . . . N) NATIONAL.SURVEY STEP ALTERNATIVES continued STEP SWEMENTS 1 , DESCRIPTION , B. Planning Steps . , Less common steps,%introduced at various . points in the process, developing approach . _ - . for subsequent activities. ., 8. Planning PrOblem-Solving ApproaCh ,. Usually used after initial definition to 4, ._.----- solvingformulate problem. specific plan of attack for ;...... - . Pre-specifying or delimiting the type ofi 9-:.Planning Data Gathering . . , Information and. Organization Steps -' '' Alternativeandrigorinformation establishing used approaches insearch generating relationships needed: and designdegrees between information of . variables. . . . , I . Another baSic step., large-scale ;information 10. Gathering 'Data .-.. Collection after the initial definition. [ . . Represents different interpretations and 11. Organizationof Data. . techniques ebr structuting informatiOn that , , . . . . ,, has been gathered.: , .more specific and operational approach to-' 12. DeV61613Ment of Models . A ,N . data organization implying a mathematical 4. . representation.or other systematic form of organization and 13. Determination of Relationships * Between- Requirements ,A relationshipsand-interactionsspecific organizationalbetween step stressing Y 14...Identification of Subproblems,.: . Anproblem drganizatibn requirements, or breakdown of problem 1_, . aspectsconflicts/ into difficulties,specific areas or representing. subdivisions. ttw 3° NATIONAL-SURVEY STEP ALTERNATIVES continued ' STEP-STATEMENTS DESCRIPTION .,i 15.. .Detelmitationof RelationshipsBetween Solution Elements 1 Usuallymakes explicit,used late usuallyin the deSignintuitive, profess, activity .. elements.establishing relationships among solution : - . D. Solution Generation Steps 1 generation,Different-approaches indicates andposition levels in of problemsolution ' . solVing sequence at.which.a given level. of `16, Incubation - Frequentlysolutioncessinga period isor offound toproblem-solving subconscious:information be in considered, "creativity" activity., literature, pro-. , A parallel, subsequent creativity step, a -.17. Illumination w- ' . more or less spontaneous generatiOn of the 18: Generation -of donceptual Solu-tlons o Usedproblemformulation either solution. early of a ortentative, late in overallthe process,' 14ersion . . . 19. Generation of SubsyStem Solutions , . whole,ment.Usedof solution wherean intermediate problemas a basis is step solvedfor beforefurther by parts Yecombina- develop- of the tion.in -EheAllerall formal solution. 1 20:. Generation ofd Foi4a1 Solutibns . .. 4knOthersolutibn basic either step, before generation or after of detailed. the overall Solution Development. Steps ;..,, Andevelopment expansion, ofusually the solution. continuation,-of the ( , basic solution generation, representing , L41 , , ifferent approaches' to similar operationS . d , . P. NATIONAL SURVEY STEP ALTERNATIVES continued 21. Development of Solutions ' STEP STATEMENTS A rather general approach, an overall con- . DESCRIPTION- 22. Modification of Solution Elements . Amorementsideration of specific the solutionof adjustmentsolution configuration. variablesand of fit formpre7 refine- 23. Detailing of SolutionS i.:,Relatively viousIydetailsUsually established thewithin final, an solution,overallspecification solution elements. of system-,individual 24. Itefinement of Final Solution . minor modification of specifica- . . solution.tions tightening up a previously completed F. Evaluation Steps ?7, pointsJudgment in stepsthe process,''representing which may occur at different diffetent 25. Establishment of Feasibility Maybeapproaches used at'different or levels of pointsHinevaluation. the ! . -., . . prodess; establishing the feasibility or . possibilityto the problem,- of finding al workable solution. 26. Screening of Conceptual Solutions Usually paired with "generation of cop- . i ofceptual the suitability solutions ",of'different. a comparative conceptual' judgment I 27. Optimization of SOlution Aalternatives. comparespecific and technique balance useddifferent to1 systematically solution vari- . , . factors.ables to establish the best Combination of . _ . . c ... w(71 . I NATIONAL SURVEY(STER ALTERNATIVES continued STEP rTATEMENTS 1 different points. in the pro- DESCRIPTION . 28.\Determinati n of Evaluation Metctd . , May be used at . :, _ ..to cess,'a Specific be' employed. in ,evaluating the solutionconsideration or of the means 29. Review of' olution ConsequenceS ,- - A solutionsspecificthe solution evaluation into . the real World and; at- technique, ptojecting .4 30. Evaluation of SolUtion . . conceptAnother.basicoftempting use. of tosolution predictstepf-represents evaluation,the effect mayor consequencesor may the. overall . , , eValu- , .. ata . ationnot involve techniques, or'supplement,specific - . 31. Selection of a FinaLSolution . Narrowsorto.a.kelatiVely distinguishing doWn the . simp-lematter.ofgeneral: selecting evaluationbetween solution process alterna- G. Continuation Step -- . A finaltives. step included to indicate the . processContinuatiOn.orimplethentation, into areas extension operationsuch as of fabrication,of the the design solution . - in the real world, not necessarily considered 32. Implementation and Follow-Through . Seeas partabove, of the formal design process.. , . - 1---co .sentedAppendixThis lists.on Brithe thenational. "assumption" survey, st.itements.which- with descriptive were pre-' National Survey Assumption Alternatives , - ( informa- arestatements.philoqophicalunderstanding.tion provided 'indicating Againyespecially difIerences,represented_by thethe groupingsbasisfor -this for inclusion.andandlisting headings different'to shownidentifying__ aidLin xf

O O NATIONAL SURVEY ASSUMPTION ALTERNATIVES A. ASSUMPTION STATEMENTS' -A. it DESCRIPTION . Major differtnces of opinion about. how Strategy Finction . Strategies should be presented andused by , . L. -...4- 1 . . , designers. Steps in the strategy sholild be'identi- . The most conservative view, regarding the ingframeworkfied the.and need definedfor forproblem-solving, ,onlyindividual at a generalintuition stress- herantstrategy creatiVity. ettentially as a stimulus for in- . , 2. shouldTheand creativity.definition be kept asof general.andtteps in;a strategyopen- . A tegymore asrational a'useful approath, tool, but regarding.. still maintaining the stra- . , . designerstationsended as -and topossible adaptations to allow-individual to the speci- make their own internre- _ the concept -of "freedom" for the designer. ' 4 . . ) . Thefic identificatidn problem. of steps in a . Stresses the utility of the strateg' Is a 'detail donetostrategy describeat each should 'pointwhat includeneeds in the to sufficient problem-be problemeanspf providing a systematic guide for m-solving . . solving process in such a .way that -. . matiOnthe'givensystematic processing specific decision-making can,be problem. applied and inftb , . B. Design Process Assumptions , -Various. assumptions about the nature of 4 . . . the design procesSu and the ways in *hich- . 4. The design. processtiaily self-donSciousshOuld be eesen- in-the sense that . Aliplanningplan acceptancedesigners his withinown solveof work, thethe problems. designer'sancPthedesign procps's- desirability ability to of H ,the designerout:the shOuld theplan objectives ofspecifically attack offor problem7solving,. planreathing a ,s . - Wco a ... NATIONAL SURVEY ASSUMPTION ' AINRNATIVES continued ,- solution, the program fot obtainillg in-r, ASSUMPTION STATEMENTS z, . DESCRIPTION formation, the methOds to be used in . , 5. While the sequence; of evaluation,,the strategy etc. should indicate the typi- steps shown in . . A prOcess,indicatingspecific fundtional the.view need of thefor ,designflexibility. .- . 'caltorder of Consideration, the need" in revision and anticipation . ... ,,-. . for feedbackand feedforward between,. . steps should be clearly indicated. ,.6 . , -- literature, . 6. The entire prpblem-solving process . A view found in the theoretical andshould strftegies be considered .shouldkindicate as a continuum the - 1 cess.almost'wholistic approach to the.design,pro- . , mationtransformations from the initial_of ideas problem amend iti'for- . -- .. . 7. The information used in thevelopedprocessstatement inshould tofour the essentially-bephases: final solution de he user's '.."- &sign . ,_ A gestedmore specific,; by the work bpnstrained apprOach, sug- . . some. ractitioners. . quirementsneeds or objectives;redefined in th terms.pf user re'- design quda-r. . 4s , e. design qiipstions, tionsthe answered in terms of solution 4- . . "or performanceperformance requirementsi.and requirements the solved irr: . _ 8. It should be understood thatandterms analysissynthesiS of solution are specifications.not distinct steps monly taken in the earlyview designin contradiction. strate4.ies. to an approach--epm- . . in the probleM7solving sequence, but ' , processratherthey in developingare used throughqut groblem defini- the . ., I-,wko details,tions, solution etc. concepts, solution . - _ p NATIONALC._. Specific Operational Approaches SURVEY ASSUMPTIONASSUMPTION ALTERNATIVES STATEMENTS continued alb Different approaches taken with regarato DESCRIPTION beginThea specificationproblem-solving with as complete of processtheproblem and detailed Should as key stepsdetailSupportscess. or early operationsthe conceptin the inof, the using design .pro- design prciceSs. xtensive 10.The initial description, of.pxdblem.thokIld the perforMancepossible,clientSneeds, include identifying reanirements. onlyobjectives, the all of andthe A contrasting viewpointiewpont to the above. . minimumcessential limitations or- specificdtionsconstraints,ceptcontext or approach'.of awith specificintroddced solutiOn in the con- pre detailed-2 zi recently developed approach related to 11. The definition of.theprOblem. shotld-bedescribing as "operational" the literal as'possible functionor,. the systematic design philosophy. 12. Thesearch. for:a solution should beginpurpose:ofthesystem, client's.with rather thethe, goalsproposed generationthan or objectives,environmental of a set restating. Another.systematic aspect approachUqqested of` the operational by some,dr minimumpfcbUldthenfavorable'conditionsitions "ideal" which,wouldsatisfylimitations arbe bestdeveloped possible under and in'terMs the-Mosla which sblu-set of"', of practit±phers. 0 fic-limitationSakrailable resources-and more speqi- * . NATIONAL'SURVEY13. As early in ASSUMPTION the problem-solving ALTERNATIVES pro- continued'cess as possible an attempt shout _be ASSUMPTION STATEMENTS A ceivedviewpoint wide .ac.-.7eptalLice'iX1which has traditionally the creativity re- and DESCRIPTION 1 problemmadeeration.andj_ts-soliitioninformation to gatheranalysisand,solution.gen- related all of to the the'problem-/ available\ as asbasii for design method literature. , 14: The gathering. of information used inthroughoutinformationselective,problemsolving-shbuld theincludingwhich proCess.as is inti-oduced only be it highlyreleant is A ducedcontrasting as part viewpoint- of the systematic to the above, approach. intro- 15.'Wherever possible alternative formsctuallytions,elementsshould needed, Lilaformal such developed assolutions, conceptual for solutionsolution) solu- bilityAnapprbach assumption in theas aincludeddesign means process.-of in maintaining the. Systematic flexi- 16. Evaluation of solutionsyof 'should elements bedetails, basedintate the directly theetc.,final comparison insolution, ontheorder andlimitationsto facili-fcombination Anotherdefinition systematic'aspect, directly, in evaluation applying asthe a / D. Overall Problem - Solving Approaches..velopedAnd fromstatem6nt perfol-mance the originaliproblem- regUirementsde- ofAddirtionalmeans problems of insuring assumptionsand development solution related suitability.of solution:to treatment NATIONAL SURVEY ASSUMPTION ALTERNATIVES continued 17 mentsAnyinputs,to designa etc.,"syStem"context, outputs, problemand stressing externalcan beindicating the!func- consideredenviron- ASSUMPTION STATEMENTS beenappliedTheatic concept considered approach in otherof systemsin asfields'and design the has core methods. beef hasof.the 'powerfullyrecently syste- DESCRIPTION 18. Almost any problem can andshould subsystemsbeentstional'interaction.between subdivided. and subsyStemst which into can components be solved compon-., and .Consideredtreatingof the systemby the some problemapEirOach; to be anda logical asits contrasted solution extension aswith a 19. It should be acknowledged_separately that tiallyalmosttoand form then modifications.orallthe recombined solutionsfinal solution. Are exten- essen- toAnwhole.gie'g, underlieexplicit as-contrasted manyt7rffditkOnalstatemtat withof'aQview the design concept which str"ate:- seemsof de- orprimarily-tosionsshiftssystems other ofexisting in ;resourceswith the the thepattern new environmentaldifferences orteohnolOgyK Idf for due -*- - specificriving uniqUeisolutiozs needs. in response to needs. 4.

1Y. Appendix B-4 Natiabna71. Survey Results pottan.similaritiesfi-OmationThis liststheof Tablesnational the principal3-3.and survey. and. 3=4,'thecontrastsobservations These observaElonS.describe-im-step in currentand.assumptionmade-froM opinion, an examin- results which weresenting used differentas'a basis'for spectrums generatipg of opinion.- test strategies repre- . NATIONAL SURVEY1) 11 STEP out RESULTSof the.13 respondents made , 2 "determining :problem requirements", 3)2) TheEvery smallest step was number cited of at least.once.a.entries respondent in this was section. 10. cited by -12) The various problem definition/determining alter-.nativessolution",-and"implerlienting objectives", were predicAibly "selecting grouped solution" at 4-) byThe a largestrespondent. number 10s-'30. of steps selected, -N 13) In two instances) :however, determina-respondents...,the beginning of the secluencebyall. 5) Three respondents-)----The smallest - grouped number au.arerStepsof numbe.v_ ofsteps, steps onor or...stages. the questionnaire into Mostafterexternaltion respondents of "data "solution constraints" gatheringq. used .resources" all were or almostlocated and all ) wasstages 6. identified after regrouping oftwo the,definif.ion respondents used alternatives, essentially however, a two- sequenceThe average was number16. of steps in a i5). TWO. respondents used "determining. perfo-andstep 'determining sequence- ofperformancerequirements".. "defining the problem"- 9) Other steps cited infrequently"incubation"The"planning"relating *Stepswere citedsolutionproblem-solving", and least"illumination". elements", often were and 16) MOst.respondents used. "defining" or"examininglowingace requirements".as.a the theinitial -pr,oblem",as problem later definition.a firststep steR,fol- 10) Low ranking steps with citations by.less,than"identifying"optimizing". 1/2 subproblems ", "modify- the respondents were '17) "Planning'the P-S .approach"., while usedAlowever,lining definitionsynthesiSthree the respondents problem" stepsteps. following as used a resolution "de-- the specific or- 11) The highest ranking steps with dentscitationinging. conceptualsolution were by "defining3/4 ,elements" soWEions".or-more problqt", respon7,and "screen7 asinfrequently,"planning an intermediate data was gathering" twice step .groupedbefore and was with used,. . NATIONAL SURVEY ,STEP RESULTS - continuedments"solutions"."determining. and "generating perforMance conceptual require - 23. "SubsysteM" and "formal solution" Generation followed' "data gathering" . and "organization!" in almost all.cases. , . 18, "Planning data gathering" was almostalways"gathering linked data" directly with toone the exception step 24., "Subsystem.solutions", were groupedwith "formal solutiOns",in 3 cases, inwhere the itp7.7Oiem-solving. was used as the sequence, first step e7"-N'/ followedand. in 2 "conceptualof these ley. Solutions". immediately ,- 19. The "gathering data" stepc,almost' invariably followed the 'Problem 25. Solution.development steps were almostalways_g_roupedtion stepi'llsually with soluticfa following genera- the : 20. "Gathering data" was almost alwayslinked.withsolutioncasesdefinitionsteps, it developmentwas "organizing preceeded although steps. bysome-data" in twoand= , 26; "Solution development".ands"mOdifi-.directly indeededcation"initial 4-cases, orweregeneration occurred ,and linked always step.at-themore pro-. or same less: level quencein four,cases with."developing formed a models",3-step se- 27. "Solution 'detailing". occurred as oneas.usoldtion details". 21. There were no clear patterns--of, . . of the last steps in the sequence in ' "identifying-.tionships"orsequendefor "solution subproblems" between elements'P'or "determining "requirements" either foirela- , _ similaiay"Solution3 cases., to refinement the above, was/Treated occurring -. . 22. "Conceptual solutions" was orof verywhich late'in could occurthe sequence. quite early 29. The evaluation steps tended - to be _la=was one ofthehere last. steps in all cases it was cited. t .28. i 'organizationt6 different typesin 5 casesof information ,and in 2 :- limed ity..:althoughcated'toward-the there was end considerable of the sequencet Uariabil.- cases was used 'asean initial de.- , finition step. . , . , . to NATIONAL SURVEY pTEP.RDSULTS-cont,inued NATIONAL SURVEY ASSUMPTION RESULTS. 30. "Determining feasibility" was treat- 1. All 13 respondents, completed at 1eaSt , ,, ed as a part of.solutiondeVellopment % in 2 instances . part of this section: ". tionitE,wasusedin 6 cases,with problem however,quite definition.early in connec- Eachtwice. assumption was cited at least . a , 3. The1 average number of. assumptions . 31. "Optimization" and "review of con-- . . - sequences".ptocessialthOugh'ditheras a part, of the finalor both evaluation of ' . Here usually cons'idered, 4 . keferredTheCited(4 aSsumptions,Cited.least,often by to a "4- respondent phases ", was "ideal 8. 32. "Screening conceptual-,them solutions" were used afterwasor "selection" usually "evaluation" linked ins 4 with-cases: "gener-! 5. 0 !solutions"jolutions"and"modifyingwereOther "minimum assumptions infreqUently existing cited limitationS"- and ating conceptual. solutions% "evaluation. based on problem require.- . . :Or . although in 2 instances it was. ments u, ,- ! - consideredras a separate Oper- . '6.1 33, "Development:of the evaluation ation. i Theandthose highest synthesis" related 'ranking. to "refuting assumptions analysis. were "the. sysems. approach" .- method'4."e'valuatio'n" other was linkedinstances indirectly 2cases,it prece'eded tobut in -1 ... ofsolutiOn "iopen-endedtransformations", approaches", definitiona", and "alternative "continuum . 341. "Evaluation" and "selection" the generation of solutiOns. , 7:The frequently interrelated,` 2 respondentsStrategy Function. assumptions; . of the final solution. occurred -cited all three, and 4 others cited two - . usuallytogether. grouped in all with but "refining"1 instance, . ofThe thethree: function assumption related to 35."Implementing the solution" o6--- and.curred as the final step in all - .. solution. tions,combinedvith"framework while for :theone intuition of"systematic the otherwas function"always' assUmp- 'but was1 of used. the cases in which it ) was cited alone 'in 3.cases. o!YH ''', NATIONAL. SURVEY9. While ASSUMPTION. there were RESULTS variations continuedfrequency intendency.to the of .citation,accept most there of thewas Designa c. "operational !definitions".."selecting withwas relevant linked"selecting information",.and all information", . .ProcesS assumptions; of the five 'evaluation based on problem require . -cited four3assumptions otherof the respondents assumptions, listedt cited3 respondentsand three of , -' d. "ideal solutions" was-qinked'withments"."selecting relevant information ": i the five.assumptions. .- . 10. There was a definite absenSe of,pattern in citing the Design Pro-. . e. both "selecting linked°"selecting with relevaut:information""evaluation based on.pro- were all information" and . cess showed a.7corisistent pattern uf assumptions, no 2 respondents , . blein requirements citations: ..f. all assumptins in this group -were linked with "solution alterytives". o i i 11. In the Specific Operational aS-7 sumptionst-respondents established . 12. By-Contrast, "selecting aril information" patternssame2 or pairsmore of respondentsofrelationship 'assumptions, cited in which asthe wereand10 cited-mut7ually"selectinginstances. relevant exclusively information" in all - a.follos "detailed t. definitions" was . ... 13. There were no clear,patterns in OverallProblemSolving Approaches, however, it tions",linked with"selecting"operetlonal "minimum .all defini-limita-. in- . wasStancesicitinglevel interesting of,correspondence,.3 to both note "systems" a relatively out andof 11low"sub-- in- . , -formation".based on andproblem "evaluation requirements". -systems' assumptions.., . b. "minimum limitations" was linked with 'operational ., -. definitions" and "selecting . ,,, _ all information". 1 H--,1- ) O Appendix B--5 Test_Strategy,Developmen.C. -information.werewereThis forindicatingprovided builtlistsuse in-the. intp,thetothe the subjects specific specificexperiment,-accbmpanied different insteps differencestheorientation,materials testand stepstrategies. which' definitions by descriptive which CA TEST STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY STEP . ,, . DESCRIPTION A: Out-Line Strategy ,- . Anple annotated divisions description inithe design of theprocess five asprinci- con- . firmedby-the National Survey. Definitions . aretail very was general, included'tOomakethe but a fair amount strategy of de-. con- , . , vincing to the subjects. Develop'a_Lgeneral,pictureaskedarea,1. Defining orto environmentdesign,: the. Problem As ,whichyouha,'emuch ofinformation the been as 'assumptionKeyformationias concepts that definitionsare,"general" possihle", shoulda andvariation "asbe asmuch onde- in-the , thepossible nature should ofcthe be problem, assembled the to various describe tailed as possible. .,. ! - clarifyaspects what which needs mustlbe to beconsidered,. done in solving and to . 0 . aboutCollectthe2. problem.Gatheringproblem as much details Data information and possible as possible means Rdpresentsinformation" the shouldassumption be gathered, that "all reflects possible-1 of informationsolution in whichorderto can develop serve toa:pool stimu- --, andthe organization.intuitive approach-to information use 6, , late.creative thinking and.provide the . basis for 8Olution.development. .. .. , ing,majorSketchcating3. Developing. out yourgeneral physidal-elements a preliminary Preliminary approach,: solution Solutionor identify-compon- indi- : data,solutionContinues the. isAsketch.the generated intuitive solution,is ditectly approach deliberately from inwhich the raw the . ents and basic configurationsor arrange- vague and suggests,a number of-possible in- . . .._ ments of elements, this should be quite terpretaions inclUding-one variation of the . 1=i later.general at first with the details' added, . - ''conceptualtolut.ion". - ko TEST-STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT continued STRATEGY STEP DESCRIPTION detailRefine4.tions Detailing theandfor solutionworkingindividual the Solution idea,with theaddiltig spoifica- greater components, assethble Thedeaccepted refiningcribed althoughfor or thisdetailing itstrategy, is onlystep referenbe'isgenerallyis widely jensurel tionsetall ofelementsdetails, components into and complete the soli- Overall solution or . al creo made ibility indirectly of the tostrategy.- "subsystems" to solutionCheck5.tionthat Evaluating overnospecification doeserrors the. Solutionin final havefact and beensolutionsolve verify made the and in'thethatproblem be thesure. solu- . . Moresolutionthechecking intuitive`eVa-luation in over a generalapproaches thestep, work withway. ortend the verifying the emphasiS ontopinimize B.pleteness.as Detailed.given, check Strategy solution details for com-. A highlyand type typical of steps strategy and generality in terms of pOPular of numberdefini- tion1, Develop to the a problem area or environment 'working definition oY"orienta- userReflectsStrveystepstion, needs, and-following theassumptions objectiiies, :survey most stepsfromof andthe thefOr more National-6-"determining performance whichproblemssolution.environmentto.the.people you have and This -thelimits.beenand whoshould determineasked will provide theybuildto theirdesignRefer place anda setneeds use"theon ofthe and Promisereguirements";'asthetion, "user". inon generalthe "detailed well reflects as presentingdefinition";assump- a typical a corn:- focus on Thisconditionscover need all notwhichimportant betoo.aetailedi anysolution-must areas. but satisfy.should . 0LSI TEST2. DeterminingSTRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SolUtionConstraints continued . STRATEGY STEP asCompleteg provided in,the survey, \the list of major definition steps DESCRIPTION m rephrasing "de- I" 1-" . meritbyRedefinements relateddetermining and on the byvariablesto determining problemsolution the impact inin resources theoperationalthe of physical limitationsthe andrequire- termsenviron-exter- constraints"inclUdingtermination ofalso,provides.a.variation performande requireMents" on .theand tiona l d "solution e fi n itib resources",and."ext6rnaln " assumption. problemnal constraints. space or areaThis ofshould decision define in the -c7 . _. : , developing the solution. -. . "opera-.,, 4. > Specificthe3. problemGathering data should-beor, Data information gathered related to . b'ased on . Maintainsidentified_ 'the from sequence'of.operations the survey, includes as the _ P questions arising from the pro5lem defini- step of "planning data gatliering" and' the . tion. This should include only relevant assumption on "relevant information "... . . minedtheinformation searchbefore areaactuallywhich or is- limits.ghould gathering actually neededthe data. and be deter- .. . . -- besolvingThe'4. organized Organizing data protesS-specifying which for Data hasuse beenin the gathered problem- groupings should steption"Representgtween wasand requirements", omitted"determining the steps due,to for .thethe time relationghips"developing constraints hodels be=:- "organizing informa7 aid .4 ships,for.conVenient'review,of data and.displaying items, identifying the understanding, information. relation- ' possible confusion. and application . . , . 1,- . Sollitions . ' . shouldThe5. Developing-drea-e-w.Qrk be identifie-d-iv-a-firOlpass Conceptual in solution development Anotherstep, variationdescribedas on thea tentative "conceptual solution" solution ap- U, .solution.,which provides An a overallgeneral pictureview Of O-f---the------proach,the solution "sketChiThancit.- somewhat more rigorous than the - , . 1--, TESTcaltioris.shoUld STRATEGYelements beand determined concepts DEVELOPMENTor components related .ittermsof.aSsump-' continued- and,to major theit-coh- physi7,. STRATEGY .STEP DESCRIPTION 4 basiSbefiguratiOn-or too for, specific further arrangement. abut deveropment. should Thisprovide need the hot, 41. shouldThesolution6. development-workDeVelopin4Subsystdill be simplifiedas'a whOle:intoIsupsystems byon subaividingthe solution the or %. SCAutions . Surveys"Contindescal sUbsys-Jin reinforces the seqehce breakdown the 'identified essentially as given from inmechani- the: the requirementsoutdled.ponents:specific the Subsystem detailswhichcompOnents'-or in can theofSolutions be meetingphysical_solution. more groups shouldeasilyproblem of han-com-work. assump.tions. intosystems,actionsReassemble7. ansoverall'solutiohDeveloping.byerall. andresolving the'subsystem-sOlutionS_relationships conflicts', based.Solution between onand intert com-Sub- Combinessteps"relation-oaf. for the the."formal "generation" solutiOn eleMents". and "development solution'', implies the butSomegining8.as the aDetailingdetails wholethe solution parts-.in may Overap.Solution Subsequentintoshouldremain a coherantbeto treatments.consideredbe developed\ whole. solutioncomPletetional refinementstheis workingsolution-by-Making togetherto insure as that addi'-a whole the 'assumptioiCis'u§edtionnt.theCombines solution popular in "detailing"tile "solution.alternatives" following and strategy. "modifica- 2 . C. ' f. areandTEST. accountedthat STRATEGY all details for.,DEVELOPMENT Some and modifications specifications_contined may STRATEGY STEP a DESCRIPTION :tionalEvaluate9.beveloped madeEvaluatirig elements.within theto-insure solution Solutionthe maybe -subsystems that addedwhich it meetsashas and-addir-4. reqUited. beqn the de-prob- Combinesand "evaluating, the solution", a seguende planning the evaluation method'', Should'beenaspectsshouldlem'requirerwits, considered. be be 'systematicof established the'problem_andsolutionhave specific tp andinsure themeasures that evaluation all ments".aidentitied version ofin. "evaluation the survey, based also includesoh require- 4 9 Review the solution10. andRevising make anY'addi-Solution A'aand generalfinal includes- backup version-of referenceto the "refining e-evaluatidn to'"Checking" -the solution"-.operation. but'as CDC!.1 iallcompletehess-aridevaluation.tional presented aspects refinements toCheckas insureyou take over suggestedhave that athe finalplanned. thesolutio by look solutionthe. at-for C. Systematic Strategy An attempt by the experimenter:to develdp a . Identifying DesignL Task literature.highlyinfectivd the.survey useful and systematicstrategy arid the based mostelements oncurrent the identified most design e'f- ProyidementaldescribingVIem.bli'develbpingto design.. asystem general the Qualify-this whichproblem orientation ayou simple area have statement or statementtobeen environ-the asked prO- initiateA takenincludedstep befbieritt problem7solving in included andetailed attempt onworkTbegins. to with.anthe more'effectively questione, overview but 1- I TESTaby designer identifyingSTRATEGY have DEVELOPMENT thein solvingpurpose continued thiswhich you as STRATEGY STEP problem. DESCRIPTION purposeopingMake thea orstatement problem function morewhich of explicitthe describes proposedDetermng by-devel- theen- -Operational Definition A focusingfuIther," function refinementon ",-. aspecific particularly of thesystem considering-the and its initiation`4process orderindicatevironmentalemphasis.tives, to andwhatmeet of shouldsystem. thetheconsideratiols environmentuserindicate Thisstatement needs _the/ inand.must the objec-scale shoulddodesign inand conceptsystem-scale, before. and spbcific again usingdetails. an' overview f -L., Specifyprocess.solution3-Determining, the systeffi framework Minimum which for Limitationswill developing accomplish a this Thisdirectly'to applies thethe "operational'further-"development4and definition" requiremetionsfunCtion or conditionsts,by.d64ermining.a available which resources, rlimit spt of t Heor Th se rday ing:lude aspects of user "- makes-onthetions" the literalcategories survey .assumption, .use listed of theit in also"minimum-/ definition covers :ita=most steps of mum-limitatioexternalliMitations in order s whichtopermit should are beabsolutelyan keptinitial. to'a esse-h-. broadmini ld be included.onstraints, The. numberbut only of those ting.4.conside*.ation'osolutidn-alternatives.. DeveIoping"SAlution to identifytart the'solution and describe Targets- developMent:by'attemp-71 the . best solution" relativelyparticular mar application of the in the Process,' "conceptilaI ..problemi within.minimumpossible the givenlimitations. approach function to A-and,solution number ofof alter-.th'4'. baseddiredtlandagain on appliet the begIns=usingideal funCtion soluti and "'alternativen" limitations assumption, to native solutions should be provided in A .7 solutions".. - Q. TEST STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT continued STRATEGY STEP DESCRIPTION ILY general terms,indicating key concepts, . mostdeVelopMentoreffortassumptions, targetideal should approachin which the andbe moremadecharacteristics. follows..to usedetailedto-identify as a goalsolution theAn q WereReviewthe5. Screening developed,one the or set two Solution of insolutions solutionorder Targets to which targetsdetermine should which be encourage.Specifically the written generation as a ofseparate numerous step targets, to of the mineSolutionsusedadditionalas targetsastheir a guide should feasibility usinginformation in bethe.. further examined andlimitations as development.workabilityrequired. to deter- and If miningationtargetas"screening well, feasibility" stepconcept, as early reinfbrceConceptual also in were the introducesthe solutions"citedprocess, importance in an theboth and."deter-evalu- survey. Gather6.tionsnecessary, .Gathering toadditional make refine Datathem'even datathe selectedor better. information,. Again the solution target used directly as ThiSwhiChclarifyingtionstion information is targetsuggested needed problems as in ashouldby finaldeveloping theand be solutionrelationships based the on target,system.solu- ques- providingguidinga basis "planningfor criteria proceeding, forfor data"relevant with gathering" the information'.target and whichvantopingassociated hasinf6rmation the direct solution with application shouldthe target. target. be selectedin devel- Only rele- ' TEST7. STRATEGYProcessing DEVELOPMENT Data contiHued, STRATEGY STEP DESCRIPTION - makegani-ZationdatabeetOrganize explicit ingathered completing. shouldthe in implicationsorder indicatethe solution.°to determine functional of theThe and or- and evaluate ,the. which has or seenAchain directinformation",more above ofdeveloped applicatioreasoning, in the stressing Versionseries.from-"Operational extending ofthe "organizing "continuum"theof previells ma'terial. possible,betweenandgroupingsdescrib46 interrelationships different chains.ofof,the showing datatypes reasoninghow with bothdataof data. interactions withinhas,should; beenWhere and bede- alsodefinition"-toation""relationships" includes-a.broader step. "target and another" ,tostatement "data early gathering",of "evalu- v'eloped'andbeIdentify8.the Identifyirig'Subiproblems treatedsolution. specifichow.it in developing should subproblems be the applied solution which in must A stressingvariation functionalon the "subsyStem" divisions approach, of the prob- orrequirements,clarifyingsubproblemsinbasedthe detailingthe conflictson data. the relateddatasolutionThis or which mayrelationships to elementsincludewas-.meeting relationships, gathered aorspecific rangedeveloped com- andof identificationtheconsiderations.tionlem, solution ratheremphaizes thansystem step thea physicalelements., beforeimportance subproblemlloi-eakdown thp of separate subproblem solu- of-- clude-consideratiOnofponents.9.the variables Developing entire Subproblems solution..or Subproblem components of.aspects.affecting may relateSolutions. or may to in- groups- ,- whichResolveregardfiedby indicate problems tospecifying individual related which subproblem haveelementsdecisions ,eep al: identi-with Beginsaddingdetail,at."alternaqve and indicatingdetails solutions'. to _a-specificthe targetthe usesubproblemsystem for level, controlling`' ' cludeasationscomponents.TEST STRATEGY of much .components. or detail DEVELOPMENTarrangements as'iS This continued necessaryorshould configur- in to STRATEGY STEP `DESCRIPTION -''s solution.videclarifyfinaltive information solutions decisionsareas, Where of appropriate Say neededdeferreduncertainty be providedfor until alterna-the and finalthewith pro-. . ci Determinesubproblem10.final Integracing solution.system the solutions relationships Subproblet Inis termsassembled. betweenSolutions of the Anotherthe importance. separate ofstep integrating is used to subproblem highlight . f. maymineoverallthesolutions include howoverall solutionthey Shouldconsiderations solutionwould concept. be fit examinedsystem. together Subproblemof com-Thisto indeter- elements".asolutions logical andextension other solutionof "relating elements solution as AlternativeshoUldcomponentstionshipspatability, be considered andarrangements.and conflict, thegroups interactions and ofgrouping ortheircomponents. groupings rela-ofrela- tive advantages or disadvantageS . Assemble11.should Developing bethe desCribed. components-as Solution System determined Alternatives A demonstrati4 of the flexibility possible ,Overallbinationsinfigurations. the solutionsubproblem or alternative, Aconfiguration numbersolutions of solution differentinto or.con- ..an com-' subproblemin.developing components. St,em alternatives from the ci TEST STRATEGY-DEVELOPMENT continued STRATEGY STEP DESCRIPTION mationsystems: at handmay bein deVelopeddi from the infor- . erent approaches '4 'satisfyingWhilereasonablenativestives thea'number should problemrequirements.suggested approaches beof.possible.alterna- considered, should td theprovide'reaching allsolution. alter- the solu on target and' Refineandnatives12. making Detailingthe by different neededadding Solution'Alternatives adjustmentsadditional solution oralter-details modi-'. Appliestives",three strategiesthe maintaining "detailing" to the.the step solutionreference common ".alterna back'toto all mainrequirelnents.andpleteternativesfications consistent solution. such provides with thatDetailing the the'problem each riapproach relativeslyof should the as al-7... out-re- com- the solution target. definitionsolutionCoMpare13.lined-in Evaluating-Solution the systemsthe and different ,solution. limitations with thealternative target. Alternativesproblem' and with FocuSesfinitionthe strategy, the "minimum various applying limitations"elements the "operational" as developedand "solution de-.in .lem.whichnesstargeteach Specific isshould-beether andclOsest measureswhichto determine used,to.the best of relating solveseffective-solution the'solution the.prob-the lic:"Measurestargetdetermined,the evaluationbest solution ofalso solutiononcomparimg. implies aspects effectiveness". rigor which and with choosing-have-been the speci7 In the evaluation process, and bases Whereaproblem tonumber theappropriate requirementsproposedof solution the'bestenvironmental systemsand limitationsfeatures may System. be of- cocn TEST STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT continued solution.comoined14: OptiMizing inapproach. determining- Solution. the final .STRATEGY STEP DESCRIPTION process.towhichReview-theadjustmenttiOnal was refinement selectedalternativedetermine and optimitation inis areas thepossiblesolution evaluationwhere of basedsystem. variablesaddi- on An thetechniquesadaptation development.of"refinement" usedof more as process atheformal means best and o-f'systematizing posSible encouraging ."optimization" solution. withshouldtiveness respect consider _which to-the werethe measures trade-offsdeveloped. of effec-Thisand com- t.) ,balance'between.allfinalpromises15.attempt-to Refiningsolution which make Solutionsystem.werevariables the made best inand possible the should solutionattemptLook over tocan theidentify be final improved areassolution and in broughtwhichand the A solving,comprehensivespecific againiterative reviewstressing step, of thethe workimportance in problem- providing for a of . endscloserAtanythe theor'areas tosolutiOnfinal same tile solutiontime ofideal can uncertainty.check (target).always and all clean standaspects, solution. Assume up any ofthat loose improvement finding the best solution. beeninhaveand the gooverlooked.been reasoningback made, over probingorall options of-the that.havedecisions that for any weaknesses 0 01H Appendix_13-6hypothesesaccompanyingThis lists waS.generatedthe descriptive hypotheses'as informationbased presented on the indicating-how nature in-the of report, the- peach with Test Strategy Hypotheses r-r-- werestrategiesexperimenter-',sdifferenceseMphaSis designgd andon between into thethe. assumptions thedifferent designthe strategies three Process. degreesabout test as the strategies,deiivedOfeffectiveness-which nature fror0.heof with'andesign

a) TEST STRATEGY HYPOTHESES willGeneral produce Hypothesis: 'different Different effects strategieson design . HYPOTHESES , typebyThis theof is'anresearch,researcher operational and.represents which thisassumption study,is an opinionfor de- this DESCRIPTION theproblem-solVing strategies. based on the nature of- signed either to support. or refute.- . . producingerallyHyp. 1: be The unsatisfactorymore 5-step awkward strategy and SolutionS. inefficient, should gen-- wouldth4IntofeCtive, attempting, strategydemonstratethe subjects, since was to:develop clearit assumed andoffered -cutit strategiesto is differences,the bessumed least.assistancethe leasttl-twhich with-ef- . . outcopetuitive assistance effectivelyor understanding the subject's efficiently would subjective,not withbe able the in-to . .. problem-solving task. Hyp.require 1-1: moretimeThe 5-SteP for strategy solution. should , . spentstrategyIt is on assumed unorganizeda large that amount forrandom ofthe time activity,least would effective whichbe . would waste time in problem - solving. Hyp,onrequire problem-solving.1-2: greaterThe 5-step effort strategy getting should started ---- J Thearethartheinitial expeiience most difficult .of steps the without experimenterin-problem-solving .a structured suggests . beHyp. highly 1-3:The redundant 5-step with strategy information should c Withoutisstartapproach usually ". a structuredor a guidancegreat deal) search indicating of process,info±mation "a placethere which to , indiscriminately selected and used. could be considered in problem-soiving, 'and . . thete is a tendendy to gather extensive and , excessive data which is laboriously refined. I-, . . mI-, 3 TEST STRATEGY HYPOTHESES contined ,.HYPOTHESES . DESCRIPTION . . in atteMptng.to establish information rele- overshowHyp.1-4: repeatedgreat The improvement 5test -step sessions strategy in efficiency should methodologywoulddevelopvanceIt is,assumed and application in their thethat absenceown over indesign, thetime, of finalspecific strategythe or subjectssolution. , , guidance,tive than whigk,would a sgglemafically still bedeveloped less effec- stra- . . Hyp. 1-5: The.5-step Strategy should I % -tegy,Thisearly, butis awouldrandom corollary be activity. an toimprovement the previous over statement, . provingoverproduCe generally time. poor solutions, im- . . tosince produCe an inefficient a high quality proces solution,-s would be unlikely although generallyrelativelyHyp. 2: The conservative, easy10 -step to apply,:but strategy and somewhat shouldshould bein-be numberstrategyence.theremightIn establishing of wascurrent be assumed some strategystrategies imprOvement to represdnt differences, which. through a have.alarge experi- this , efficient. proach,butandsiyely"face which operationality..,Subjects validity4.inproblem-solvingcover suffer and from _explain appearing a "confidently",lack the of todesign arespecificity" compreheil. apt prOcess, butto ap- . ,_-, I - 1 withoWLa cleal-underStanding of whatthey 1. - . . I . r withHyp-.facilitate little2-1: The hesitatibn.the 10-step start ofstrategy problem-sblving should , . givenclearAsaresolving, indicated althoughdirections.for above,.this in actuality strategy starting there appears problem maybedoing.l to difficUlty in developing:a working 'definition. .- - . Ht...)cs\ . . TEST STRATEGY.HYPOTHESES continued HYPOTHESES While the strategy does .provide a basis DESCRIPTION of Hyp.concentrationinefficiency,display 2-2: considerableThe 10-step onwith details. a strategyrelativelyredundancy should. greatand problemsearchingaforality diffuse information ofand the development andsolutiondevelopment, directions redundancy relevance, process,' and in usually theinforMation lackthe lead of totests with random clener' Hyp.thanrely 2-3:. conceptualon practical The 10-step appraOches. considerations strategy should rather methods,partout"Sinceselection from a the,solution thereconventional andstrategy 'application. is detail, an was problememphasis bydeVeloped detai---f,:as - solvingon forrdnking the opposed Most improvementshowHyp. relatively2-4: The in 10-stepefficiency slight strategybut over constant three.should workingnotSubjectstheto otherbe"big highly method; picture"confidentappro6ches motivated but first. of thewhich their todwardunresolved emphasie strategy improving questions gettingshould' their 1_ produceHyp.sessions. 2-5: moderate, The 10-step traditional strategy solu- should tt'ismentinconservativeconventional the with assumeddirections experience. thatstrategyapproach should subjeCts wouldto lead problem using-also to some:improve- asolutions;have more a more time.tionsHyp. with 3.The little 15-step iMprovement strategy overshould Iste * lems.incentiveas Asindicated the theoreticallyto change.theabove, there "best"approach should betweenbe little prqb- strategy, this. overall the most efficient andeffective. shoulddirectlygenerating. produce and highly economicallythe best.allaround.effective as solutionspossible. behavior, as rn TEST STRATEGY HYPOTHESES continued provideHyp. .3-1:The)15-step forte strategy should HYPOTHESES effective defini'- 4 A subjectgood strategy directly shguld and naturallynot only intolead the.the DESCRIPTION . . tion of'the problem. ' definitiontoproblem-solving the. development which process;could of servean butoperational as should a gl,lide lead problem , utilizeHyp. 3-2: information The 15-step selectively, strategy should with Asthroughout lieshas beenat the indicated, heart of informationthe design process;processing with . the'process. an efficient problem development.-, . . highlyjectsfora good determining relevant shouldworking'definition worit information; information with a andliMitedbody appliedrelevancy, with-fguidanc directly of' Hyp.concentrate 3-3: The on15-step conceptual strategy information should One'toredundancy, approachthe problem to is minimizingdevelopment. to first develop,information.. the solution - . Hyp.developing 3-4: Thebroad 15-step solution strategy implications,. should be Ifapproachthenativeson anthe desiqk overall. strategy onwhich detailsthis -wasconceptual Workslevel, selebted.for well thebefore basis, atspecific itsconsidering testing initial solution .alter- relatively efficient initiallyiyith . application, thee should be little need for little change over time. ( . majorvides 1mProvements,..sincethe more extensive guidance strategy there is pro- less Hyp. 3-5: The 15 -step strategy- should i Theundertainty measure ofto abe filled-in by experience. rategy is)iltimately the - producetians withconsistently an emphasis high-level on thotOushness sOlu- 4. ,./. qualitythough ofthis SoluElons canAe greatly which itdetermined produces;-al- by the . and innovation. . efficiency .of the ,design process, with a good. . operational definition, consistently applied i't, mationthrbughoUt selection the process,'permittinqtalclear' with 4 'limited view infor-5of ,T=. TEST STRATEGY HYPOTHESES HYPOTHESES continued the problem, with a whole system view of the DESCRIPTION withblesolutionsproblemtive; toan generate emphasis aboveand should its all, very solution, be with highimaginative the qualityit incentive should, andsolutions; innova-be and possi- moti- on conceptual thinking, the , everystrategyvationfort problem. toprovided thefind subjects the by,,a best veryshould solution effective, make possible a real workable ef-for * 5. r- . - . . . . 3 , --___ . . . . l ----,____ ±_____ ------' UiHal APPENDIX C INFORMATION BANK DETAILS -tionsmation,usedgenerationThese and in appendicesrecording specificthis and experiment, application dimensionsinformationdescribe including the of'theassociated categories, details informationsources involvedwith and ofthe opera- infpr-banks in the AppendixuseThis of liststhe C-1 4nformation the major sourcesitems. of information used in Information Bahk Sources. informationofthesee sources information the Information and in thethe bank, usebanks. Bank-,Bibliography. describingthat For was specific made the ofvarious thesources types types used, of 0. H INFORMATION BANK SOURCES /.6. . . i SOURCE TYPES Background inform.tion for orientation .to problems, - APPLICATION unimer-- 1. Conversations with . . UW-Madison.Campus Axchict; pity policy, user requi'reMents. -. N , 2. Brochures. from Madi- and.'-- - t andBackground food used informatiOn in snack areas,on typical room vendingservices, types of machines , layout's. --. son office, Canteen. , ...... service, Inc. -"- '' , . . , t -and confer- 3. Campus ,building "design standards" developed by . enceGuidelines room furniture and equipment, typidaloffice and con- , :on user requirements,, typical office , 4 . Universitacilities ference room layouts. ...,-- ---' Madison.Research Center, UW- 1 .,, 1- 4. "Building Programs"..ibt two typical class-thom . Mor.euniversity specific policy, statements and typicalof_user "furniture and equipment,used requirements,. activities, ,. in offices and conference rooms. . ( , buildings, prepared by . Dept. of Planning and- . . - . .s . Construction; UW- . Madison. - . . . Aa.z desigrCof 61'ass- 5. Publications from the mentallibrary Design of the Dept., Environ- guidelines;roomBackground buildings, and and r alternativeincluded additional proposals for typiCal eferenckmaterials-on 6.e4gn'standardand . furniture ,. . collectedunder the aus- and equipment not, included on the. UW-Madison , . listing. .pices pf."-the Clearing- -', . - 'T. ' ,, -house Facilities,on 'Educational Educational; - 4 - . , , Research Information ., . . . ' ClearinghOusei-U.S .. x - . Office of Education...... H ., . M , E13 4 4 . INFORMATION BANK SOURCES continued -- 5 :._ . , - SOURCE TYPES .APPLICATION . i . 6. Classroom materia-ks frOm DeSign'principles and.copsideratons to Which subjects h d b . . 7. -Papers written b1-7-the turethe Sohool,of.Archit'ec-' UW-Milwaukee. Basicbeen exposedhuman'factors data on de$igir.of office furhiture ands- >f- ,- . -. spades, design of dining.faailities , _ , Experimeiterstandards foron.design teaching- - . . - assistant officeS'and, . . .. . ,- . . Tradehospital journals,bookst -day rooms., Design consideratiOns, probieMs, and solutions in specific .-- __.;,.... andartikes_Yelated to problem-areas as developed.by:design practioners, lists of . . -office,%-reS-tau'rant, and . solution elements. -: . 6, i . . 7 educational facility . . ,, ,, . 9- Text-boOksdesign.- and articles .'General design principles- kid considerations, _alternative 7 -. 4 clesi% n teChniques -and proc*duresprocedures,, psycholoticalaspects of .- . relatedenvironmental to general design. or design. . . -. '' . , 10.-Handbooks on Architec- tural Standards and ('Inents., Additional-data. on human factors and physiological require--; ,alternative.solution elements, graphic descriptions to 11, General background andHumanEn4irteering expeHence of :considei.ationS,Additionalof soiuLon user elementsdesign requirements,'- considerations, objectives, solution sitedetails,°. and policY . experiMenter. formulation of.speCific statements for problem definitiOns, 4 .. - ,, solution'concepts. - . . -:-' . . , ...... - . ° z ' . -, , . , . . H. I . . , _ . , . e, 4 co Appendix C-2. inlorMation Bank Structure: NoteoninThis the thatlists report;natureinformation the the mainof andspecific the accompaniedcategoriesbanks, information information following asby listwithi:des tcategories eriptive outline information includedas given in the results' ch category. results.forcategoriesinformationsections use in' each "D"dataas includedesbribed.below.and analysis, "F" thewere specificand not are considered notsub-categories treated appropriate in theof In addition, the main -1 DEFINITIONINFORMATION INFORMATION BANK STRUCTURE. INFORMATION TYPE Information used in-setting-up the problem and determining DESCRIPTION Problem Descriptors indiCateSspecificdicateIndicates-alternativethe nature what problem how.subjects theof designerproblemsolvingi information. approachapproaches is doing, thedescriptors requirementsthat problem. might are be provides usedtaken to by in- Data on information use A-1A-2 Designer's PrOblem Identifiers Purposes- RelativelyDescribelemthe area-ordesigner the simple designer's.,."system" in dealingstatements, under withown consideration. orientationidentifyingproblems of toward thethis general type,his work. prob- B.A-3 Process-DescriptorsGeneral Definitions'' -StatementsAlternativeposedformation,that environmentalmight describing techniques,,heuristics,includedbe used the system, by tofunction theallow designerwhat subjectsor it-is"purpose" organizationalin supposedtoprocessing identify'of theto problempro-principlesdo.specific in- B-3B-L1 RelationshipDeSign Techniques Types DescribingoperationsDifferent. todifferent specific be performed waystools, ofwithin techniques, "grouping" the strategy. orinformation methods, seriesbased onof B75B7A DataRelationship Categories Diagraming AlternativeIndicateschalktype of to rela;tionship,or indicate "graphic""types oftechniques symbolsinformation", interaction. which being could categoriesused. be rendered which couldin be C. Overall Requirements aused theStateMentshypothetical-"client" toproblem "label" aboutsituation. different problem or informationrequirements developed-upon groUpings. as might.examination be given of by C-1INFORMATION Objectives. BANR STRUCTURE continuedINFORMATION TYPE Indicating whatjato be accomplished by the environmental DESCRIPTION CC-2,User -3 User RequirementsCharacteristics 'indicating Attitudesdesign,howlists the specific ininhabi orgeneral personal user terms. purposesneeds of andusers major which activities. may affect s will use the environment, D-1-IncomingD:,,Information Information Requirements. TypesmentalrequirementsUseddesign only ofSystem:decisions information on inthe terms infirst the enteringof problem, environment.information the provides system, use within morewhich specific themust environ- be user D-3D-2 Outgoing Information Processes preparedDifferentTypesprocessed of or information inprocessesprocessed. some way. or inleaving proceduressome waythe Joy system,used the inuser. whichhandling must the be in- E. General Requirements Describesendedrequirements,formation with additional withinminimum in thethis constraint factorssystem. case thenot.directly on requirements the problem.. related were toleft user open- E-2E-1 TechnicalAdministrative Limitations Policy otherLimitationsConditions.thatthe constructionproduction-related on solutionsmight of thebe factors.imposeddueenvironmental to availableby groups system. technology"sponsoring" or E-5E-4 NaturalBuilding :Site Site areaLimitationsthe 'eurroundingproblem duebased environment to the onlarger proposedgeoUaphy is environmental located. environment.or characteristics systems within of the which INFORMATION BANK STRUCTURE continuedINFORMATION TYPE DF:SCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT'INFORMATION ofInformationdevelopingformation. development, details which.mighuse anddata ot shoulde designer's indicate general the scope approach and directionto in- the design problem beand used its'solution. in further describing or F.G. User AdtionTypes Types A A,listofpossiblespecificavailablelistin data of possiblerequirements analysis.for combination usersactivities or of activities, withthe which environmentother might .notitems treatedbe byin performed typedescribing separately or title, by' H.. Design CoriFiderations usuallyuseSetsusersthe of use-in in condudting "adjective" more aim general to be activitiesused with otheras specified specific in establish requirements.problem.limktations.ortems listing possible requirements,consideratiOns or criteria requirement, activity, or solution element items. 1 ' H-3H-1 ActivityBehavioral Factors. Factors -----?Onsiderations related Considerationsactivities.environmentalto attitudes and incomponents psychologicalman-environmental to.accommodate well-being'..* relationships specific asuser to the design of environments or rented H-7 Illumination Factors Design Factors SpecificGeneralinationor configuratibn considerations considerationsfor the environmentalfor, therelated in environment.the toarea,design the designof-lighting of a structure,or illum- INFORMATION BANK STRUCTURE continuedINFORMATION TYPE *DESCRIPTION identified to some J. Research Information , Basicdegree man-environment by formal research relationships to be used as design elements or criteria . in determining specifications for solution ' . coll,z)onents. 1 i J-1J- -7Ergonomic Psychological Factors Factors - ' human-userBasicPhysical psychological dimensionsinteracting andresponses with other different limitatlonSto different-enVitonmental environmental related to the elements. diements*or configurations., I K. General Information. . Backgroundon a survey information of technical usually literature available in the J to designers based three.problem K-1 Standard Elements , Listssolutionareas, by applicable.forname development. different additionalsolution elements, criteria or insightsusually in furniture . . environments similar toor theequipment, test problem. typically provided In . K-4o Typical Problems . Describestions identified conflicts, by difficulties,designers working special'design in similar areas. considera- . Specific. Solution elements or.combinations of elements K-5. Typical Solutions . K-7 Typical Layduts . Drawingsdeveloped of by floor designers plans solving showingenvironmental similar. prbb,leMs. configurations typically srovided for situations of this . type. SOLUTION DESCRIPTIONINFORMATION . Informationlisting of ofspecific a general solution nature.prOvidedin.contrast.to elements in the following. sec the andeleMents.tion, solution includes Data modifers bothon informatiokuSe overviewused to providestatements indicates detail on solution approathe degreeto to spedific . es, , whi subjects went beyond the basic elements codes are presented in developing and ecifying the solution (type category f--4-...! orderout of tothe facilitatedeScription "alphabetic" sequence and provided discussion). to subjects, in . W L.INFORMATION -General Eleme0 BANK STRUCTUREClasses continuedINFORMATION TYPE, Lists.oftions,name or anddifferenttitle, for providedthedevelopment types offor use of in general outline requirement or sketch'solu- state- 4.01ESCRIEITON solUtion element by "generic" . _ . ments. LL-1 -2 MaterialEquipment Types Types 1 EquipmentstorageSmaller oritems usedwork such asspace. tools as paper, or communication penCil, food, devices etc. usedin with , , nnection with different activities. . . L -4 Furniture Types, Seating, Work surfaces, Storage, etc. , . L-5 Space Types .Storage,Walls, Ceiling,Circulation Doors, SpaC, etc. etc. - , L L-7 -8 Enclosure Furnishing Types Types Equipment Surfaces,.Wall Surfaces etc. .- L-9 Arrangement Types Built-In,'Wall-Mounted etc. - . Z-1 FunctiOnal.4 Area Solution Concepts -. forptoachesIdentifiesdirectionsrfor-Sets conceptual of ordesign orientationsdifferent or,sketch 7assumptions"further room solutionsdevelopMent.toward areas describing the by to problem majorindicate' alternativeactivity solution; likely or a0-function.used Z-5Z-4 EquipmentStyle Concepts COncepts Concept6 OverallGeneral "style" type or or degree theme offor dependence furniture, on decor, mechanical etc. aids. . . Z76.LightingZ-7 Space Concepts Concepts . TypeGeneral or typeamount or offunction: room spaCe of roomto be lighting. provided. / Z-9Z-8 FUrnisEnclOstre Concepts Concepts ThemeType oror degree.ofatik)sphete enclosureof to be .established room space. by furnishings. .' , . H Z-qi-ExpressionZ.,-AINFORMATION Arraligement.Concepts BANK Concepts STRUCTURE INFORMATION TYPE continued OverallAlternative_grouping-apprioaches impiession or character offor-furniture the environmental and equipment. `DESCRIPTION system. - W-1W. GraphicBody Support- Element,. Descriptions subjectsChairs,elements,:Sets of to couches,drawings better provided visualizeetc.illustrating to supply solution additionala selected alternatives. detail sample and of allowsolution W-6W-4 WorkWindow 'Surface Configurations and ConfigurationsStorage Configurations Standard,Desks, work-tables, bay, clerestory c4bOards, windows, etc. etc. r .W-8W-7 Floor Door Plan-Configurations Configurations spaceSguare,Single,for usecoordinate double,rectangular, in solution dutchsystems.' trapezoid%4_withdoors,Visualizati6E7and etc. different identificatipn pr?portions, -:, of -1 X=/.Natural Element Material's Specifications hensivenessSets_ofConStrUbtiontions ofproperties solution ofdescription.. materials toelements beincluded such toas increasewood, in details rattan, precision or stone. specifica- or -, ompre X74X-6 Artificial Surface TreatmentMaterials Rough,COnstruction smooth, materials textured, such etc. as steel, plastic, glass. u . 'Y -1SOLUTIONY Colori-4 Color, Hue ELEMENTS INFORMATIONQuality, -. asListsBright,Red, solution Yellow; more Muted, than elementsGreen, Dark, 300 etc. separateinetc the.final items sblution. that might Data be included , on.informa- intion°use solution should developmeiit: indicate the scope or degree of complexity ..4 . u-1 M-N. Material Elements environmDifferent li-ter als t system. ommodated in the solution ,0-Q, FurnitureN-1M-1 GeneralMaor Elements Materials Matekials MostDifferentSecondary immediately ortypes support involvedof furniture materials, to lessbe included important. in thesolution. n user activities. R-SQ-1O 1 EquipmentStorageBody Support Elements WOrk Surfaces DifferentBins,Desks, files, tables, types cupboards, counters, ofof seating,equipment closets, etc. chairs., to beetc. included couches, in beds, the solution.etc. T-VS-1R-1 AncillaryGeneralMajor Equipment Equipment Elements . DifferentClocks,Typewriters,the environment, staplers, types telephones, of drinkingareelements important computers, fountains,which factors while etc. etc. in an less overallimmediate environ- in V-1'General'EnclosuresT-1 Building Services Major Enclosures -Doors,WindowHotmental air, windows,' 'system,coverings, cool air,walls, flOor cold ceilings, coverings,water, compressedetc. etc.- air, etc. Appendixpossibre.usingThis 14ts C-3 the major-typesthe information.itemsin of pperations the which banks, are Information ProCessing.Operations wasvariables'involveddescriptivement.and usedwhich The as operationswere Criteriamaterial employed in are,in indicatingeach theby listed'-by operation.subjectsdesign the Of mainnaturein theThis the title, apparatus listingandexperi- with Cpnveniencein an attempt of performingto provide thesefor subjeCt operations. ease and a CO' INFORMATION PROCESSING OPERATIONS L Information -Selection OPERATION Theandshouldthe physical infotmationmay occurinvolve selection more bankreview or for lessand of use removalmaterialscontinually in problem- of ininformation throughoutthe solving. bank, possiblytheitemsThis ptocess from DESCRIPTION betweenMakingdifferentalsodeveloping involve comparisonsitems categories logical incomparisons the.same with'items criteria and category, locationswithin forpreviously theselection prwithin informationbetween selected theor items,rejeCtion,bank.. bank and from either may 2. Information. Grouping .otherpermittingTheconceptualor physicalonassociation, a work different relationships.grouping display to form sizesurfaceof items compoundand ThiS to"facilitiate typesin should juxtapositionstatements, of.gtoupings, be highly comparison or to flexible,to differenteach indicate 3 Information waysphysical.configurations,Thedifferent and'establishment in' combinations, different of applications. different formingusing the anditems information reforming orgroups groups inof differentitems in in R,lationship includingandThisships.physical.allowing degrees should and juxtapositionhierarchidalindividualfacilitating Ofalso relationships be flexible,.permitting items andcomprehensiondemonstrating subsystemor tb groups be established andrelationships,moreto beunderstanding..different complex related'ip and relation-.described,types and dif- 4. Information Disposition lerent-.directions;Themayselection,formed futtheralso andbe processingdescribed,reformedincluding complex in theofrelationships differentchains individualphysical or configurations.series removal-and informationshould of 'telationshipsalso storage itemsbe easily afterof givensmbjectscarded"flagging"items particu outsideas unsuitable of ,lar itemsof importancethe toaftermajor identify'items selection,work-displayor priotity orwhich by area,which the have designer- andhave been the been dis- INFORMATION PROCESSING OPEIRATIONInformation Modification OPERATIONS continued Thesented addition on the of informationinformation items,supplementing usually theby makingmaterial some pre- DESCRIPTION bank.bykindAlSOtional the of General'comments besubject markingcriteria included;.and'graphic himself. oror othersolution_elements by This encodingthe maysubject drawings, be of usednot informationabout includedtosketches, his"workspecify generatedicti layouts, addi-may the . Information Providesfloorplans, the conceptshould alsoof non-activity, be'permitted theon a-limitedpassive,operation basis. Consideration exceptsubject,subconsciouspossibilities,Of looking as but expressed over doesinformation generating assembled not in attempt overt processing newinformation, worktoconcepts. interpret-this-activity, with on tietheconsideringdifferentThis partinformation acknowledges of the items. operationsassociatedThisAppendix lists C-4 bywiththe dimension recordingthe various type, "dimensions" information with brief or processingexplanatoryvariables Informltion-Processing Dimensions thedescriptionofdescriptions.considered theexperiment. apparatds, ofin These.posed thedeveloping and data .represents which particularthe recordingwas a recordedgeneral problems capability in to be

tz. . . . - . INFORMATION PROCESSING DIMENSIONSDIMENSION . DESCRIPTION. Identification . The ability to identify different aspectsof:subject behavior as specifically, Unambiguously, and accurately as . 1,, Information. Search 4 possible.Identification of sets of items under review in the / infor;ma-. . tion bank which may or may not be selected at the given time. 2 . Information Selection ' tionIdentification bank. of speCific items selected from the informa- 3-. Identifi.cation,of items previously selected and currently . . 4. ItemInformation Groups Reuse , ' beingIdentification_of reused in, a different-grouping groups formed and or theit:item configuration.items considered members. 5. Group Relationship . asIdentification groups,' involved bf groups,in and individual relationship configurations, in- 6. Group Disposition . 4 : cludeswilichgroupIdentification iterd.fnembers receivemembers'and a givenof typegroups,of 'typegroups of orlitemsof and diSposition, type considered as disposition. of relations.hip. includes item grOups, , 7. Information Modification' ,,wlyereIdentification of type and contents of appropriate,"information items associated modification, and, with a k 8. ' given modification. consideration occurrance, --- and where , . Inforination 'Identification-of . ..- apprapriate, type of consideration. .. Consideration. ..d - . B. Sequence . Theof abilityoccurrance to,-identify, of different and specify,events. % the order or sequence . 1Sequence of Information .5earch Thereviewed sequence in inthe which bank. different types .,. Ofinformationeare -2. Sequence of Items Selected or Reused .-bank The sequence-in whichspecific or reused in further. processing. items are taken.frOrn'the . ." placed in groups i-A -3. Sequence of. Groups' r Fornied . -, The,pequenc'eand In which,pipecific in whichspecifiC groups wereitems formed. were INFORMATION :PROCESSING DIMENSIONSDIMENSIO continued 4 'y;= DESCRIPTION . Sequenc ships iormecl / of Relation- relationships..reiationships,andi:"4here.appropriate,asThe_ well as the-ge'vence'of andsequence dieeCtionof in whkcir,;gYoups were placed into coppletionor establiishment of relationships; . Sequence Dispositionsof andThe theOrder sequence in whieh,different of dispositions items given or ogrousan individual item were-nanaed, / or .group. . . Sequence-Modifications of itemsaappropriaterthevolutiOnSequence layout,8Y.drawing); wee in associated which modifications with of a agiven gixren were modification. modification (as in also-the. sequence in which established, and'where 8.7. OverallSequence Sequence of Considerations-. OrdersequencetreatedSequence of occurrance.;:ofofwithin Of prior different the.'design.continuum. and subgequent different activities.activities or types_of'copsidetation activity and aspects information C. Duration Thespent ability -on different to 'identify activities. and specify. the gmount a of time . Duration of Informa-tion Time"subsections spent in ofthesearch bank.activity' and, on specific 0 sections or ` , . DurationProcessSearch of Selection Time's-requiredinfoitatiOn category, to select amount-of a gien numbeftime a,specific of Items, inforination.from a given .Duration \ of Grouping z. orlengthTimeitemA_s',"ac-Eiveh a requiredsubsequent of time,a4given to' fegrouping.form Merig -a group-is Riven used group or reused or series" in problem-sdlvirig. of. groups 26ft intact befoie storage s . Duration ofR e lationship .t . Timeofrelationships, ,relationshipsrequired to length:ofform remains a given "active".,time relations,hip a relationship or or pattern series of OD 5.INFORMATION Duration ofPROCESSING DIMENSIONSDIMENSION continued Time required to perform a given disposition activity, DESRIPTION 6. Duration of ModificationDisposition image)lengthTimelength (particularlyrequired remainsof of time time to"active".a a givenperform withgiven regardmodification dispositiona given to "storage").modification (drawingremains inor activity, effectgraphic 8.7. OverallDuration Duration of Consideration stoppingTotalmayscheduledShould also time accountactivity.involve spentbreaks, forintime depending problem-solving,all for time specific uponnot assigned individualtypes not includingof to consideration. timea given for activity, D.1. Description Description of Theinformationmodifications specificability items. tocontent supplementingidentify of newand informationspecifythe pre-specified the itemsprecise developedand content defined byof 2. Description of ElementInformation Coordinates Items elementsThefirstdimensionalsubjects, specific problem). when or coordinatesspace useditems tofor altered locate the associated final tothese provide solution elements with new given (discontinued interpretations.in two-solution after 4.3. Description of VerbalGraphic Notations Notations SpecificconnectionusedTheform specific separately of configurationssketches, with content drawingsto clarifydrawings, of generatedanyor workotherverbal layouts or graphics.by messagesimpressions, theor details.subjects or notations or in used the in F'. Step Behavior behavioroftheThe the subject'sability dimensionsassociated to own identify mentionedinterpretation.with anyand above.specificspecify This thestrategy would problem-solving applystep toin all APPENDIX D APPARATUS DETAIL'S itemmentofThesefinal the cards,to appendices physicalapparatusfacilitate including apparatus describedesign, the the use andalternatives whichtheand the detailsrecording was specific used inconsidered, ofinthe procedures informationthis development experi- the ThisAppendixusedconfigurations bylists theD-1 theexperimenter various which werealternative in consideredworking equipmentwith in thethe apparatus.itemsdesign and of Test Apparatus Comparison of Alternatives finalthetoacceptance demonstrateapparatusapparatus, configuration of design specifictheincluding processeswhich criteria alternatives. thewas involvedbasesdetermined.and to for validate Thisin rejection applying is.intended the or TESTDISPLAY-RECORDING APPARATUS COMPARISON SYSTEMS OF ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE Alternative approaches which provide for the display and DESCRIPTION 1. Interactive Computer Display System statements,informationCouldexperimentalmanipulation use: "light automaticitems, data.of information pens" storage recording for and graphicsitems displayand and printoutand theof manipulation informationrecording of data; ofof 2. Random Access Slide Projection andautomaticCouldtimehowever selection andbe toousedbudget or complex semi-automatictoactivities, allowed.store a systemand displayhowever recording to be informationstill developed of very data elaborate givenit,e111G,on review the with Automated InformationItem Dispenser whenagaindriveItemand code secondary cardsrelativelykeypunch is storedpunched systemfor complex, in simultaneouson file,required control no dispensed provision forboard, recording item forcontrol formanipulation. use ofrecording itembyused subjects selection; to mani- 4. Automated Time Recorder maticallyadditionalUsingpulationlimited physical forofin explanatory items.itsdifferent item application, cards operations,information with depends time similaron punched onthe subjects cards.to on a card"time writing auto- clock"; 6.5. PhotographicMicrofilm Camera Recording and Indicators Alternativesomesubject,cation,Physical for time,subjects.allcard selected in andis one placedusage foroperation; useasin indicatedcamerain experiment,still field tooby counterstolimited continuousrecord andset identifi- burden-by or of Item Manipulation providesidentification,semi-continous data on recordingsequenceinvolves andmoreof itemduration complex use onasdata displaywell reduction. as surface, item u-1co TEST APPARATUS COMPARISON OF ALTERNATTVE_ALTERNATIVES t-ontinued 1 DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHIC1. Videotape METHODSRecording Alter_nativeRelativelyaphotogratih4sor-similar display surface. flexibleapproaches and which equipmentrecording could easilybeof useditem available, formanipulation making no a film;on 2. Contihuous Picture Recording Motion ofhowever,usingprocessingReadily record, stop dataavailable, action,numberrequired; reduction offrame-by-frame providesrepetitionshowever, very time completedifficulty of analysis_consuming same picture information.in dueretrieving of to activities, length data 4.3. Discrete Picture 16Recording8 mmmm MotionMotion__ Camerassmallbuilt-onSelected mightreadily special for be experiment,available,difficult order, butto timerscameras read.cost couldexhorbitant, available, be designed timersfilm imageand could I Picture Recording becapatity, purchased processing commercially, readily image available. large enough, ample film . 1.DISPLAY Card RMETHODS cks VerticalAlternativecards,cards,capability. includes orcards verticallyapproaches held method on inclIned forledgesof attachmentdisplaying or holders slots, andinformation for easilytype; information ofremoved itemgraphic or ". "Self-Oticking" Display I Boards Userearranged;apply,configurations felt presumeablyor adhesivehowever and limitedgraphicrelativelyto attach incapability. cardstermseasy totoof remove;boards,card arrangement howevereasy to withadhesion reuse, might dust, not etc., be positive no direct enough graphic and capability.might decrease m1-, TEST APPARATUS COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVES continued DESCRIPTION f I 3. Positive Attachment Display Board . andUsing positively tack and attachedcork board and or removed; hook-and-loop materials material, somewhat easily 4. Graphic Surface, Reuseable Adhesive orUsingdifficultlocatedfelt-tip wax anadhesive, acetatecommercially topens; handle, satisfactorypermittingor plasticno particularly graphic writingsurface combination capability, withandwith erasing regardreuseable,could tonotwith adhesive be rubber 5. Metallic Chalkboard Magnets on Cards markingsreuse,Selectedvenientreuseable chalkboardway highlyfor over of experiment, erasing severalvisible, flexible, felt-tipapplications avoidmagnets simple toomarkings. easy smallmaterials and to removals,scale,use, and remove, magnets erasure, and andcon- INFORMATIONGENERATION .CARD METHODS Alternativerelativelycards.tion which difficult approacheswould be toreproduced forplace originally on ondards. the recording sets of informationthe informa- 2.1. TransferHandwriting Type VeryRelativelytypelaboriousflexible professional face; ineasy andbut terms time-consuming,andextremely in of neatappearance, size using laborious and amightcontent; andskilled flexiblefor lack largehoweverletterer, in in credibility.amounts sizesomewhat and and ofhighly 3. Typewriting . Easyinformation, to produce, requires good someappearance, skill in but application. inflexible in size, 4. Typewriting with Stick-On Letters Typewritingwithoutidentificationeasilyto be readable separateapplied for 'copy onofbyenlargement filminformationunskilled read record. by step,labor,subject, items, and readable stick-onselectednormally for letters for toocode experiment. small H TESTINFORMATION APPARATUS CARD COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE continued Alternative approaches for reproducing information items DESCRIPTION 2.1. Off-SetREPRODUCTION Duplicating METHODS ofUsingReadilycards printing duplicatingonce available onan heavyoriginal foron enough campus,printing copy stock hasinexpensive; and beenfor then cardgenerated. dry use.but mounting not capable or 3. Commercial Printing with Bonding veryCapablenumberdifficultglueing expensive of oflight-weight cards. orreproduction expensive; for large sheet onbutnumber almost tovery heavier of time-consuming anyoriginals. weightstock, stock;not with too but large 5.4. Off-setCommercial Campus Silkscreen Printing morestillSelectedSimilar expensive on tothefor above, lightexperiment, than but sideduplicating prohibitively but compromise o.k. but for within onexpensive.experiment, weight bounds. of astock, little INFORMATION1. Card FilesSTORAGE CARD METHODS AvailableofinformationAlternative cards. commercially, bankapproaches arrangement forused storing permittingfor IBM information and review index andcards,cards selection inbox 2. Rotary Files Holdingholdsdifficultiescards,cards; cards individualandnot inproblemssatisfactory anticipatedposition, cards, of odd user inbutwith cardterms relativelymust individual sizes. ofleaf searching througheasier card searches,individualtoindividual search; - and attachment and removal of cards. m1-- TEST3. SheetsAPPARATUS with COMPARISON Tabs OF ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE continued cardsPre-cut in sheetspositions, of light while cardboard sheets are with turned tabs asor inslots a book to holdor DESCRIPTION 4. Sheet Metal Racks position.differentUseddootherwise not in makelibrary sheetmanipulated; use andsizes,of magneticsome usuallywould commercial capability need retain to operations, becards to special hold in slots,cards availableordered inbut and in 5. Three-Ring Binders howevercards.to_becould mountedusetoo magneticcumbersome and turned attachment, and horizontallyexpensive allows with asfor thisin a readingnumber quantity ofa book;pagesof FILM REVIEW METHODS with Sheet Metal Pages AlternativemetalBindersalthoughrelatively must readily threeapproachesbe inexpensive, purchased availablebooks forare and 81/2 easyviewingnecessary, cutto Xto 11 transport the sizewith,2-inch selectedfilm and record andpunched, for rings,manipulate, andexperiment. butsheet 2.1. FilmMotion Editor Picture Projector beStandardReadilytranscribing stopped projectoravailable for thesingle-frame experimental notfor useableviewing analysis. sincedata.film 16one min frame cannot at ausually time; usual 3. Single-Frame Projector basis,Selectedmanualandof frames. very remoteoperation for expensive, experiment,controls awkward, but for usually available noadvancing, capability must for reversingbe loan forspecial-ordered keepingon short-termframe, count . automatic frame counter. q)co1--, Appendix D-2 Test Apparatus Design DEPIRSThisordesign,significant reconstructinglists apparatus, which the specifications specificmight w.t.th the be apparatus. illustrativeindividualof interest and details components ingraphics understanding of the andof the TEST1. CAMERAAPPARATUS (DFPIRS) COMPONENT COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS campus,"fine- threeSpecial cameras, Motion Pictureone from Industrial DESCRIPTION Camera" available for load Engineering De- on .4111111144111114 0 , eV _ I 67( 41 part--.ntfor15Department, feet,room (usedlighting,film used magazinein 25time-motion requires mm holdslens, study),focuSsing re-winding manually100 ft. of Tri-X film suitable two,from Photographyon 3" X 5" area at every 10 . 11 111111 . 0 framefeet, actuatornormally button.available with reflex viewfinder, single- 2. TIMER --- sealia adaptedEngineering"Cine-Special for.use Company, Timer'with Cine-SpecialNewport available Beach, California, $125on order each, from the Stevens camera (other models -o -f mmill ..--0 single-frameavailable), attachesactuator with: tripod -tton, electrically powered raotor mounting hole, fits over ' 4.1.4 tions,noisy30and second camduring contains activates interval activation, hole button, settingTor mountingrelatively on tripod.silenttiming betweensetused for in activa-different this experiment, intervals, somewhat 3. TRIPOD use,Department,face"Heavy-Duty easy and tofor 5" transport Tripod", experimenterheight appropriatethreeand store, for monitoring, veryavailable stable on while loan infrom Photography note, camera easily focusing on work sur- 4.,CHALKBOARD k "Magnalinenremoved for re-winding.BF-G8" magnetic -.- chalkboard, eye-saving green, . . , non-glare, 1' X 1' grid lines on surface, composition board , .. . backing, aluminum frame, available locally on order, 3' ...... =.., highlong to to accommodate accommodate convenient cards (should be longer). arm reach while seated, 5' Ho TEST APPARATUS (DEPIRS) COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS continued COMPONENT "Chalkboard Support Framework" fabricated by the Mechanical DESCRIPTION 5.-FRAMEWORK movementbaseEngineeringcastorshold of the the of werechalkboard theframeworkDepartment included board attowas shop, in a maintain 10-15°.angle2'framework widea folding centerto baseguard fromsupport ofto against theworkpermit systemvertical, area tipping,lateral into _.._. includedcamera(chalkboard field, a chalkrail however,was raised for not chalkabove used storage tabledue to height belowenlarged 4'chalkboard forcamera.field, ease in use) 6. BASE of"Apparatusframing surface. materials Base" fabricated treated with by theneutral M.E. varnishDept. shop, for protectionprovides , surface,overalla surfaceremovedtracksbase with dimensions, permitandoffor tracks supporting movedstorage framework forlaterally 3' and the Xdesk 8',transportation,tochalkboard orbeifmade tablepositioneddesired; out support atof test framework3/4base and framework inchsite, alsostabilized plywood, canandprotects r,,7ith bein- on 7. CARDS binderssurfacecludes"Information in spaceand front provides for Item of a chalkboard,workCards" uniform, ledge originals neutralandcoat storage ofproduced workvarnish ofbackground. informationon protects standard Fella withprintednormally,typingIBM 3/4"typewriter used onstick-on,letters with light 8/X 11/2"with 11"card carbonXsheet or5" indexand for forribbon, 2" visibility groups stock,X 5" code alternatives, ofcut lettersoncards to film, size sized applied originalwithcopies 1"X,5" small en o papercutter. NH TEST APPARATUS -(DEPIRS) COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS continued COMPONENT DESCRIPTION 8. MAGNETS- withand DI""Magnetizedadhesive strip lengths applied backing, Rubberwith topaper Tape" availablecard. cutter,X50' rolls,locally backing on removed order, manuallycut to 1/2" wide, 1/16" thick, . CARD STORAGE sheets,"Hinged available Three-Ring from Binder", campus with stores, 2" rings light for sheet 81/2" metal X 11" betweenofreasonablestorage81/2" sheets magnetssheets, andexpense, cards andmaterial sheetscapacitywith availablemagnets, to ofreduce binder blanklocally, glare, limited whiteX 11" weightcut paperandby to thickness of-punchedsize, 'sed for three-holes by M.E. shop at informationcallyhelpssheetsactivity. sotoand thatstabilize magnets codes top ispage inbinder recordedbinder is inwhile considerable, cameraby incamera use,field topages bui andindicate nottopturn excessive,--line verti-search of 10. MISCELLANEOUS inreference,chalkboard,Chalkfor case makingand of erasersaloss blankroughspare or paperaresketchessetaccidents, requiredof and information offelt-tip spare materialfor makingms4nets penscards on maynotationsboard maymay be bebe forprovided usefuj-used futureon boardre-andexperimenterfor winding. .a surface,adhering screw driverto aproblem logpad istimesof statement,neededpaper and shouldto.questions removelayout be availablecamera forcards, later and etc. to timerreference, theto for ThisAppendix lists D-3 the different procedures involved in Apparatus Procedures etting-up apparatus.apparatus,thegraphicand relativelytearing-down recording and assimple theanequipment. aid apparatus,and to convenient others This and iswishing in operationincluded operating to use toof thedemonstratethe photo- APPARATUS PROCEDURES A.1.SET-UP Evening Clear testBefore site Each area Test of Weekendallmaterials, unwanted stack extra furniture in 2. Erase chalkboard surface carefully,baseprevioussuresurface and no framework,to"shadow" rub matte to.cleanonce finish,images a week, off remain'fromcheck accumulateddamp tomop make 2. Rehang display panels to formmentalceilinginitialalcove. experi- booths hooks).set-upto (it wasreposition necessary four on 3. Place three binders with informationcheckitemschalk dust:.toon beledge sure in that front banks of chalkboard,are com- 4.3. Re-aimPlace oneceiling worktable spotlights in each toeach boothfocus(later booth). place one straight chair in 4. Place additional materials pleteinincheckstep worksequence andindicator' to area: thatsee of thatappropriate use.cards binders are provided, strategyare arranged 5. Move small worktable from facultypositionontwooffice display straight fortable, area use chairs above.largeby experimenter, forchalkboard,worktable. experimenter 5. °Place experimenter materialspensextrasheetsthree in inarea: piece'S informationchalkrail,of blank of paperchalk erasercards, onand andledge.extra two three felt-tipchalk, Onstoreoutarea. initial major in.alcove. evening,items of set-upapparatus, and try-then 6. Bring in cameras from facultypensstructions.set-updriver office, paper, forand blankservicingadjust paper cameraSas camera. for log, per screw- in- B.1. MornLng Place onBefore each Eachworktable: Test Session baseapparatus, for then chalkboard and frame TEAR-DOWN1. Retrieve materials from work areas, A onin base, tkack. check position.of castors storagechalk, pens,in faculty erasers, office. paper, pack for LT1 APPARATUS2. Replace PROCEDURES all information continued cards selected Check to insure that shutter fade-out in (pef"formedring binders by insubjects) proper sequence . onis sideon "open", of camera. using lever and markings 3. Fold up chalkboards and fraMes,in storage place area with bases./. . Useoff button approximately on front 5' of film, check of camera to run 4. Remove, cameras for storage,atweekend,tripodtimer onend of and assembly betweenweekend, carry sessions,tocamera-timer- disassemble faculty unplugoffice; 1.CAMERA If necessary WINDING remove timer frombycamera undoing camera, oneration. mounting screw in base 5. Generally clean up after sessions,atforbackcameras endcarrying. to of Madison, andweekend timers fold4upreturn for transportsmalltripods notchingonfrom side once(usuallyin tripod), handle ofscrew camera first mayisthen started.using beremove attach used screw camera forwinding intighten- andhandle, handle timer whatwisetherelightstable rearrangedleave was toin facultyfurniture,noplace, set during formattheyoffice, panels, weekwere for but butsome-classes. spot-other- 3.2. RemoveWind camera handle, approximately by reversing procedure,10ringscounter-clockwise above turns or in shutterreattach operates. direction,timer and tripod.until bell CAMERA2.1. Check SET-UP to insureBEFORE thatASSEMBLING magazinelens isseated. filmlyaper- ATTACHING1. Pull outTIMER single frame actuatingon side button of camera. 3. Set shutter speed at "24" knobpositionusingature on doortimer of knobis side "open", on of front camera. referring of to camera. 3.2. AdjustPosition timer timer position on side so of that isbutton.camerathat firmly button arm so engagedon timer by engages timer arm.actuating APPARATUS4. Screw PROCEDURESbase of timer continued onto basecamera, of tighten with screwdriver. 4. Adjust focuson lens until sharp,image isuse sample information cards on 6.5, PlugManually timer depress cord into timer baseboard armmovement outletto insure oris extensionfree. cord, turn on 5. Close down f-stop to predetermined'displayactualdistance distanceboardbOard shown (usefor onbetween testfocustape image, measure).cameraknob withverify and 7. Turn off timer until startactualadjustistimer, operating session.position check completely, that of timer.actuator if not,button 6. Manually operate single frameup".setting,check actuator, that recheck button focus. on reflex finder "pops 8. Thread screw. in tripod intoholelateral mounting in base and ofvertical timer, anglesadjust on 11. StartRUNNING camera timerCAMERA at beginning (_:,/experimental session (note caMer4/has FOCUSSING CAMERA displayaimedtripod inboard.mount-so general that direction camera ofis 12. Make a3. note Periodically, of film counter readingonbeen back pre-wound of camera. and focussed). 2 or 3 times per heur, 2.1. OpenDetermine f-stop f-stop to full-open using light position,viewfinder.depress meter(only buttononce for operating artificial reflex lighting) . 4. Each hour check film counterbeingischecklarly readingoperating, actuated, camera if camera operation,that recheck may shutter have focus, note beenTechanisr:, that partici-jostlee., time: 3. podtonecessarycamera,Use mountachieve viewfinder framingadjustments movecorrect tripod toin correctlyframing,display to forward fix board, usecameraposition tri-- if and back 5. When necessary rewind camerarewinding.instructions,insure as per that film check is movingall settings properly. after angle, tighten adjustments. 6. At end of session, stop timer,time.check and film used against actual working 1-7..cx APPENDIXally,Thesesubject questionstwo E verbalappendices askedresponses describeduring in the thisthe experimental twoexperiment; major inputs sessions,specific- of SUBJECT INTERACTION DETAILS Appendixaand final responses "debriefing'E-1 to questions meeting asked with byall the subjects. experimenter in Question Log lisO_ng,experimentalatresponsesThis different lists most given the specifictest of questions by thesessions. the questionstimes, experimenter, asked on differentwereby subjects not as oftheydays majorand occurred(D4' the the As demonstrated in this . .'second weekend,understandingimpactsul,5stance,suggesting thereon the werethatand ofdata, did whatno.furthertie andnot'appear subjectsthey after were questions thewereto being havefirst confident asked,requiredimportant day of with tothe do.their QUESTION LOG QUESTION RESPONSE Saturday, April 29 . 12:06 Subject #3 , Q.12:40 Where Subject do we put#3 the informationwhen the cards chalkboard is filled? A. Either on the upper part of orthe on board the table. _ Q.3:30 Where Subject can I #3find informationprocess?deScribe to details in the design A. Information,Bank section B-5. Q.6:15 How Subjectcan I express #2 "conceptualreasoning"concept itself? as distinct from the A. This should be expressed by ofthe information. grouping Q.Q. Can Can you you write use chalkdirectly drawings on the informationplanillustrateto floor grid cards roombank? layout?provided in the A. NoTry use to scratchuse "dimensional paper or chalkboard.coordinates"far as possible, as to facilitate coding. Q.Sunday,11:20 Where SubjectApril do you 30 #5put information cards when the board is filled? A. On the table. oLo1--, QUESTION LOG continued Q. 11:25Should Subject you leave #6 the previousstep strategy card on the board, when the card QUESTION A. Remove previous step card, leavecurrent only step card on board surface. RESPONSE Q.11:36 When Subjectgoing to #4trrie next strategyshouldis. addedstep, informatibn to show the cards next fromstep.? the A. Yes, if possible. Q.1:35 Should Subject you #6 draw lines (indicatepreceedinglationship) re- step: between be left problem on the require- board? A. Yes, if possible. 1:05 Subject #4 mentpects cards of "targetand cards solutions"? indicating as- becauseComment: of Don't interference overlap informationwith recording. cards 1:052:10 Subject Subject #5 #5 relationshipsComment: Make darkerchalk linesto aid indicating recording. Q.3:52 Are Subjectfloor plans #4, (spatial relationoffinal elements) stages to of be design? used only in the A. Use them anywhere they are appropriate. Q. Do we have to specify solutionsorterms can in ofwe spatialjust list relation the elements? of elements A. Initially, you, need only listbutthem elements,you eventually.will probablyI have to arrange S QUESTION LOG continued Q.5:00 How Subjectcan you #4describe a solutiontwo differentwith floor levels or "stories "? QUESTION A. Use two floor plans and indicaterelationship. the RESPONSE 5:455:20 Subject #4#5 4 Comment:to identify ClarifyRemember elements isometric to use in informationgraphic drawing, drawing. use cards Monday,Q.2:22 Should Subject May I1 select#8 all the Ergonomic coordinates to locate solution elements. 3:00 Subject #8 Factorlikely cards to be since impOrtant? they are all wasincriticalNo, stressedmost select cases design onlyin promptlyorientation decisionsthose whichignored). (note:sessions relate this toand a 5:45Q. How Subject can I #8begin to identifysolution? a A. Use either ",Solution Concepts",solution"General element Element alternatives. Types" or specific Saturday,Q.2:45 What Subject do May the 6 #1"stars" mean whenwith used K-1, Standard Elements? A. Elements which are frequentlyare used not butuniversally accepted. Observed:"door" was error mistakenly in information typed as card"desk". where tionsubjectsNote: of This the and wasexperiment. experimenter the last exchange for the withdura tv J AppendixandThis the lists E-2subject various responses questions as recordedasked by atthe an experimenter evening Debriefing Session mentpretingrichtosession thein resource furthertheexperiment. which results, ofwasapplications. opinion intended and in in restructuring tounderstanding elicit subject the and experi- responsesinter- These responses should provide a DEBRIEFINGA.#5 SESSION WonderedGeneral Impressions why they used different #3 and #7 Research informationplete, was )incom-need more details on "coldir" #6 aWhystrategies, formationtionfew not hoursitems make of someeveything easier,combination "expressions"; discussion. facilitating in theof informa- infor-after the #2 Why were "rooms" used for whytest/problems,development.enough"psychological not specificinformation elements.variables" for rdeaningful etc., not #2 additionalquestioningIsn'tmationfication. therebank information seemsofsome a "client"way"equivalent". to or permit clari-for #6B. TheHow limitedWell Did format Experiment forced CapturebeReal more YourProblem-Solving logical tlaan usua Processes processes to #9#4 cards.storageand #9 Moreand displayspace is of needed information for #7 It provided a general pic inimages mind. and combinations still ure, but stored needed.playedTheinformation"some information categoriesas a whole, should bank such larger ishave as inhibiting, "generalpagesbeen dis-are #1#7 DifficultyFelt really; in "tied retrieving down" iditemsdemonstrateviously pre- used corrections. made it difficult to solving #5#8 TheA informationmore first comprehensive test'session bank is indexneeded. was difficult,for the withAll:"cranking results.Third session out" a feltsolution, like essentiallylassproblems, satisfied but doesn't kno why exactly. #5 solution.information"Foundanneed "example". "solutionprior experienceuseful concepts" for workingdescribing and "general out designersthenfor#2 Situation 6take hours, do a notbreak. usuallywas usually artificial work work for incontinuously a sensewhile thatand #6DEBRIEFING "Real" designersSESSION continued reach dead-ends,everything.here there but was a pressure to use D.#1 How Usually Different take'more was This breaks FromNormal Your Strategy (Process)] use more #4 and #7 Felt tied down by strategy,ignoredoneneed onto strategy previousgo back do andsteps, it redo anyway. sometimes something #3 No way to show continuous process.evaluationdata ordered differently; 1 #7 MissNeed havingto draw, "sounding express board"ideastalkingphically, gra- to analyze other peopledrawings. about #7#5#4 Needed Felt(15-step) veryto use similarNot "target", used to to normal. "targetdataapproach. not solution" All:C. DidMost You subjects Feel You felt Could they Fol.low had problem.been Strategy able E.#7 Did After You firstLearn session,Anything it was conducivefun to to "brainstorming". #,6to follow their strategy prettyveryto well. (15-step)owncomplicated, strategy. After and step t'ended 10, tasksto revert became #4 Felt that he relied tort heavily%)rkdata with bankon own in datafirst bank. session. #744 (5-step)(15-step) had Difficult difficulty to performwithate "information"evalu- step. processing" as a separ- )' #9#6 Felt datalack wasof "context",too clear, hadleadworkingdown todifficulty you bea withoutpathdesigned to particularsolution. for. situation #7 Admitte:.: that he had beenby influenced ation".prior(similar contact to with15-step). "IDEAL" strategy thanAll:#4 "Problemtheymore wouldinformation identifiers" have tought and conceptswere of. narrowedtoo inspecific bank problem too fast. #4DEBRIEFING Experiment SESSION made himcontinued more consciousinherantly.of strategy steps which he used #8 Coordinate system for spatialarrangements not feasible. #5#3 LearnedFelt that that data you bank could would solve havedesignimpossible a been problem in realin 8 world.hours. psychologicalAll:H. HowNeed Shou10. broadermore data. complete It problem Have Beenhuman definitions. Done factors Differently and F.#9 How Usually Did You use Feel grouping About anyway,Grouping roughly . All:sional Need space. waysbetter of processdescribing descriptors.. three-dimen- G.#4 How Don't Did usuallyYou Feel use About "chain", Informationorganization thelinear same. implied by formal means. I.#4 WhatGenerally About comfortablethe Apparatus with or it,InMethod Generalbut #6#4 NotUsually enough designer statements has to(concepts). makeBank explicitresults but not process. #1 Hard to sit down for 6 hours,could hated be moreit mechanized. #7#4 InformationNeed to have on better solution means details' ofuseableprocess fyingidenti- not whatwithindescriptors, you time are limit. doing,easier betterto find. All:previously Need to selected.go back to information 0ulm APPENDIX F DATA PROCESSING DETAILS conventionsanalysis,intotranslatingThese a appendicesnumerical including appliedthe datacodedescribe inthe on suitableusing codinginformation the the methodschemefor coding keypunching use whichand method.on format, thewas andfilmemployed and machine record the in usewithAppendixThis with different lists F-1the thefirst aspects code 37 numberscolumns of the andondata ancolumn record,80 column positions as standardadapted associated forIBM Coding Method Cr'? generateindicatesheettranscribingcard. for specificthe subsequent typedata codeoffrom informatiionkeypunching, numbers.a projected andthe film thedescription image method to used anotes coding to In practice, reference was made to this code in IDENTIFICATIONDATA CODING METHOD CODE A card.meanstest sessionof labeling for anall individual of the cards subject, included repeated 'in a givenon each DESCRIPTION Column 21 StrategySubject-Code Code wasA andsubjects,number held. by extensiontofrom usedindicate 1-9 through assignedthe the day thestrategy of todata. theeach weekused of theonby whicheachnine subject,testthe session Column321 = 15-Step10-Step 3 (Sunday)(Saturday) 5-Step (Monday) Problem Code A number to indicate the test problem related to the 1 2= =Faculty Snack BarOffice giventhe(second(first sessiondata problem)problem)set, was and held. by extension the weekend on which FRAME3 = Conference(TIME) Room, Ansincefilm identification(third recorda.frame problem) on was which of taken the a givenspecificevery item30 frameseconds of data of thistheis located,dataalso Column 5-7 Frame Number wasA testcounterindicates numberreset record. tofromincorporated time.-0 at1 the beginning in the film of eachprojector, individual which 999 read directly from a frame STRATEGYDATA CODING STEP METHOD.continued CODE An indication of the strategy step which a subject DESCRIPTION --1 -----t Columns 9-10 Step Number , byAonbelieves subjects numberevery card.fromhe o4 is the1-15 using display read at fromany surface. givenstrategy point step in cards,time, usedplaced H INFORMATION ITEM Anshow identification a change on of any the given informaction frameeither item bycards selection, which . Columns 11-13 Item Code Aonegrouping readalphabetictwo item ordirectly perthreeor regrouping,charactercard. character.code,from the and movementcode follbwed number beginning to bystorage,placed one with oron etc., twoaneach digits, shown INFORMATION STATUS An firstitem,individualindication time,showing card. ofor whethertheif itstatus was it selectedisof beinga given onselected informationa previous for theframe and is now being reused in Some way...... Column21 = Subsequent,Initial 15 Selection Reuse Status Code AsUsuallyA involveabove,number apparent identifiedusedrechecking to byindicate byobservationdata observation alreadyitem statusand coded. or some rechecking.as recall,follows: may INFORMATION GROUPING Anitemsassigneditem; indication inby theaconvention, group ofsame the numbergroup group each areformem;.)ership item assigneduse selectedin further theof oreachsame processing,reused informationgroup is number. oa)N) DATA CODING METHOD continued / Columns 17-19 CODE Group Number/ / A sequencenumber from starting 11 with the first item and group: on 999 assigned by .the data coder in DESCRIPTION groupsobservation,,usuallygrouplayout,the film whichwere occasionally record, assumedis formed, a to newbased supplementedbegroups number in on existence proximitywere is usedIdentifiedby chalk until foror physical eachmarking, by supsequent physically GROUP SEQUENCE wereAnsamerearranged, indication placed group innumber. items ofa specificthe added order atgroup, or a sequencelater used date due in towhich the itemsabsence were given the Columns 36-37 Sequence A precaution.ofnumber card fromsequence 1 numbers in the data record, 999 assigned by the data coder based . as a safety Number on observation of item position in a_group, . sequence GROUP RELATIONSHIP was maintained even when items were added at a later time. P . Columns 21-23Group Number Primary ,type A groupsAnnumberthe identification group involvedfrom number 11 in of previouslydisposition pairs off assigned groupsactivities. involved inof relationship, and in some 999 identified by the data coder cases individual to a given some as hypotheticalrepresentsdirectionalagrouping relationship of the "arrowrelationshipinformation orOrigination disposition", all itemsistypes or indicated, operation.'tail"which of relationship of this are involved in a real or Where a group were usuallydetermined specifically by observation described of physical by chalk configurations, markings. , m0 ColumnsDATA CODING 27-29 METHOD- Secondary continued CODE A number from 11 -,999 identified by the data coder as DESCRIPTION RELATIONSHIPGroup TYPE Number Andisposition.groups above,identification involved representing inof athe giventhe type second relationship. of relationshipmember of Not the asused pair forof Column 25Code Relationship paringA identificationsubject'sderivednumber a fromgivenfrom intentions, 1 theconfiguration bode, coder's which always interpretation iswith useddescribed a withpre-arranged pairsotasof follows.the groups. 6 identified by the data coder com- 21 = GeneralSeries RelationshipRelationship ' Amore subjectgroups,directionalnon-specified general fromusually sequence relationshipprimary relationship indicated or,to hierarchical secondary, 1-etweenby without an "arrow" primary directionality, butrelationships. maydrawn and also secondaryby representthe 3 = Combination withoutAproximityindicating frequentlyspecial arrowhead, of case,some portrayedgroups generalusually but on also by_athe affinity.indicated suggesteddisplaysingle Thisbylinesurface. byverbal wasbetweenphysical very comment groupscommon, 5 4= =Feedback Separation Relati-reship Relationship AnotherUsually(chalk special indicated mesage) case, by or usuallya specialline orindicated graphicarrow reaching notation.verbally. back 6 = Conflict Relationship Rare!,to a previously indicated establishedby verbal comment./ configuration./ 0Htv DATA CODING METHOD continued CODE DESCRIPTION ColumnDISPOSITION 31Code TYPE Disposition A'numberAnonsubject, identification a pre-arranged from refers 1 toof identification groupsthe type listed of disposition codein Cols. as follows: 21-23. used by a 5 identified by the data coder based 21 = ReviewStorage whichItemsthetoIdentified a table are remotewhich returned o4t byhavearea ofobservation thebeenofto thethecamera previously displayactive of frame. physical area surface,selected of removal the orand displayplacement stored,of items on 3 4= =Priority Discard Itemcomment,Itemssurface. previously highlighted or by a selectedgraphic by the notation.andsubject, subsequently usually rejectedwith a verbal as 5 = Conflict byverbally.other Itemsinappropriateverbal information cited comment. by orsubject itemsotherwise beingas being unuseable, used, in usuallygeneral usually notedconflict indicated with . VERBAL TYPE messagesAnatverbal identification this messageweretime. not as transcribedof identified the general fromfrom type thethe or filmcontent, category record specific of 1Column:33 = TitleMessage - Verbal Code senceTheA anumber pre-determinedfirst of identification fromframe 1 on contentany datainformation. code record, as follows: indicating the pre- 9_identified by the data coder, based on H DATA CODING METHOD continued 3 = Designate = Eliminate CODE orIndicates items, infrequentlyitemaddition or items or clarificationused. being discarded of information(ses Disposition). item DESCRI T 54 = SpecialGeneral clarifyingIndicatesaddingfiguration. to aoror comment general modifyingmodifying orcomment observationanwork existing orbeing' observation, done.ofinformation some importance, usually con- 6 7= =Lunch Evaluation A process.Indicatesstandardlunch break notationa comment occurred. indicating or clarification the point of atthe which evalu,4tion t 9_-8 =End Revision A ofperformed:'standardIndicates a given notation, session.solution always revisions, the last noted card but inj not the acually record GRAPHICTYPE onlyspecificofAn aidentification withgiven graphicsregard, graphic towere ofimage finalthe transcribed generatedgeneral solution type frombyconfiguration. theor /the functionsubject, record I Function,-CodeColumn = Area Configuration 35.- Graphic Abased frequentlyarea,schematicnumber on without froma pre-determined oroccurring 1 functionalspecific as sizea code"bubble' or asshape follow: diagram. indications, 9 identified by the/data coder representWtion of a room DATA CODING METHOD continued CODE DESCRIPTION 3 =2 Circulation= Annotated Floor Plan schematicallyA locationdetaileddrawing indicatingoflayout specificor onof t t Circulation eee floorements.room area,plan. paths indicatirig either the 54 = SketchInteraction Floor Plan A functionalelements.floorschematicdrawing plan, indicating representationareas, with minin requentlymal specificationof interactions used. of betweensolution eneral size and shape of the 76 = PaperDetail Notes A paper,solutiondetailIndicates displayeddrawing element. occurranc of fo a specificcameraof room subject arearecord. sketchesor on blank 9 8= =Perspective Elevation AnA solution,dimensions, drawing"pictorial"isometric in indicatin orelevatusually form. oth rtoon perspectivecomplementor sectionarea arenderingshowingand floor solution= plan.vertical of a elements in AppendixofThis the lists codingF-2 a numbermethod ofas conventionsused in practice qualifying by the the data application coders. Coding Conventions CODING CONVENTIONS A.1. Frame Precise (Time) minute-by-minute recording of . Inferent, order tounique identify frame sequence, was used, a some-dif- designationsdataframework."sequence"tial was or notpractical, withinwereconsidered used a rathergross to to indicate betimeframe essen- betweenandrelationships;changestimes graphic artificially,selections in strategynotations. dispositions; or step;togroupings distinguish: transitions verbal and 2. In this time framework 10 beframessignificantfive captured minutes or in order wasthe consideredrecord.of difference as to a . number.groupdifferentframesSimilarly, listed were major whereunderused groupings, toappropriate,a separatelist the with membersframe different each of 3. Significant pauses or breaksindicatedactivity in bywere a breakby convention in continuity . Information Items 4. When groups of items were selectedofbeingfollows:frame at least numbers from 10 the frames,were information usually otherwise used bank as . mationmovementswherealmostThe identification cardsof invariably card,identifyor wereoverlaps, obscured unambigous; of thespecificwas by bestused. body rarely, approxi-items was thenanit obviouswas list usual all break practiceselections in the to processinwait the until lastand . ofwasThe selection usually sequence basedor of physical listingon direct sequenceinformation observation within items 5. When grouping or relationshipsitgeneratedframe was.customary in morewhich or theyto less wait occurred. continuously, until werea bodywhenitgroupings movementthewas actualnecessary on or thesequenceoverlap. todisplay approximate was board, concealed sequenceoccasionally by inpause the andlast then active record frame.- all transactions . Grouping 6: Where groups or relationshipsreformation.recordedprocess,formed andinthe the reformedoriginal frame inpriorformations a continuous to the were were . ofitunambiguous,.Identification groupswas assumed would where ofthatmaximize groupings somethe greaterquestioninformation. was usuallynumber occurred 2.CODING Where CONVENTIONS a subclass continuedheading orofdescriptor process general cardinformation was used items, with ait group was cientonrelationships, the to display establish surfacebut asimple relationship was co-occurrancenot suffi- without 3. Where individual item or itemsgrouptheseparateusual relationship.in werepractice a "groups" given to special considerand then treatment, theseindicate as 2. Most relationships were identifiedothertheeithersome presencefurther alternatives "series" as indicator.or absenceor were'general" ofused directionality onlybased when on 4. Where relationships were shownuniquegroupstheysuch or wereasdisposition. in"priority" reassignedorder to orindicate to "discard" separate their 3. Continuous "chains" or sequencesthespecificallylappingrelationship "secondary" of pairs indicated. were ofgroup relationships, indicated for a prior by over-where ship.inreassignedgrouping,implied order tobetween theindividual indicate individual items theirgroup in items a relation- numberslarger were 4. A specific convention was usedina"primary" the"primary" to sequence.in- group, group wasfor usedthe nextin turn group as 5. In wereallrelationshipo selectedthe items withoutor would grouping beany assigned pattern,specificitems, a usuallyome cases solution where elementsa large number bywithnumberssolutions,dicate the the subject. tosets"floor a by'relating commonof planelements numbergrid their includedcard" associated group selected in the D.1. Relationship In most casks, relationshipssinrrle were group number. E.1. Disposition When large numbers of groupsremoved were to storage at the same time, assumptionsindicationsdetermined bywereby deliberate,the made subject, for "general"direct some number,numericalthe group for sequence numbersease in onwerehandling. the listed same framein rn APPENDIX G COMPUTER ANALYSIS DETAILS withwhichThesefor a each wereappendicescomputer testgenerated session,program describe using designedand thethe a usesecondcoding to of tabulate theprogrammethod data and tocards printconventions, summary data Appendixtabulation.the data G-1 for each session in a form convenient for manual Computer Tabulation out withThisselection,tabulationsto descriptiveliststabulate the reuse, anddifferentoutput information theand from meansgrouping aspects a usedclarifyingcomputer as,found ofto informationmake the inthe typethe tabulation. item data,of program developed A.COMPUTER Item Selection TABULATION OUTPUT informationA tabulation items of data from on the the bank. selection of DESCRIPTION 2,1. ListingTotal Number of Code of NumbersInformation of Itemsall Selected by Subject A andItemsrecordcount alphabetizes identifiedofwith the a number"1" itemdsStatus above,of code itemsCode. numbers,program in the stores' printsdata 3. Total Number of InformationSelected Items by Subclass tion,forcharacterSubdlassesout numberstheusually program, and based asby "tens" givendifferent countson code indigit, theitems numberalphabetic data.pre-specified selected configura- 4, Total Number of InformationItems Selected by Class ) withAscharacter above,a given classes Asubclass determined characteristic. by alphabetic Z. 1.B. ItemTotal Reuse Number of Items Reused ApreviouslyA-tabulation count of selected.the of number data onof theindividual use of items,items 2. Listing of Items Which WereReusedOne or Moreand theTimes Frequency of Reuse Itemsonewithtotalfor or aneach identified more numberassociated number times of asoccurrancesrecordingin "2" above,the status data withand ofrecord.code, printingathe counter occurring"2" the 3. Frequency of Item Reuse bySubclass betizeseachnumberSubclassesstatus subclass. itemcode,of "2" establishedcodes. program Status storesCodes as above, associatedand alpha-counts with the m COMPUTER4. TABULATION continuedFrequency of Item Reuse by Ciass OUTPUT Similar to above. DESCRIPTION C.5. GroupingsReuseTotal Number of Incidences of A codestabulationcount inof thethe of data totaldata record. onnumber tne groupsof "2" formedStatus 1. WhichTotal theNumber Items of wereGroupings Selected in . occurranceA incount_of the data ofthe record.the groups group in "number" which the was first 2. Totalthe ItemsNumber were of GroupingsReused in Which Ascodegroupstatusassociated above item. number code.with with theassociated anfirst item occurrance withhaving a "2"a "1"of status the 4.3. ListingItems wereof Group Selected Numbers in Which SimilarProgramof groups tostores above.identified and prints as above. out the numbers 5. Members.withListingItems the were Codeof Reused.the Numbers Groups of by Group Number numberProgramthethat record. groupand stores the number, codesand prints whereverof the each items they group havingoccur in 1.D. Group Measures _ Statisticsthe previous computed section. from the data used in Total Number of Groups Formed. A identifiedcount of the in total#5 above. number of groups Hl.0tv COMPUTER TABULATION continued OUTPUT DESCRIPTION . GroupsTotal Number of Items in Selection Numberas#5 in above, of#1 itemsabove. selection in group groups counted identified from 4.3. AverageTotal Number Size (Numberof Items of in Items) ReuseSelectGroups of Groups MathematicalSimilar to above:computation from above. 6.7.5. Average SmallestAverage Size Sizeand of Largestof All Reuse Groups Number Groupsof Items in Groups Formed ComputedS_See .filar above. tofor above. each group type. E.8. Runs Standard-Deviation of GroupSizes. A Computedtabulationsequences for ofof each groupsdata group and formed, type.statistics without'any on 1. Total Number of Runs Formed numberofComputerinintervening sequence pattern of identifiessequence of oftype groupsdata ofoccurrances. beginning record, differentformed countsby and activity.changes ending the 3.2. AverageListing Runof GroupSize (NumberMembers ofinRunand Groups)Each the Run, Number of'Groups included in Each MathematicalProgramnumbers prints in eachcomputation out run and series. counts from above.the group COMPUTER TABULATION continued 5..4. ,Largest and Smallest Run Size. OUTPUT See above. DESCRIPTION F. Total Number of Records (Cards)Standard Deviation of Run Size . A Seetabulation above. made of the total number of Processed for Each Test Session differentverbaleachdata relationshipitemcards or dataselected, graphicin eachcard. pair, notation session,used disposition, in requiredanote group, that a

, Nr..) ThisAppendix is aG-2 listing which describes the rearrangement of Computer (Attribute) Listing generateprintingtion.columnsthe data Since andinstructions forpunched run.thisconvenience on theit wascards,in reviewrelatively printed and manualsimplein separate tabula-to program was only used to provide COMPUTER1. (ATTRIBUTE) LISTING Card Number ATTRIBUTE Automaticallycessed,sequential differences numberinggenerated,by mayfor processor,beall calculated cards pro- DESCRIPTION 3.2. ProblemStrategy Identification Step Number Number givenIdentifiesfor specificstrategy eachactivities partsstep. test of session. theassociated record. with a 5.4. NumbersItemsFrame NumberSelected and Their Group Supplementssubsection.Indicates time tabulation for any ofgiven selection activity data, or 7.6. PairsItems of Reused Groups and "Series" Their GroupRelated Numbers patternmaySimilar be usedidentification. to forabove. review and secondary 9.8. Pairs ofof GroupsGroups .other"General" Related Related MaySeeships. be above. used to develop data on relation- 12.11.10. VerbalGraphicGroup TypeNumbers Type Code COde and Types of Disposition' SeeMaytions. above.be used to develop data on disposi U.)NJ APPENDIXofThese solutions appendices H generated describe by thedetails subjects related in theto thecourse evaluation of the EVALUATION DETAILS ofmakingmaterialsrequirementsexperiment. specifications including: presented Specifically,given producedevaluation toto thesubjects; byevalutorsthe criteria;the appendices solutionsubjects. for a summaryuse drawings;cover in decisiontheof problemandmajor lists providedThisAppendixinformation lists toH-1 thethe indicating sixevaluators, criteria the accompaniedandrelevance their definitionsof by each descriptive criterion. as Evaluation Criteria .EVALUATION CRITERIA STATEMENT DESCRIPTION considerationsfortionIs1. Comprehensive thethe take,into solutiondifferent as account inclusive?given user inactivitiesand the makeDoes problem provisionthe and solu- other Anactuallyproblem, tooverall work satisfyinganwithtest important theof thematerials the subject'sconsideration design in problem.solvingability in the tionIsdescription.2. the Effectivemake solution adequate workable? provision Does for the the solu theIt isrequirements, necessary not but only to coverto cover them all well; givenactivities in the andproblem other statement. considerations as I importantcomprehensive, if the butsolution provides is notgood too solution Is3. the Efficient solution economical? Does the an- A basicfor what cons1ueration it dbes cover. and while this was requirements.useragementsolution energies of demonstrate the inspace, meeting consideredresources the pr ,' blem and notplayedsolutionsdesirable,'a certainefficient, down' comprehensivelevel inmay andthe includeof vise problemeconomy versa. aor trade-offdescriptiOn, effectiveis alWays between but totionIs4. the Aestheticlikely users.solution to beattractive? emotionally Is satisfyingthe solu- includedEssentiallyjudgement the/field, because byredundant requires theof traditionalevaluators. witha subjective #2, importance but in- EVALUATION CRITERIA .continued solutionIs5.' theInnovative solution creatively imaginative? express newDoes-the or STATEMENT A problemconsideration statement, given and importance regarded inby thethe DESCRIPTION Is6.different Completethe solution approachesto thorough? the Does problem. the A strategyexperimentermore mechanical effects. as anconsideration, important test related of providematerialpicturereasonablyin precision sufficient generatedof thecoherant, and solution.- scopeinformationby heunderstandable tosubject give both a acteristicsalsoin part regarded to subjectof asstrategy an workingimportant effects. habits, char- but

0.1N" AppendiXsolutions,inThis problem-solving, lists H -2 including:the major and requirementsgeneral by the requirements evaluators used by intheapplicable judging subjects the Problem Requirements to problemwithlem-solvingitemall individual problems;cards statements suppliedsession. andproblems; giventhe in specific theat as the informationderived beginningrequirements from banks ofthe each associatedindividualand prob-the GENERALPROBLEM REQUIREMENTS TYPE Subjects were given specific requirements for each test REQUIREMENT Orientation administratordevelopmentforproblems,"The each University problem. however, over has the ofasked some Wisconsinnext yougeneral ten to years. isconsider requirements trying theto lookfollowing were ahead repeated at A very far-sighted Objectives A.ofpresentyou designThe the to solution activities rethink approachesproblems. shouldthe for toproblem meetwhichthe problem thesituationit isoperational planned.except and asto /requirements a/reference."disregard the For each problem he has- specifically asked' andC.erations.B.all Thephysiological aspects solution justifiable shoOldshould requirements not,bemeet in termsand lavishof support/the ofthe opera/tional butUsers. Should psychological include consid- Administrative policy A..realpointsD. WhileThe world. thesolution it wayis opentoward should to future broadbe innovative interpretations,potentials in ofthe design senseit is in thatassumed the it andshouldB.shipsthat constructionRelative willpresentbe used. remain economy teaching methods, fairly should and butconstant. beresearch all used necessary in methods selecting elements and elementsrelation- 'maximumD.butC. inThere Space thisteachingor minimum,is shouldshOuld no orstandard notberesearchbeyond/What adaptablebe aset/for seriousmethods isto squareactually account limitation.or future forrequired. buildingfuture changes uses, footage, either PROBLEr1 REQUIREMENTS continued TYPE REQUIREMENTS 'sidereddesigns.F.E.style, BuildingThereare at atmosphere,this codesno /`'time, Policy and etc. butotherconstraints will standards be adapted on typeneed to notofproposed furnishing,be con-. Technical Limitations withA.problemsfigurationsB. Assume Thesome location logicaltheare shouldobvious. orextrapolations. befabrication possible, ofunless° most realelements and seriousand con- resent state of technology as you know it, Building Site materialsA.C.arenot theThe notoo identificationbuilding specific important,services, as restrictions a etc. details wholeof specific will can on be configurations,compatible designedworked out later,elements later. size, there is Natural Site A.orproblemB. toThe servicesThere those cliMate facilities are in in noMilwaukee,is the asubject prioribuilding.or on Wisconsin.totherestrictions seasonal location on location of the variationsof related similarfacilities consideredC.pleasantB. AdjacentThere'is :semi-urban in buildingsa relationgood natural surroundings. areto thiswidely view design. inspaced and need not be all directions, in PROBLEM REQUIREMENTS continued ProblemPROBLEM I TYPE "Design a work area for a single faculty member" REQUIREMENTS User Requirements A.pastB.catinginformation, Faculty Faculty notes, resultS. must mustcollecting developing carry prepare out new teachingandresearch information, testing materials,activities, hypotheses, organizing surveying surveying c9mmuni- informa- D.C.records,learningtion Faculty for readingpresentation,rulesmust workcarryand reports. regulations,with out developing students,bureaucratic filling-out teachingevaluating responsibilities, aids. forms, their keepingwork, bers,F.relaxation,E.discussing StudentsFaculty preset must mustrecreation, problemswork, bebe ablereceiveable with eating,toto them, carryguidance.communicate discussion, providingout personal with advice hygiene.faculty activities, and mem-guidance. responsibilitiesH.G.tion.faculty OtherMaintenance facmembe wo f. ty and staff must bework able on tojoint consult problems, the exchangeers informa- must be able to carrycleaning, out theirupkeep, repair. User Characteristics B.A.interestsito The him faculty outside both member of personal his has o an as little or no workice. space available relativelyprofessional. wide range of PROBLEM REQUIREMENTS continued TYPE C. The faculty member can relate to technology and if it REQUIREMENTS gardeD.is Theavailable, styles,facialty hemake member considers good relates use cultural of toit culturein life his andwork.and experiencesmod or avante ,- F.E.asto Students bea resource,very arewouldimportant. usuallydiscussing like touncomfortable make academic more usequestions when of dealingfaculty and problems.withmembers . . estedG.byfaculty theirStudents in groupsubordinatemembers are projects becomming and position.are and veryless discussions. consciouscompetitive of andand areinhibited inter- ' 7 I.adequateeffortH. Co-workersStaff are asconsider valuablethose and providedotherthemselves and visitorswho to deserve asfaculty. co-workersto thefacilities faculty whose justwork time as' and work.J.importantanspace The,time informal may andbeand basis. of efforts,energies similar should ofbackground maintenance be made and to workersable facilitate to arerelate their on ProblempROBLEMII classroom"Design anbuilding. informal Food food will service be'prepared located atin a universitya central regularsidelocation ;contractor, service either in byfew the university/fOod if snack any personnelarea. The service arefacility available or byshould for be H an out- (,)w PROBLEM REQUIREMENTS continued TYPE q- aofOpen possible 100 24 people.hours approach." The use of vending machines is suggested as per day, and should accommodate a peak loadREQUIREMENTS User Requirements A.engagingB.and Users Usersconsuming must inmust large be food.be able ableand to smallto obtain meet group andnourishment, discussions,talk with retrievingeach exchanging other, discussingD.C.obtainingideas. Users must problems,information, be able looking to takingworkcarry over together outnotes, work educational workingtogether.on joint problems. activities,problems, F.playingE.notlongings Usersneeded games, must whichwhile bereading, aredining.able brought to resting. storeengage into and in the retrieverecreational area, butpersonal whichactivities, be- are disposingH.foodG. Service dispensing of personnel refuse equipment. and must keeping be able all to survaces maintainrestock clean. andthe servicearea, User Characteristics B.spectiveA.for Most dining usersof theirand will other other require activities. requirements. seatingone or moreand somefood workitems surface irre- C.storedthem, Most auserswhile purse, willthey knapsack, eat.bring somecoat, personal etc., which belongings .have towith be NJw PROBLEM REQUIREMENTS TYPE continued E.wishD. Most Mostto situsers users together are will taking arriveor join a breakin with groups fromgroups oftheir twoof friends.educationalor more and REQUIREMENT G.F.orcurrent ManyMost office users styles activities willare and inhave idioms. touch and some with resentment youth culture against and the with uni- a change of scene. H.versityexcessiveascorners Many a chance powerusers in chaos providing tostructureare putor serious uproar.in public extraand students feel services.study that and the usecannot university the relatesnack cutstobar whichbeJ.straight-forwardI. consideredSomeService mustbe users workersdone, justconsider as and ashavepossible. much wantthe a jib astakingthe thoseto job do,of toof nourishmentand bethe theiras patrons. simple needs as anda shouldjob ProblemPROBLEM III accommodate"Design(social a groupscience) various meeting-presentation universitysized groups department. up to space 20 people."Thefor spacea typical should 1,., User Requirements . A. Faculty and/or students must be able to hold formal meetings,aids. with discussion, possibly a chairman, some visual . presentationsB. Faculty and ofstudents student must work, be audio-visualable to conduct aids, seminars, etc. wtc`;.,) PROBLEM REQUIREMENTS continued TYPE REQUIREMENT discussionsD.extensivesentationsC. Faculty audio-visual and/orandbyor visitingbullstudents students sessions aids. lecturers,must must whichbe beable consultants,mayable to include tohave hold special some etc.,informal pre-with meetings,F.grams,E.graphics. Faculty,Faculty solution with andstudents, discussion, studentsplans.. staff, must visual mustbe ableaids, be ableto sketches conduct to have orplanning audio-dia- visuallimitedspaceG.to radioFaculty, activities,during meal or recordings. students,preparation.lunch viewing hour staff, for films, informal must televiewing, be dining,able to baguselistening lunches,the activities,I.H.space Faculty, as a students.,parties,students,lounge, relaxing,teas, staff,staff, etc, must mustreading, with bebe food,ableable playing totomusic useconduct games. etc.the social temporaryK.privateJ. VisitingFaculty or office, small andlecturers students groupwith muststorage,discussions. must be beable telephoning,able to touse use the theetc. space space for for a M.ofresponsibilitiesspaceL. Maintenancegraphic Faculty, for materialslayout, students, workers fororganization, (either mustcleaning,staff, be horizontally mustable orupkee betodisplay able carryrepair. or to ofoutvertically). uselarge their the amounts PROBLEM REQUIREMENTS continued TYPE REQUIREMENT User Characteristics B.meetings.workA.and ManyMost areasdo individualspersonnelnot for have display, spacedo enjoy not inorganization have eatingtheir available areasand relaxingof for materials,to suchthem together purposes.large group styles.D.equipment.negativelyC. MostSome personsindividuals to an relate overpowering are to alienated culture presence andby technologymod of ortechnological avante and gardereact reactF.E.quthority.form Many negativelybetter studentsindividuals in a toareless obvious arevery structured, able conscious or to excessive think more of creativelyfacultyinformal symbols status setting. ofand and per- H.thinkingcomingG. Personnel Individualized, less and responsiblepopular production. competitiveand therefor maintenance is`more study andemphasis have research their is be- on group own 4- ation.important functions which must be taken into consider- W(.71[..) Appendix H-3 Solution Drawings !". Thisstrategy,the presents solutiontest andsessions, the subject..evaluators, 27 solutionas redrawn organized drawings for presentationby generated test problem, into Problem I, 5-Step, Subject #1 237

V to %V* lastserSTAND 11151%.11Ckl vo 5oo $4..SN UL FMK FILE Gposeiketer CASINe.-r

110100 Ve.SW.

0 OYNIAILIPSeate O Th LS

yY .0512.K. at-1:117r Uh-1 ODONTeM

C PtO DOOR OR WIND ow SNokoN) c *AA V 6" T. IVX.2,7' EST. 432 SQ. Fr.

21 Prot) lc.rn I 5-Step, Subject #2 238

NO GRAPHICS

PRIMARY AREA SECRETARIAL C.14A1Il SECRETIMAL DESK FILE ckeNET BOOK SHELVES DRAFTIMG.Thel-E

coto-E.Rustce AREA ARM 00,m9 pirtecroP.'3 CVAAVik CONVEReNCE. TABLE STORAGE SNALI-V EQUIrmenrr CAMSerr FREE STANVICACK PARTITION TAGKBOAR.D

21G Prriiilf litI, t (.[J ,f;tit) j(,ct.-..#3 239 t

rd 4 MOVIE VIEWING' PRE.,

Ciasy GT

Dot

2. NO FLOOIX. Mil-CONY J tSALCOHY

SE N \ I NA.R. coN Ectsuce prt.c.r.

r KATC-HA Sa-VNA - Art G }Gut-et IP,IVY rge R.S4r4"l. VICAR.V. Mt-6 N OFFIC G 5fiN ce. -t?t %ot,-4 tAt.w". v4.c. Problem 1, 10-Step, Subject #1 240

esCAle W's y.i.tY SQ. rr,

2\60 Problem I, 10-Step, Subject #2 241

FAX CAIMATUrZ,

IStoKSA,2.1.1. SINJOAVt0 STANT/ARO POOK° 5011vSl. P cwi.ta

CNALKISOAT,p TELIMMMM ritOjet-TION ARGA MM 'DRAFTING. Ct4110R3 TPAILES .SECACCTARIAL CHAtIt EaUtr/ANT AREA

TERASS N%NDOW Scr.LEY8"7: 1` 450 to- Fr.

2 5.1 Problem,l, 10-Step, Subject #3 242

F- r- EQUI r rAE COUCH CLOSEN

ACTION DESK

V' DESK ,CHAVA.

SCPAM VA", IG! lG% 754, SQ. PT.

25,24 Problem I, 15-Step, Subject #1 243

Gtle VAE

oslaweL Pew cog met. 3 A 0 i\ 111

/AID't.00ct. Mal c-r) CA-GEM META L C\CWts,LK 3

STORPece OP (2.00ts&

OLOofk ScALE 5A6 1Z5(12.'t2.5(t8' 34o sck. FLooEtS Problem I, 15-Step, Subject #2 244

pRoncT toN tctssx SU* IN Gi DO 0 "IV!

PAO irtAgor WAU- PADONTED CIA WI' COM RACK

PIM CAI3NINeT N, 0 0 SWIVEL' 5 site U 0 FIRM CHAIRS 2 z at g 3 0

NI I4 ELVGS

5cm.c VA" 1 12 5 ts 0 SQ T.

25; Problem I,I5-Step,--Subject #3 245

SPECK'. PRO S pawl0

flre.a.o. STORAAILIE. hallA

agt/WSI\EMT CO NQ FU L'( w a .4`0,74,n4kt. r Crele-KP Ve C..04432-"AerNot4 seAce t03A5t..n--N PoaSP. roovst Vxrcia e*E-t

V151, Oil, ACIALA. "vow c E tottP4.4c.e sx-rew AICE4 y,"= 30'3-1 EST.740

2 I) rob f I, :;uh jr2ct#1 246

VEND1NOr t4 DILtf-N75

51J0( APk 6 urrotLevEl. 4

aElVERKL DINIMGr

ICECCCEAT104 LOWE,. LEVEL

EtrritAtice

FERSOMPL. STOILNGte

SCALE 3/31"1"-- 48' X 72' -545G 4. Ft

2 5 6 Problem li, 5-Step, Subject#2 247

0 0 6 7 DC

T R.A.Srk DISPO

GENE SC.AL PtIJ1ATG,

OPEN 0,4oDeocts

0000?INTO FU Fttli-URE 000 0 ecALE 1/8':-. 48'21' t52 SQ. FT.

2 Problem II, 5-Step, Subject #3 248

ii VA ot4 PAPA? EXIT vENvitac. oftigKtks. STUDY 4 FOUNTAIN xEcatpccoN WALL TAcsue.5 couN/fit, 15teik POPCORN FREE.sTOAtAN4 COUNTERS 2EP D. 014 2 7

WALL CovtmeRs vrooLs

AVI-Cw4cTro TABLE ENTICANcE SERIps..6 SCALE 24% x 48'EST. U52. SQ. Ft

2D 'J 0

Problem II, 10-Step, Subject #1 249

FOOD SELZ CVO METRIEVoL lig

was EraTo.' tict

a 8 RAID sEuact tori FDOC) seLecT too C ItENR%ev pa. 4 RETRLEY"N-

1.001.4GLE

tY. t4T sc %LE3it4"` 57a 5Q. .

255 Problem II, 10-Step, Subject #2 250

4,4 OtTC;;4

PERSON...LPL SELF INTIMATE pREpARAIWIN Dtr4tC4Cc E

TRRT1T 10S WALL psiksosi_5-TAKCLE VE URN 1- YS

GENERAL °MING

StRsa 114g. UtAt OUTDOOR OWING"

r_clut?TreN'T WtNOOW CHECKOUT

1rf

ON1* OUTDOOR (-4 ON R.ECRENTtoN WU:100R Gr.EatEXTION

%Nooks

scAts3/8". ko 100110 110' \ -1000 SQ. FT.

H1-127-41

2u Problum I I, 10-Stop, Subject #3 251

row)isLAND

5C.P.LE cke± F-Sr. 4032, . . Problm [I,15-Step, Subject #1 252

CURit MkE.11. 2 SG R\1114 G.LIKE VG LANG, MA CHU-1E c 0 2 0 6 5 Focr, PRE-mit:41mA

U? t 17N

UTTER LEV SE WWWX.UWEL. UPPE LEVEL L.004 Cir E IAN 11 a ALCOVES lft E etAce GEM.S2AL. 91NlIACs

u??Eit LEV'iL WIER LEVEL o MIto 11LINLES wuJect LeveL ilgt10 1NSLES IlauEs urid:H±L

CALg 3/32."= 54 X 70 1ST. F1.04P. EST. 5. 3C 0S34 ET.

26 Problem 11, 15-Step, Subject #2

SERVICE

,VeNGPit-14 SIGRINCAG.

5k.WERVOWN- 6 ENTKhtICE 7

PI 5r0 SP1/41- cr.Nowems

.047.ROA.A.C.E. c). P5POSAL

.meto rge*, IlkeLE ARC 8 0 itt

(DISro5AL

LARCx LAMLE Cae 006(54 ZAcrtN o-co,s

TRAI4C,C

iscA.LE2161' 50' X .40'est: 2000 30.

2 6 3 Problem II, 15-Step, Subjbct #3 254

uRGE 1pa34..es Aitvc

MOONATED 5EIVA C

CITI4S.

V009 VMMGE MUNI>

1..EVEL acrrpoolt OUTPOolk cooft-r ?MAO RIRCAtTURE

lo3UP40 TIMES. STRPAGHT 04MICS 5ckLv %t. 148.X1-8' 0434 SO.. FT.

a Problem III, 5-Step, Subject #1 255 \\

CAIKUV301112.C,

Into.1ecx(ociSCREe13 VECMCAL r1SPLAY SUR.P.Acr

SCALE t 30 X 42 e.'31-. 124 0SQ. Fr.

2 N Problem III, 5-Step, Subject #2 256

CAALKI5oKRI, c4SPuPN-f PiaNELS N, TA5 E CXX.I.C.AA cowl vi LI

KITCHENe-rvE LJ CORE'ERENC_E Doul3LE Thti_E DOORS 5 3 2

tmset-N-y TAA3UE

i'V-OJE,-.11.0!.1 %Ate-CMg.tASCLKi rhNE.1- SCALE 3/32"..0 511e.sr. tc2.o SQL.

26IG Probleffi III, 5-Step, Subject #3 257

ST AN 9 INSZ,P DOOM

1;"91-11." SURVACE

1/1

V MOW LA itvetyx.yr, 0 TAI5Le et

5 1

I 1 ri NotitLe pts P LA"( ?ROC L-

teNck% (ARbuJD veva me-r eft) v vs? L p,< SU RFD. c_E

,c11, LE 34 a" 1 20 X' 41.' EST 450 SO,. FV. Problem III, 10-Step, Subject #1 258

ENTELAJce 'CAM 1/6".z. 12' 7(30' 3G. 34, PT.

266 Problem III, 10-Step, Subject #2 259

MALT- (N ECOMNENT mmS:e141- o INFORMAL, Avtet* OrAt.6.110K IA9ZA 3 2

SCALE '2.11X.21510 Problem III, 10-Step, Subject #3 260

SCALe Vb..= 1. A30' ESr. 710 3q.T.

2 1. Problem In, 15-St,.:q), Subjectit-1 261

BCALE 3/1c.4 24' >c 26' EST. X 24 54 .PT. Problem III,Is- Step, Subject #2 262

ScA Leye". 1. X1,1e5T. 1130sck. Pr. Problem III, L---St, ;;;Llbject #3 263

rss FORN441- pl5CoSSIOW ENT R kW Ct N \ eaUICT ^1K eikUtelACIKT v 1 5 r 1..4N-Y LECTUCte AREA AREA. "50 40 ' pests o 1.1 1.

t-ReKt too Plf4ti,10c fACerilN etk

Eekt.lITTAEKr voyp fit ErAitATIOK AIX EA.

NO 5cALE 48bc.9 04-000bcz. FT.

7=J_ -1...-

3-- 'gm

2 AppendixThis H-4provides 9 examples of the solution Solution Specification Examples comprehensivesolutionThethelists examples subjects, generated specification werelistings as fromselectedprovided theinsheets each informationfromto thestrategy the solution cards to indicate the most overall set of 27 specificationevaluators.selected by solutions.usingbriefer.demonstrategiven the problem, information the and complexity some cards listings ratherof description in'eachthan However, these illustrations are included forgroup comparing for groupa werepossible much to SolutionProblemSEATING I,Specifications 5-Step, Subject #3 VideotapeTelevisionTypewriter Recorder Set SERVICES Cool Air BenchDesk Chair (swivel) 1 XeroxMicrofilm Machine ViewerCamera HotExhaustFresh Air Air WORK SURFACES Action Desk (built-inequipment) electronic ToiletWorkUrinalHandDrinking Sink Sink Fountain MAiTRIALS GlassConcreteChilled Water ProjectionChalkboardWorkCredenzaTyping Counter Table Screen MINOR EQUIPMENT,CalenderAshtrayClock WoodBambooLeatherCorkPlasterBrick STORAGE File.BinVerticalGeneralBook Shelf FileShelf -TrayWastebasketDishesStaplerPencil Sharpener EquipmentFile RackCabinet ClosetCabinetStand RefrigeratorHotCoffeePotsGlasses Plate & PansMaker white,Enclosure natural Surfaces: MAJOR EQUIPMENT RadioTypeCounter .Recorder LIGHTING SpotDrawingTensor Light LampLamp finish Desk,ComputerStandard Calculator I&OTelephone RheostatCeiling, Fluorescent NJ SolutionProblem I,Specification 10-Step, Subject #1 MAJOR EQUIPMENT SEATING Desk Chairrm (highChair back, swivel) Push-ButtonRadioComputerTape Recorder I Phone(graphic) & 0 LIGHTING CeilingDrawingTensorDesk Lamp Lamp, Lamp EasyArtDrafting ChairChair Stool(reclining,(brown leather) brown leather) :OpaqueFilmDesk TypewriterDictaphoneProjector ProjectorCalculator ENCLOSURE 'ClerestoryVent-OpeningTheostat Window Window(incandescent) WORK SURFACES ActiOnCounch' Desk (brown leather) WoodgrainedAllNaturalSurfaces: Furniture AirShowerHandXeroxTbilet Conditioner SinkMachine StandardSunshieldsThermopaneDraperies Door(translucent) - WorkTypingCredenza2-person CounterTable, Table Desk Texture MINOR EQUIPMENT AshArt TrayObject Walls,StructuralDemountable6' primary,Partition Wall Wall white TackboardChalkbbard (gridded) All Storage: PencilMirrorClockCalendar Sharpener - - Wall-to-WallStepped Floorwovengrey, Carpet brown, orange, BookStorageControlCardProjection ShelfRack Chart Sdreen Built-in WasteGlassesDishesCoffeeStap1 Bas Cups !et SERVICES FreshCoolMulti-Level Air Air Ceiling CoatCabinetCounterEquipmentFilePigeon CabinetCloset Holes Cabinet FireRefrigeratorHotPotsCoffee PlatePlace& Pans Pot Allflat Equipment finish, Surfaces: paintedHot Air Problem I, 15-Step, Subject #2 SEATINGSolution SpecificationsDesk Chair LIGHTING TensorGooseneck Lamp Lamp WORK SURFACES ArmStandard Chair (2)Desk(swivel) RheostatRecessedIndirectPoleDrawing Lamp Lamp Lighting ProjectionTackboardWorkChalkboard Table Screen(gridded) ENCLOSURE DraperiesPicture Windcw(translucent, cloth) STORAGE FileGeneralBook ShelfCabinet Shelf (4) 'SlidingWall-Wall Walls,Door flat woodCarpetingpainted green, trim plaster, MAJOR EQUIPMENT CoatEquipment Rack, Closet wall-mounted(4-drawer) SERVICES FreshCoolSuspended AirAir Ceiling FilmPush-ButtonDeskTypewriterRadio Projector Calculator Phone ThermostateHotExhaust Air MINOR EQUIPMENT WasteClockAir Conditioner Basket Problem II, 5-Step, Subject #3 SEATINGSolution SpecificationsFreestandingStool Bench OTHER EQUIPMENT WarmerMicrowaveRefrigerated LightsPlate Oven Cabinet ENCLOSURE SkylightCleresotry Window(tinited glass) WORK SURFACES Easy.ChairArm Chair AirWastebasketTrashDrinkingCondiment Conditioner Cart Founctain Counter Walls,StairsFreestnading6' Partition cork,Wood plaster, Partition DisplayMovableWallFreestanding Counter. CaseTable Counter PayCampusPencilWallAsh TrayTelephone Clock PhoneSharpener Multi-LevelFloor,BalconyRamp brick Ceiling 'STORAGE CoatCoat'HookStorage Rank Shelf CassetteTelevisionRadio Player(individual) SERVICES HotFreshExhaustCool Air AirAir VENDING EQUIPMENTMilkshafeMilkColdHot Dispenser DrinkDrink Dispenser DispenserDispenser LIGHTING TensorGooseneck Lamp Lamp(individual) Chilled Water ,CandyIceCannedSandwichBeer Dispenser Cream Dispenser Food DispenserDispenser Dispenser IndividuallyIncandescentAreaIndirect Lighting LightingLighting Controlled . CoinPopcorn Changer RheostatLighting Problem II, 10-Step, Subject #3 SEATING.Solution SpecificationsFreestandingBoothStraight Bench chair Bench LIGHTING RecessedTableIndividuallyIndirect Lamp Lighting Lighting Controlled WORK SURFACES MovableFixedArm Chair Table Table ENCLOSURE Multi-LevelAlcove Partition LightingFloor STORAGE StorageCondiment LedgeShelf Table MATERIALS Multi-LevelWall-WallDepressed Carpeting FloorCeiling EQUIPMENT AutomatedCoatCubbyhole Hook Vending WoodTextured,BrickStone brown grey Automated Table (pneumatic(centralServicefoodheats, unit, tubes, selections)selected, delivers,stores, etc., delivered RadioTrashWasteDollar Container/Basket Bill Changerat table) Problem II, 15-Step, Subject #1 SEATINGSolution SpecificationArmBooth Chair Bench LIGHTING IndividuallyLighting Controlled WORK SURFACES BoothPicnicPatio Table ChairTable Bench ENCLOSURE ScreenFreeAlcoveSliding Standing WallPartition Door Partition CondimentPicnicPatioLargeSquare Table Table Table Multi-LevelPlatformDepressedBalconyStairs FloorCeilina/ VENDING EQUIPMENTMilkshakeMilkColdHot DrinkDrinkDispenser Dispenser DispenserDispenser PastryIceSandwichBeerPopbottle Cream DispenserDispenser DispenserDispenser OTHER EQUIPMENT HotMicrowavePopcorn Plate DispenserOven ,FreezerFireRefrigeratedSteamWarner Place Table Plate Cabinet 0 SolutionProblem III,SpecifiCatiOns 5-Step, Subject it Microphone SERVICES SEATING Arm Chair. (molded rotatable,seat, tilting) ,SpeakersRemote Controls(for equipmentenvironment) & ThermostatHotFreshCool Air AirAir WORK, SURFACES ConferenceIndividual Table Desk(sloping or Table work surface, OTHER EQUIPMENT- WorkDrinkingCoffee Sink Maker Fountain T.V.IntercomChilled Conduit Water ChalkboardDisplayEquipment Table Stand wood)natural matte finish LIGHTING FloodSpotGooseneckTable LightLight Lamp Lamp STORAGE BookProjectionTackboard Shelf Screen VariableFluorescentRecessedIndirectIncandescent Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting CoatEquipmentProjectorStorage Rack ShelfStorage Cabinet ENCLOSURE Rheostat 0 polariodAll,Wridows: glass, AUDIO-VISUAL EQUIPMENTOverheadRadioIntercom Projector DraperiesSkylightClerestorySlit Window Window(opaque) thermopane VideoRandomFilmOpaque ProjectorProjector AccessProjectorProjector Slide. Wall-WallCovedPlatformStandard Ceiling CarpetingDoor(with view window) SEATINGSolutionProblem III,Specifications 10-Step, Subject 42 OTHER EQUIPMENT PencilPush-Button Sharpener Phone WORK SURFACES TrapezoidalEasyArm ChairChair Table LIGHTING ThermostatCoffeeWaste BasketMaker ProjectionTackboard'ChalkboardRound Table Screen(metal, grided) RheostatGeneralVariableMovieLuminous Lighting Lighting LightingCeiling STORAGE/ Equipment ,FileStand CabinetEquipment Closet < ENCLOSURE BaySliding Window Windows AUDIO-VISUAL EQUIPMENTOverheadTelevisionCoat Rack Projector Wall-WallFoldingStandardDraperiesSkylight Door Door Carpeting (or wall) MultipleRandomVideoFilm. Projector Projector AccessSpeakersSlide Projector Problem III, 15-Step, Subject #2 SEATINGSolution SpecificationsDesk Chair FilmOpaqueOverhead Projector Projector Projector WORK SURFACES ArmSide chair Chair (high back, swivel) MicrophoneRemoteSpeakersVideo ProjectorControls(for equipment & DisplayEquipmentConferenceRound TableTable Stand TableDesk OTHER EQUIPMENT PencilWall ClockCalendar Sharpener environment) FeltTackboardChalkboardDisplay Board' Rack LIGHTING WasteSpotStapler BaSketLight STORAGE CoatEquipment ClosetRack Closet ENCLOSURE RheostatRecessedIndirect Lighting AUDIO-VISUAL EQUIPMENTVideoTapeTelevisionRadio REcorderTape REcorder .Fix4rdFolding6'StandardSkylight Window Partition Wall Door ComputerPhotoStenographic Transmitter Graphics Recorder Console FormedCovedWall-WallDepressedStage CeilingCeiling CarpetingFloor TheseAPPENDIXin the appendices intialI processing provide the of detailedthe data resultsrecord fromgenerated this RESULTS DETAILS subjectevaluation,onereport.tionsexperiment, meausres ofscores the individual synthesizedwhich mostin each areimportant summarizedsession,tables from interactionforthe and ineachdata graphic.the measureprocessing effects.body demonstra- ofshowing theand They include, the descriptions of the seventy- AppendixtoThis describe lists I-1 each measures measure in inthe the summary code tables, with Description.of MeaSures -sequences used reportgivenReferencean explanation forand measureshouldspecific of alsothegeneration details meaningbe made given in ofto the each thein body Appendicesexplanationsmeasure. of the F, G, H. DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES MEASURE 1.11: GENERALOverall PERFORMANCEPerformance coveringMeasurescharacteristics thewhich major summarieze'the of areas problem-solving, of activity. general DESCRIPTION 1.1.1 # Items Selected incardsIndicatesThethe any most overall selectedone general thesession, approaches numberfrom measures athe ofmeasure to.informationinformation which problem-solving. of demonstrate,the bankitem 1.1.2 # Cards Generated behaviorgeneratedIndicates"quantity" in bythea ofgiventhe number information coder session, of to data describe utilized.a ormeasure IBM the cards of 1.1.3 # Frames Required record,constantIndicatescardthe overallwas sine: used30the secondlevelframes numberfor each of interval, were ofactivity, variable.frames recorded this onsince theatis aalsoonefilm 1.2 Major Performance Additionalthetiona measure measures selection measuresof time.listed and of useage,above. patterns supplementing of informa- 1.2.1 # Items Reused moreselected.suggestsinitiallyIndicates times, the theselectedin applicability comparisonnumber and of then itemswith of reused 1.1.1informationwhich onewere or Ui DESCRIPTION1.2.2 # Reuse OF MEASURESOccurrances continued MEASURE Indicates the total number of times that DESCRIPTION 1.2.3 # Groups Formed informationIndicatesassion,information compared measures theitems withitems number the throughoutselection werelevel of reusedgroupings of activity.the in session, theof reuse activity ses- 1.2.4 # Runs Formed. usuallymeasureswhetherIndicatesand suggests selection onthe initialthe level the number or sizeofselection reorganization grouping ofof groupgroups activity, used. of or reuse,sequences, 1.3 Secondary Performance andactivity,infprmation, suggests measures the without length the any levelof other of activityintervening sequences. 1.3.1 # Relationships IndicatesandMeasurestypesrather reuse. established-between than relatedthe thenumber toprimary supportingof relationships information groups activities of selection'informa- of all 1.3.2 # Dispositions of,itemsofIndicatesinformationtion information items, to specialstorage. wasmeasures items,interrelated. treatment theprimarily degree given the to which to groups removal cs DESCRIPTION1.3.3 # Verbal OF MEASURES Notations continued MEASURE whichrepresentingIndicates subjects the additional wrotenumber out of "chalkclarificationinstances messages" in of DESCRIPTION 1.3.4 # Graphic Notations whichconfigurationsdrawingsIndicatestheir subjects work representing thewith made number suggestedthe chalk information ofvisualization instancessketchesby the items.informa- orin- of 1.4 Comparative Performance betweenemphase.representingMeasurestion items.information related alternative to selection the comparisoninformation and reuse, OU 1.4.1 # Selection.4.2 * GroupsReuse Groups measure.Indicatesbeingformed,Indicates selected inthe thewhich complement forfraction thethe groupfirst ofto totalthe memberstime. above groups were 1.4.41.4.3.Average Average Size'Size ofof ReuseSelection Groups Groups orapproachSimilarIndicatestion large items to"chunks."to the above, groupingin average each both selectioninformation numbermeasure of group.the informa-in conceptualsmall .,DESCRIPTION2. OF"-.DEFINITION MEASURES INFORMATION continued MEASURES . Measures which indicate specific informa- DESCRIPTION = 1 .-i , tion useage 'inthe information categories _ 2.1 Definition Information Selection 0 MeasuresrA_ated indicatingto,"problem the definition"- number of items fromin each the categoryinformation which bank. were selected . 2.1.1 Problem Descriptors Selected .C-2ofHA,,)and-theItems theInformation approachrelated problem Banktotaken tooverall StruCture,be by solved the'designer descriptions (seecategory Appendix 2.1.2 Process Descriptors Selctld , Items°related to specific techniques and 2., 1,3 Overall Requirements Selected ° informationapproaches to(category organizing "B"). and utilizing ...... Items related to the major categories . .. , of Use/ needs (category "C") 2.1.4 General, Requirements Selected . Items related tb more peripheral aspect 2.1,,--5 All-Definition Information Selected \ \ A oftotal,of (categoryproblem the limitations "E"). numbers of and items requirements, in the .. above categories, a gross measure of , definition information utilization. . i ,,, . . .m op--.4 DESCRIPTION2.2 Definition OF MEASURES Information continued Reuse MEASURE Measuresfrequencyof information indicating of item in thesereusethe level. categories,in each of.utilization category; indicating' DESCRIPTION 6 2.2.22.2.1 ProcessProblem Descriptors Reused timesthis ormay a representfew items.retsed many items many reused times. a few 2.2.52.2.42.2.3 GeneralOverallAll Definition Requirements Informat4pn Reused.Reused Reused L . .0" DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION usuallyprimarilytionMeasures useage'in expanding whichrelated theindicate to oncategories .?problemthe specificdefinition, whichdevelopment" informa- are and 3.1.13.1 Development Action Types Information Selected Selection' Items-listingalteZnatives.leading to the alternative identif. ationactivities of solution 3.1.2 Design Considerations Selected whichproblemcriteriaItems (categorychould coveringof which thisbe "G"). performed type,couldvarious modifyingbe problem-solvingbyapplied users specific to any 4' problem considerations (category "H"): a 1 DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES continued MEASURE . .DESCRIPTION 3.1.3 Research Information Selected . Items relted to human factor standards _ , otionshipd\nd psyChological (category man "F". environment , rela- ). . 3.1.4.GeneralnforMation Selected. I \\ -. Items related to previous experience of . designers with similar _problems, . , : (category "r). . , 3.1.5 Aal Development Information , . ° '. . -7 . Selected . 3.2.13.2 Development Action Types Information Reused ReUs'd . _ . .- , 4 . . , 3.2.33.2.2 ResearchDesign Considerations Information. ReusedRe4sed . , ... 3.2.53.2.4 All,Development.InformationGeneral Information Reused' Reused , . 4 o . SOLUTION DESCRIPTION INFORMATION . Measurestion useage which in indicate categories specific which informa-supplement i _ , _ - vidingthe specific broader,t-more solution conceptual elements, aspects,either pro-or . element8.adding more specific details to individual . . - I . . , . .. . ., g .o mtv SelectionDESCRIPTION4.1 Solution OF DescriptionMEASURES continued Information MEASURE DESCRIPTION 4.1.24.1.1 Solution.ConceptsElement Classes Selected. Selected % ofItemsItems elements which which (categorylist describe different "L")different conceptual. ajor types differentapproaches(category aspects to "Z"). be oftaken the vithsolution, regard to . 4,..1.3 Graphic Elements Sele&ted , oftingItems different alternative;which specificcontain Shape drawings elements) configurations, -or illustra- 5-ketche8 4.1.54.1.4 ElementAll.Solution'DeScription Specifications Selected Information Selected ,Items'listing'or characteristics(category different "W5)..(category element "X-Y"). propertie Reuse4.2.2,Solution4:2.1-Element4.2 Solution Description ClassesConcepts Reused Reused Information 4.2.54.2.4 All Element Solution Specifications Description 'Reused -InformationGraphic%Elements Reused Reused lar 5. SOLUTION-ELEMENT.INFORMATION Measuresfic physical.elements which. indicate or the components' useage of inspeci= the 5.1.15,1 Solution Material Element Elements Selection Selected. etc:,elements,Itemssot ution. to which be-1:s:ucheas Used list inealternatiVe food,the-solution clothing, material environ- books, 5.1.2*Furniture Elements Selected Equipmek Elements Selected mentIterilsforMsItems (category Which which lifft list"M-N"). alternative.types7,,oralternative'typesbr furniture "(category "07Q"). 5.1.4 Ancillary-Elements Selected ,forms ofandofItems equipment enclosure, building which (categorylist seiviceswalls,- alternative "R-S')doors,(category windOws,types "T-V"). or etc.,forms, . 5.25.1.5 Solution, All Solution Element Elements Reuse 'Selected 4 5.2.2.Furniture5.2.1 Material. -Elements Elements ReusedReused 4 '5.2.3 Equipment5.2.4Ancillary Elements, Elements reused Reused. a. . "AllAll Solution Elements Wised: SOLUTION. CHARACTERYiTICS . 4°f-theMeasures final which solutions describe produced.by different propertiesthe sub- a. 6.1 Solution Scope Measuresness7orjects. which"detailed in4cate in degreedescribing'the of complete- solul I1.) .1. DESCRIPTION` OF MEASURES continued _ . . ,. . . . MEASURE. . DESCRIPTION 6.1.1.A11 Solution Items Selected . . -r . tionIndicates Description the combined Information totals, Selected of All'Solu- and , . t , - All SolUtion Elements Selected, a gross , . - , -- 'measure .of solution activity. . 6.1.2 # Solution Specification Items . . -: panyingtheIndidates each the drawing numbet inof theitems final listed evaluation, onsolution specification sheet accOm-.- . - elements provided. 6.1.1# Drawing petailS. - includedIndicates onthe the'subject's number of sepai-a-Ee:aspects solution drawing, - . such as door.and window) openings, furni- i . . changeS,ture, partitions, etc. explanatory notes, level . . . . 6.2 Sdlutn Parameters. . . Measures which indicate degree of complexity in"richness" the solution of Solutionconfiguration, thought. relative , , . 6.2.1 Square Feet . the area of the solution spade specified . byeither.as experimenter.the subject, given measured (x100)by subject in orsquarefeet,, estimated '6.2.2 # Room Divisions . .' Indicates. the "breakup" of the -solution , space,- usually by walls, partitiOns, or , . . . furniture, gEoupings...: . , . . 6.2.3 # Functional Areas ,. , . T ' Indicates areas within the solution space , - , . ..* , tiesdesigned as suggested,by for specific Verbal functions notations', or activi-, . . groupings of furniture or- equipment. _ N.) 6.2.4 # Level Changes - . ., sin theforms,Indicates solution balconies, numberspace, of multi-etc. different floors, flbor plat- levels E DESCRIPTIONr OF MEASURES continued $ MEASURE. . . _ DESCRIPTION 7. SOLUTION EVALUATION -... Measures-which indicate the scores given - 7.1 Solution'-Evaluation Criteria, . - "specification'appliedEtyScores evaluators tosheets. onthe individual solution On-different drawingscriteria criteria andas described as _. . in Appendix I-Fl. . l . 7.1.27.1.1 Effective Comprehensive , . . . 7.1.3 Efficient. e.... .4 . , . . . . 7.1.4.Aesthetic - , ; 7.1.67:27.1.5 SolutionComplete Innovative Evaluation ToW.s . Measures,represent the comparative socres . . % . generated as the sum of the evdlUator!s . ianking.and rating scores for the individual ,- .. "'evaluation . . . criteria. 7.2:1 All Criteria Ranking and , _. -- , . , Roating Combined . . . - . . _ 7.2.3'Al7.2.2 4All Ratingaanking Criteria.Criteria , l ' , . - ...... 4 . , ...... n _ . . . . ' . . . N . . - . . !i. Appendixofme.asuresThis lists the'nuMericaIas described inresults, Appendix following 1-1, the the details sequence Experimental ResultS Tables analysisinof the arrangementtext. of variance Significance 0± arethe tablesgiven levels beneathare as given determined-by'th. each in table.Figure .5 -1 ' .6) 0 g. J , ,i'. :77.77,77.7777,,r,di,T:1,.11_q.,,' :. . , )-7,,.: -15;.1.: `..-*T.' ,, -00,. f ob. '(1)()(2).3) ',,)-(4) 5))(6) <7) (F) (9) Total

. . 1.1.1 # Items Selected ,

I. 41('361"3r7 381 37263 1/111 21 23629248' 13 312 II., 24 15622 207h'33,232136 20.21819845-28'.2.2 III.17,.15919..175.204226113 181244195400 28'.212

ilL 27 22526 25.225240`13' 1923322844 30 252 Si ifican,ce: Problems .01. Sub'ects .01 StratxProb .01, 1.1.24 Cards Generated

. 80113. 35 1100651593715 65' 64141696 ( 67 809 II. 67 413211111121622522440 .587447941 ,65 644

1.11..39El 6011111528'5411 605 522442 529

62 64 03 76 60055358r- 58 583435 .661 .Sig: `Problem .01; albjects .01; StratxProb .05

., 1.-1.3 k Frames Reciuired .

I. 85 76 84....821787825760 79194791089. 91: 843.

-1--;' '79 77080 78'81 75979 78 87090186 8 81.8

440 5111 717667740 70 70670069 I 621

U.,'.1,.'67 65 731 68 77275o-7 76 84183781 .83 761 Sig: Strategy :01;Problem.40;. StratxProb .01

1-.2.1 # Items-Reused 'I

I. 9. A- 20 '16- 8110.12 10: 874616 10 12 II. 10IR201111 9ill!100 1084111/1 .IIIInn10 6 107 .10 82 8111111111 ,79- ALL 10116IIIII 91ill10 9 ()Miff 90 99 tig:Problem.101.Subject.10,

1.2:2,# Retse'Occurrances" . 1 I. 10:25 45. .27113 'r:341 20 169 5 20. 14 206 II. 16 7 55: 26 15. 1:20, 12:2164 251'17 187 III 2 8 21 10 13_12 27 18 125 91 9 10* 131

'LL 9 13 40. .21 141 9 27 17 170 6 18 .13 175

Sig: Subject .05 .

29G , 7.777.7777=7: J 287

. fnoo. ,Duwecu; I rob. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5),(6) (7) (8)'.(9) Total-

1.2.3 # Groups Formed . -241252 207133,.94.102 110121 96138' 11:.145 76 84)99 97160 '11 114 II.' 11 . 73 141107 68 M. 49 73 92104 96102 .99146 11. 101

;IL -97129111! 147115 83 93 97107 97E: 120' Sig: Problem .05; Subzject .05;'StratxProb .10

'1.2.4#Runs FGiuied

I I

34 26. 26 26 34 I.III 191112 24 1111 . 161111 . 18 24 36'2411111 36E111124 32 '31 25 ° 36 28 26 291111! 31 24111111 Sig:Problem.10;StratxProb.10

1.5.1 #;.ftelationships . 1112771E11E1M65 9 10011 '2 246 1 1 4 MI 9e.55 24 133 9:5 32 57 101E11 0 1111 14544166 118. 77 40 82,66 89 76 143 10 96

1 k '4 131125228 161105 4673,',75 99 73.186 118 Sig: Problem .10;,Subject.05.

1.3.2 # Dispositions. .

I. 11/234 '24 19 119 95-10'10 109 1 118 II. 12c 7611 lo 105 69 27 6 5o 75 57 61 77 III 32.71 87 98 8 42 6 88 61

ALL 8 12212 .111 9s 84 76 8. 67 5851 85

Sig: Strategy. .05; Probl.em.05;.StratxProb .05 ,

1.3.3 # Verbal Notations 4 NM 51111MIE 7 0 1. 8 \ 10 4 7 II. 21 1 17 1 13 1510 4 9

'III 27 1611111 6 ID

ALL 11 11 9 14 9 3 3 6 8 Sig: Problet,.10

404 ,

29-7 T '7- . "--717"1"" T -71 777 j ( 288 )1-01h-t - - ..5 _0 . Prob. 1.J,3"0. Ji")' .00L. -' ( (1)" (2) (.:',) (it.) (5) ( ) (7)(P.) (9) Total' 1.3.4 # Graphic Notations

I. 1 0 0 0 3 8 6 6 , 0 0 3 1 2 TI. 4 13 3 6 13 3 7 1 5 211111 6

111. 6 11' 2 6 I) 719 '5, 1.1 9 10. 911111 fiLL 8 2 4 6 13 5 8 Sig: Problem .01; Subject '.05

. 1%4.14 Selection Groups .90121100 104 89 50 18 52 59. 74.90

-. '46 53 38 46 49 59 17 42-43r 65 83 50 II. 26 39 75 47 47 46 14 36 53 50 91 6 49 54 65 62 52 16 43 52 63 88 59 U .JJ Sig: Problem 01; Subject .01; StratxProb :05

,1.4.2 tReuse Groups .

38120152103 144 44 84 '57 62. 22 48 68 68 19't90 92 56 -9 57 41 49 26 6 60 III. 18 32 72 41 51 3, 83 57,4244 . 48 r7. = 41 57138 79,50 3U 75 52 51 31 59 Sig: Subject .05

1.4.3 Average Size of Selebtidn Groups ,

I. 3 ' '6 . 4 4 61111111111 II: 'NM 8 611111111111111,111111 III 4 3 4 4-, 8 6- 5 4 MEM ALL 5 3 4 4 5 5 4MN= Sig: Sub j.- ct .05

.. . 1.4.4 Average Size of Reuse Groups '_

I. 3 2 3 3 . '3 4, 3 3 3.4 . 3 IT. 3,6 .3 4- 3 2 5 2 4 4

alt 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 2' ,2

1' 1 i 3 4 '3 4 °2 4 3 7777 4'ri)Tfr.', '/{1 t. 1-(.illL...t 2'00. -W1)c.:-; 1-'rob. (1) (2) (3) (Li.) (5) (7)

1 12 8 1

111. 1111111111111 12 6111111111 11 81111111 8

i kTL L 10 8 8. Si.: Sub'ect .05 ,,...- 2.1.2 ProcesS.reqcri tors Selected .:

. , . 12 14 1 10 , 0 .18

1 121111 I.Ili 21111 0111 11111 9 imiimom , 5 412111:11111 1111111' 11111,1111 -1 0 011112

tL.L 3 1 1 0- . . 8 13 '. Sig: Strategy .05; Problem .10; Subject .05

tv 2.1.3 Overall Requirements Selected

'1 1 6 1 1' 116 26 2. 19

5 - 22 16 2. 17 !ill.A 1 '20 alluvillis1,1111 25 10111111111 21 21111111111 17 20 21 18 :ED111E111!1(111111111 7i Sig: Subject.011StratxProb_.05 ,

2.1.4 GeneralRequiretents Selected , ';.....4 .I.Mile g . 16 1 1 1 13 II..1111 4111111111 Ail..17iiii I 12 Mill 31111 14 5 11E 21 1 12

ALL 11 5 8III! 18 17 12 Sig:. Subject,..10' , 2.1.5 All Definition Infortation Selected

3"49 64 70 '611 I. 6rIn-Mir17 56. Eli 4 43 III 2 .2-1111111111/11111A ; AwAAWAII 62511708 6 42 -mow L,5, ALLIIIII 3( AIM 1ENRON4 Si : Stimtegy.0 ; Subject.05

299 ';''' ''-'7"7 7, , . '' ( ,, , ! ,,_ 290

-1clec:;r; - ''Prob. (1) (2) (7,) Ii) (5) (-) . (7) (F1)(9) Tote].

2.2.1 ProblemDescriptorsReused 0-0 0 0 3 0 29 -11 0 0 11 IT 2 0 '0 1 7 0 11 .6 3 0 -7 3

III. 0 0 0 '0 6 0 9 5 0 0 7 2

;II 1 0 0 1 5 0 16 1 0 8 ?, 3

. Sip:Subject 4.01- .

2.2.2 Process Descriptors Reused . ve c I. 1 1 1 .1 0 0 .-:;1 10' 0 9 IL 0 0 0' 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 16 ' III. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'12 0 4 1

0 . 0 0 ILL 0 0 d loi

2.2.3 verh11 ReqU5,rements Reused -- - I. 0t14 -0 5 0 0 59 20 0 0.21 10 II. 6 33 416 14 5 34 18 22 11 0 11 1,5 III. 7 3 12 249 21 4 :4 4

- III, 7 13 8 9 2 47 19 . 12 Sig: fi,ubect .01

2.2.4 General Reauiremants Reused

T. 111 . 5 0 0 7. 0 3 II. 4 0 0 3__ b 9 4 o 0 0 , III. 0 0 0 0'0 0 10 3 0 1

ALL 1 4 1 21 1 0 9 3 1 0,0 0 Sig: Subject .01 . . 2.2.5 kll De.finition IfoFfflation Reused 25, r 26, , I. 1 4 10 3 0126 ii, 9 -A) 41 17

II. 14, 8-35, 18 25- 5 5'- 28 28 12 21. -20 :22 14 III. 2 0 - r'.; 3 18 2 68 29 4 17 11 11

ILL E 11 1" 10_15 2 P.3 33 14.10 24. 16 20

LiT- ;,tibject .01 . .,.:

3 G -r----:,,------,', 7.--c '291 ....,

a* (")(i) (4) () (6) 0) (F'.)(9) ' e::',..,elcote

t li, ,.-) -4,..., ) 1. . 2527 ,...,: __ 1. 11 ',T/i : , 2 10 10 1'1 3Q30 32 31 '20 .1f, -il 1.3 25 22 16 7$ J ; , '151 11 1917 1 -;, 9 222429 25 1C. .11 - ''2 1. i-i-oblem..10.; Subject .01; StratxProb.05 'I..'i) H ''n (jC1i_C'er2tions ;-,-,elected 7/! 50 _ _.. ill 2.1 125 233625 3 , -),_.-- ',--: 7 ; "' :- ' - 17 40 .--.' 20 17 36.34 39 , 7il. 1' 27: 23.24 23 2939 .7,2 24

.--,,-, ..1.1. -...,, 2. 2222 /21 335046 36 c,

e :.1 : -7 rt,T , .40; }-±oblemr-0 .01; Subject .01 ;StrabcFrob.01

.01. . ' ,,r,z,- 1.71:'077-latiOr 0e1riet00 0 ';''C:''', 1 40 GI.>H ; 154. 20,M ..L.-----,-, .11. 17' 'C T 1 C 6"- 24 r '

.T.,:1( , 51 25 20 rii. ,-- 2223 0

i ,., OIL ";i; 55,1 2415 652 c_-_,-. c: . \ c4, -, . ':^1 ,.-:-1 infor,tion ,',olect'eC --iv 4, c e I. 'i , e , 1 20 15 1 o'S U. '7' l'i , 1: C 1 ') 12 1 1 10 ,- 11 17. : ' ThIl. . 1" Alli 11 11 10 .., 1 -.,72., -,-,; 13 16 ALL , 1, _. 1410 9<20

I,..( To :.(,.?-1-t; Infory:ation SEklected

-, rf7.4,,icy, 2( 1. -' '1 ..1, C,g '.'0 C140 , 105int'

I .. 104 C. U. , c 6124 40 7575651C3 CY115 55 7 2. 71 5P.127 8 79 1 b c, 99 clo : 11r .71! '72 Y2

r!: ',1,-; -; - , , .C1; 0tra-txPro.1) .01

301 ... _ 292 ------T-7---- ,_ --)----, , ,--, , .i) !tic c.,.-, . .1.?rob. ()(') (77) (405) (:-: ) (7) (F) ( ) 7otrl .. . 2.0_O: ,,(- use-.- , r `14 24 0 25 20 .--,--, II. /. . PY, 10 c -' 7)2 12 ;-,',- c.4. I :11. i i r'i '1; 6 l': 0 0

. i T. '1/21 '--)1 5 35 1 C , :-.Lro-rlo,:-. ,,-u oct.01 ;btratxProb.10

.'. 1,c, 7i (,:nr.r-7i .1 crat,:.ons Reused 9 . ;'7 1 ' 1 7 -' 31 1 0 11 LI ',---)1 t, . ,,, . 11:',. r; 1 0 2C 22 L-' 2060 TIT. ( 11 0 2:- 54 2749 5 3 1; 1`; ..r-7 , '-' 1 1/i 6 1 r- 14 o''' '._I 1.., c ( .;.4 . c.c

i,-:,...::::ect..' . . . ,r: -r... c: Infomntion het sed

-,- . fi, .'--_ 0 0 0 o \,6 0 0 1`

II. ':.'21 0, ) -, 2 0 0 0 0,,, , . III. ) 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . --,--., , '.1:L -1 '1 0 1 0 0 0 0

-4:-.otcf.::,-.'.:. ; :L-s.,'oblen.01;Subject.05;btratxProb.01 '..::'.1.:icr.r.- rna Infoymation iloused .1. 11 1 441:17 0 19 3 .a 33 1,5 13 11 II. 1', :'; 0 2 > 1,7 0 5 10 III 2'72 17 o -15 iLi /J,I, 4 ' 1 :' 11 2/1 Til 3 12 5 5 2 10

. r - , . ,]..1De.,,'(,lo-TientLE.111:-:eci ,

11(1'-'),124 4 37 73 55 158 33 )111 45 75

11. ,1 c,--; 22 - 117 16 2 (::2 33100 13 11 41 64

21i 1' 1 ;- .27 27 c71 57 48 72 10- 3 28 35

P.TJ h( CC-, 1`-, ( P 3r 33 -,71' 45 77 19 19 38 5 c

;A : ±-rol-;Trjh.)r,-.; Subject.01;StratxProb.10

3 0 f;-, 293 .14X1.1;_2. ,.,, i ,h,.., , . I)--,, ., rob. (1) (2) (7)) (II) (5) (6) (7) (p.) (9) Totill 6.1.1 Elepc-nt Clases Selectdti

I. 27 136 35 32 9 23 3 12 16 26 44 29 24 TI. 0 1F. 9 4 3 0 2 6 0 26 11 7 III. 9 7 14 10 8 5 0 4 8' 5 32 16 10

U.L' 15 14. 22 17 ? 10 1 6 10 10 34 ir .14 jr Fvoblem .01; Subject .01 ..

4.1.2 Solution CcTcepts. Selected

I. 29 9 32 23 41 30 39 37 15 37 31 28 29 , II. ,35 -. 7 26 22 49 39 33 40 35 51 40 42 35 III. 17 13 17 16 36 26 31 31 30 26 20' 25 24

ALL 26 10 25 20 '42 32 34 .3.6 27 38 30 32 . 29 Sig:. Strategy .10; Prob 'ern-4; Subject .10

4.1.3 Graphic ElementsSelectd.'

F.' 1077 8119071 5 12 A 6 I. '3 8 . 7 10 0 8[ '6 1 12 3 A

_ 2 2 6 1 3 2 tn. 1 ' °. 2 0 4 \._TJT, 6 Sig: Problem ..10

4.1.4 Element .Specifications Selected ,

I. j 2 9 27 13 a0 12 0 4 1 5 11E II. 13 6 4= 8 0 P 0 3 0 c 3 4

III 0 1 -15 5 0 , C 0 C 2C & 4

ALL 5 5 15 0 21 lii Sig: Subject .05 4.1.5 All Solution Description Information Selected I. 69 y) 101 76 61 7442 59 33 73 94 67 67 II. 6Z 21 49 46 63 50 41, 51 42 66 74 61 53 III. 27 24 48 33 L 35 32 37 43 37 73 '51 40

IL *-54 35 66 52 56 .53 38 49 39 59 .80 59 53 Sig: Problem .01; Subject .05

3O. -:219-4- '' ,,*.,77T-7''7, IT '. ! .7.-,. ---', on. 1,1.1o;IUCos' . _Prob. (.i) (f ) ( ) 0) (5) (6) (7).(F,) (9). Tot0_

1 4.2.1 Element Classes Reused

I. 14 10 64 29 5 6 6 1 22

II. 0 43 17 2 0-0 1 0 0 221111! 8 III. 5 4 52 20 12 '7 0 6 2 22 12

1,TT, 9 5 53 22 6 4 1 4 14 3 3211111 14 Sig: Problem .01;Subject .01' SratxProb .10 4.2.2Solution Concepts Reused gill 0 1 49 0 9115 6 25 0 22 1. 29. 1111111 2141 65 7 11 61 49 83 6 4211E 53

III 0 .- 5 17 40 18149 69 19 21 31111! 34

U..1, 17 3 67 29 55.23108 62,42 9 221111 39 Sig: albject .05 . , . . .,,4.2.3 Graphic Elements Reused

1.. 0 11 0 4- 1' 2 0 1 0 0 0 2,

i I. 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 1.

III. 0 0 0 0 0. 5 0 . 1

1 0 3 0 1 1 , 0 4 0 1 2 1

. 1 , , -4.2.4 Element Specifications Reused

I. 14 1 21 12 0 10 0 3 0 II. 0 0 .15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

-III 0 0 1, 0 0 0 0' .8 1

ALL 5 0 12 '6 0 3 0 . 1 0 0 3 Sig: Subject .05

. 4.2.5 All Solution ,Description Informatidri Reused

I. 28 25 9,3 50 55 57118 . 77 64 74 .48 58

TT. 61 2199 e,7 7 11 65 52 83 10'---74 56 65

III 5 9 3.3 16 56 149 22 28 33 28 40

ALL 31 1?110 51 63 31111 68 56 15 60 /1/1 54 Sir: Subject .05

304 ILLEJZf.-177.7.77.1-17-., VE:1=1".,', 295

- 1.,--LAL.:. ,.. 11,-.;---).L1,1-1- 5 S 'TYE? .eroo. Ekil*ects Prob..

(1) '2) (3) . () (5) (6) (7./2ilotal 5.1.(I'Matei'ialElements Selected

I. 4 41 9 18 1.9 4 5 21 0 65 29, 17

II. 37 .0 ,5 14 41 3 0 54 19 16 .,-

II. 1 20 0 . 10 1 0 4 0 1 61 21. 10

4.L 14 20 5 1 17 4 1 8 *. 0 60 2 1 Sig: SUbject .01 :

i,,--., 5.1.2 Furniture Elements Selected I. 28 17 14 20 11 21 0 11.20'20 25 22 17

2I. 15 6 9 10 4 11 0 5., 5 . 0 11 5 7

III. 14 11 11 12 15 10. 0 1 8 4 0 12///5 9

ALL 19 11 11 14 10 14 8 10 7 -"f6' 11 11 Sig: Problem .01; Sibject .01; StratxPrOb7:65 ) / . - Equipment Elements Selected 4p5.1.3 45 30 25, 33 4 15-0/6 10 1,3 43 22 21 ;I. I. 0 8 8 5 18 8 13 0 38 17 .10

III. 7 16?11 11 9 24' 11. 19 0 12 10 11

ALL 17 18 15' 10,,15 0 8 14 4 31 16 14 Sig: Problem .:1O; Suject.10

5.1.4 Ancillary Elem'ents Selected ,

I. 19 26 17.` 21 18 21. O. 1 0 .8 6 1 J

-II. 16 5'10 10 13 16 9 1 7 32 . 13 12-

III.10.10 6 9 .1. 12 0 -4 18 32 23' 24'..12

ALL 15 14 11 13 11 16 3 10 6 16 20 14, 12 Sig. StratxProb .05

.. ,0 5:1.5 All SolutionElements Selected I. 9611465 92 34'66 4 35 '51 41134 771 68 II. 6819 32 40 76 36 40 22 7135 55 45

. 42 III 2 57,28 . 39 35 ,47 0 27Al 33108 6,

ALL1 65p.63 42 57 48 50 4 .34 38 27127 64 52

Sig: Problem .05; Subject .01 . ..

305 _r_. ,..---'7=7.177777,77..77_, t TIM, T.P.f.TI ,-.,-,r 296 ,-,,....,7", l')--.;.- 5- iYPliP lirOb. Sub n 4cus erob. (1) (2) `0) (4) (5) (6) . (7)(8) (9) Total" 5.2.1 Material Elements Reused-

I. 0 14 0 5 0 0 7 . 2 ''0 0 15 7 ""-11114"' F .'0 1 0 3 0 0, 0 .0 /0 0,1. f III. 1 24- 0 8 13 0 '0 4 8 4 i . I AIL 0 13 3 5 4 0 2 2 0 1;' 17 6,_ 5

5.2.2 FUrniture Elements Reused I. , 0 17 53 23 10 12 0 7 17 6 .2 8'13 II. 0 3 52 18 1 0 0 0 1 0 33 11 10

III. 2 13 32 'V 19 18 0. 12 6, 0 13 6 11

ALL 1 11 46 19 10 0_ 0 7 16 9 11

, Sig: Subject ..01

5.2. 3. Equipment Elements Reused ,

2 I 0,- 6 68 25" 3 15 0 6 8 8 .1 6 12'4 25 12 I. 0 1 21 V 15 0 0 5 . 11 0 74 5 III. 8 1 1 7 7 0 12 0` 4 9 0 6 5

ILL. 0 '7 32 13 6 9 0 ' 6 '2 [27 12 10 , a,

5.2.4 Ancillary Elements Reused. I. 16 12 11 9 17 0 III. 17 4 10 1011 0 0 4 .0 0,38 1 III: 0 5 1 2 5 10 0 5.12 32 14 ALL 7 8,8, 8 8 9 0 6.411 17 11 o

5.2.5AllSolution Elements Reused

.< I. 5 53133 64.22 44 7 '4 25 154? 29 39 II. li? 8 9 3927 9 2 0145 49 ;32 III 5640 _33,37 40 0 2 .27 36 41 35 31

/,LL 9 39 89 .2+5 29 28 2 20 18 1778 38 34 Sig:Subject .05

306 .n., ,..1.7.7717777777:77777.7=71 297 1 ",,-, ,....:: 77-7--.P.r1L lir° o . , ,Allvec-Is ob. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) '-(7) (3) (9) Total 6.1.1 All Solution Items Selected

I. 16417366168 95140 46 94 .84114233 110 135 II. 13 40 81 85139 86,50 92 64 73209 115 97 In. 59 81 76 '72.79 82 32 64 84( 70181'112- 83

ALL 119409.8108 108104103 43 83,77 86208 124 105 Sig; Problem .01; Subject .01; StratxProlp .10 V 6.1.2 # Solution Specification Items

I. 744544'54 20 37 11 23 23 29 .57 36 38

II'. 2430 26 27 37139 .17- '31 20.16 60 32 30

'III%.13 34 5.0 26'3348 10 , 30,51 1 30 37 31 kIlL' 37 36 33 36 3041 13 28 3'l 2549 35 33

6.1.3 # Draiving Details i 7 16 14 .12-23 15 13 17 13 12.18 14 15 II. 15 35A6 22 23* 22 18:21 12 14 16 14 19 III. 9 18 11 13.16-20 13 :16 14 16.10 .1.3 _14

I L L 10 23 1 16 21 9 15- 1- --:14 -T5 14 16 Sig. Problem..405;Subject.05 6.2.14;Square Feet (x10) J. 2 5 3 3 4 2 8 5 4 0 4 3 4 20 23' 32 )5 12 12 .20 41 II: : 617p40 72 54 12 III. .4 4 .7 5 6 11 40 19 13 16 5 .11

ALL 460 .17 27 21 11 24 19 17 9 7 11 19 Sig: Problem .10

6.2.2 # 400m Divisions .

I. '4 2' 2 .3 4 II. 6'15 5 9 15 6 6 9 3 5 4 III. 2 2 3 6 3 .3 3

ALL 4 6'3 4 7 5 7 6 '2 3 .

Sig: Problem .104 ,

.307 0

77.77777.717-T17 298 .,--7757i7P. ,Ju );; cc us rrob. (1) ( ) (3) (4) (5)'(6) (7) (8) (9) To'hal

6.2.3 # Functional Areas .

I. 5 5 3 4.7 3 11 71 16 8 6 I. 15 8 11 17 12 9 1 ,8 9 14 10 11 III: 3 6 5 5 5 711 8 5 9 7 6

1 LEL 6 9 5 7 10 7 10 9 6 6 13 8 8 Sig: Problem .05

6.2.4 # Level Changes .

, i 2 1 1 1' 2 1 i 2 2 '2 4 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 q 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Sig:Problem .10 . 7.1.1 CO **WSIVE I. 6 3 3 4 68 6 75 . II. 6 t 6 .5 2 4 7 _. 4 7 3 6 5

5 5 6 3 4 7, 5 6.. 4 3 4 5

...LL 6 4 5 5 3 4 . 7 5 4 . 6 Sig:Subject .01;StratxProb .05

7.1.2 TTFECTIVE , ,.= 1, 6 4 -A 4 28.4697 6 5 II.555 5 5 7 = III [ 5 5 3 8 5 6 .4 3 4 5.

ALL 6 4 4 5] _.) 3 8 5 6 7 5 Ci, 5 Sig: Subject .01. StratxProb .05 .

7.1.3 EFFICILUT ,

1.4524518569775. II. 6 i 6 7 5 2 5- 4 2 4 5 111.855 6 3 5,8 5 5 5 2 4 5 ALL 6 6 4 5 4 3 8 5 5 6 5 Sig:Subject.05;StratxPrbb .05 .

30 0 ..C., ...F7-7771 ,i.1. !...J _.1 ,j1 _I ice. l;L): j rI"1.1L.,!a: 5-.6T.LF- Pro o . 7.7-57:76s P.rob, (1) (2) (3) (4)-(5) (6) (7)-(). (9). Total

. 7.1.4AESTHETIC

I. 5 7 6 . II. 6 5. 6: 1 5 7 4 5 5 3 .4 5 III. rJ 4 5 5' 5 4 2 4 /,.5 L. 5 AIL 6 5 3 5, 8 6 3 5 '5 . , Si...::,Subject -701; StratxProb .01 7.<1.5IltOVATIVE

I. . 6 1#4 6.. 4 8

II. 5 5 1 6 3 5. 4, 4, 6. 5 3 III. e, 3 6 6 4 2, P 3 4

ALL 7 5 a..- 4 7 6 4 6

40.._:_. . .

7.1.6 COI'LPLET.L.!: - ` i I. '6 3 4:\' k 1".. 2 8 4 5 9 6 6 3 I. .P 4 ° 7 2 3.6 4.6 4 5 III. 6 6'3 3 F. 5 7 3 3 a. 1L L 7 4 6 6 2 3 7`,Li- 6 . 6 4 "5 0_ Sig:Subject.01 . 7.2.1ALL CRITERIA I. 31 20 23 27 16 1645 39 5134 41 31 II.40 33,36 36 1522 39 25 34-35721 30 31 III,45'27'31 340.20 2346 '30 37 24,16 . 26 30 31 ALL 3829'.':30, 33 17 2043 27 37 37 23 .32 8ip, :Subject.01;StratxProb.01

7.2.2ALL RINhING CRITERIA . . I. 30 25 21 25-141445 "24 3F52 32 41 3o Ti.4234 3P, 3:,), -.16 23'41 27 3 36 21 31 '32 III.'15 27 31 34 202347 30 382316 26 30 ,

30 33 17 . 20'zi-4 37 L 3723 32 31, ALL r.. 39 29 . Sig:Subject.701;StratxProb.01

309 ,' -,!'"1:77'7' ,,,.T.,(7,'", TA, i.,,,;, . 300 1 1').--U1.,1 '-3-.421).c ._,J? :1-)c). ,f,uoect,F.., r. (1) c) (..) (4) (5)i(6) (7). (F,)'(9) .\ Total 7.2.13.,1, RATEIG CRITERIA

I.1:'f 52 T 31 27 ' 0 5 2 17 17 45 .26 39 50.-35 I. 37i31 35 34 14 20 36-23 33' 33 20 29 29 TH. 44 26 31 34 20 22 45 29 35 24 15 25 29 32 30 ALL . 37 28 30 32 1,7 2() 42 26 36 36'23

Sic": SuNect .01-; StratxProb .01. . , ..

6 ,

A AppendixThisthose provides shown'in1-3 a seleFtedFigure 5°2, series demonstrat±hg of graphs similarthe changes to Major Interaction Graphs thecorrespondingThestrategiesin three scores three problems overproblems (5,_10, tothree asthe aredescribed-in15step) testorder indicated sessions ofonthe presentation, theby givehfor romanreport. the measures. numerals,three and test. =catedareaboveThe measuresindicated bythe a graph,"solid" are on deScribedeach andline 10the grapi.= -step, 5-step:,'rangeand by Strategiestheir and atypea code"broken""dashed" of arenumber, measure indi- line,line = 15-step. The , applicable:actionsignificance,levelfor is provided beneath strategy-problem each graph, whereinter-

-4 30X

lop 1 (1.2.4)

5 15 .15 0 - ": o 0 1.4 -5 10 0.1 0 II III, II III PROBLEM PROBLEM Interactionp = .10 Interactionp ...10

200 (1. .2 ) 20 (1w3.3) /15 lft

0 II III II, III PROBLEM, PROBLEM Interactionp =,.

20 (1.3.4) (1.4.1)

0 a

4J 0 1.4 4./ a+ 5. 0 ., g ..:, 15 0 ,- .-1 10 . .., .., 5 .4.) , V 15 a.. ."7411"".. ro lo .., 5.4 m

0 II a III. I II III _PhOBLEM PROBLEM Interactionp = .05

rt 312 -- selectedDesign, considerations 0.information selectedAll definition O. selected Overall requirements ri.736 OHrd H H OII H (1,5. n selected Research information . 0cn, Allinfortiaticin definition reused Cm0 . H 0 reused Overall requirements H 7/ . ' wo 200 (3.1.5) 00 ro 4.) U 0 .0 4)r-4 O 0 4) O 0 04 0 0,0 O 0 0 -0 r4 5 41 4-1 41 4.) 3:

r) 'CI 15 0 0 r-4 r4 r-4 4 .1 0 0 1 II. III a PROBLEM- PROBLEM Inteaction p = .01 Interactionp = .10

(3.2.4)

15 10 5

III . 'PROBLEM PROBLEM

(4/1.2) 100

10 1.0 U) VI 5 0 0 II III PROBLEM

(

'314 # Room divisions 4 Drawing details Ancillaryselected e1erents t_t X O it H rs) L "1 _N 1 1_4 O Nr1 f Functional areas 0r\) # Square feet O 4 0 reused Furniture elements 0 'I ThisAPPENDIX lists,'the J major references used in developing the INFORMATION BANK BIBLIOGRAPHY Theindicated,sourcesinformation general which areasfollowing banks were of for described applicationthe this citation,, experiment, generally of eachby code inincludingreference Appendilette specificare C-1. (A) Bar= andCriteriaDesign Design,(E) Standards, =Principles Officeand Research, and-Conl and Techniques, (G) = Architectural DesiVI Handbooks,(D) = EducatiOn4 Facilities Design, erence _Room Design, (C) = Human Factors Criteri (B) = Behavi (F) = Snack articlesforgraphytional"ffice,including details). are'from agpectsreferenced collectionsand ofeating humanonly listedfacility byfactors editor, in standards,design.themain sae main bibl4(Note: educa-listing C O 307

INFORMATION BANK BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alexander, D., "A City is not a Tree", Design, February,.

1966, pp. 46-55. (A) .

2. Alger, J.R. M., Hays, C, V., Creative S1ynthesis in Design, Englewood Cliffs, N..J., Prentice-Hall, 19.4. (A)

3. Bennett, E.; Degan, J.; Spiegel, J., Human actors in Technology, N. Y., McGraw {fill, 1963.. (C)

4. British Standards Institution, Anthropometric Recommenda- tions for Dimensions of Non-Adjustable Office Chairs, Desks, and Tables, London,. 1959. (C)

A 5. Branch, M. C., Planning: Aspects and Applications, N. Y., Wiley, 1966. (A,B)

6: Brookes, M. J., "American Views on Design Education", Design, December, 1966, pn. 52-53.(A: B)

7. Brookes, M. J., "A Maze of Contradictions", Progressive Architecture, November, 1969, pp. 130-131. (B) 8. Brower, S., "The Expressive Environment", Architectural Fo'rum,' April, 1966, pp. 38-39.. (B)

9. Callender, J. H,, Time-gaver. Standards: A Handbook of Architectural Design, N. Y., McGraw-Hill, 1966. (G) 10. Carr, R., "Desk Dividers", Design, January,,1969, pp. 38-39. (E)

11. Chapanis, A., Research Technigues,in Human Engineering, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 195*99.- 12. Cuddon, R., "Office Furniture", Architectural Review, November, 1966, pp. 369 -370. (E) 13. Daniels, E. G., "Changes in FOod Service Technology and How They Affeq Design ",.Architectural Record, August, 1966, pp. 145-148. (F)

14. Dreyfus, H., The Measure of Man, N.. Y., Whitney Library,

. 1960...(C)

15. Dreyfuss, II.,"People Come' in Assorted Sizes", Human Factors, August, 1966, pp. 273-277. (C)

16. Eder, W. E., "Definitions and Methodologies", in S. Gregory, 1966, 115p.19-31. (A)

17. Floyd, W. F.; *Roberts, D. F., Anatomical, Physiological

31"i 308.

and Anthropometric Principles in the Designof Office Chairs and Tables, London, British Standards Institu- tion, 1958. (C)

18. Foxhall, W. B., "Design Elements of FoodServices for Colleges and Universities", Architectural Record, April, 1962, pp. 184-188. (F)

19. Frame, S. J.; McLeod, J.'W., Buildingsand Facilities for the Mathematical Sciences,Washington, D. C., Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences,1963., (D)

20. Gregory, C. E., The Managementof Intelligence: Scientific, Problem Solving and Creativity, N.Yu, McGrv-Hill, 1967. (A, B)

21. Handler, A. Bu, "The_Place of SocialScience in Architec- ture", Architectural Science Review,December, 1964,, pp. 124-135. (B)

22. Horowitz, H., "The Program's The Thing",AIA Journal, May, 1967, pp. 94-100. (A)

23. Hughes-Stanton, "Selling by Machine", Design, aeptem ber, 1961, p.81. (F)

24. Johnson, K. E., "The Office EnvironmentalPeople Prefer", AIA Journal, February, 1970,pp. 56-58.(B, E)

25. JOnes, J. C.,'"A Metnod of Systematic Design",in Jones and Thorriley, 1963, pp. 53-73. (A)

26. Jones, LI.C., "Design Methods Compared 2: Tactics", Design, September, 1966, pp. 46-52. (A)

27. Kelly, S., "Office Design", In4iustrial Design,February,, 1966., (E)

28. Kiyoshi, 1., "Psychological Phenomena and BuildingDeSign", Building Research, July-August, 1965,pp. 9-11. (B)

29. Knapp, M. A., "Planning for Dining'and ServingAreas in Nursing Homes", Hospitals, November, 1966,pp. 1407142: (F)

30. McCormick, E. J., Human Factors Engineering,N. Y., McGraw- Hill, 1964, (C)

31. McVey/ G. F., Environment for Learning, Madison,Wisconsin, Multimedia Instructional Labbratory, 1969.(B, C)

313 309

32.44anser,'J., "Furniture for an OffiCe Landscape", Design, March, 1969, pp. 46 -63. (E)

33. Martin, D. J., The Ir(terpretive Classroom,'Instructional

Research and Development Paper, No. ZeNrarin County, ( California,'Marin College, Office of Instructiona Research and Developmpnt. (D)

34. Meade, D., "The Odd Ergopomic.Inch and Why it Matters in the Office", Design, April 1966,pp. 38-44. (C) 35. Morgan, C. T.; Chapanis, A.; Cook, J. S.; Lund, M. W., Human En ineerin Guide to E ui Ment,Desi n,N. Y. McGraw- 'Hill 1963. (C) "- ' 36. National Stationaiy and Office Equipment Association, How to Plan your' Office Layout: A Guide for Planning A , Mbdern, Efficient Office, Washington, D. C., 1953. (E) 37.. Nelson, G., Problems of.Design,'N. Y., Whitney Library of Design, 1965. (A,B)

88.'Norberg-Schultz, C:,.Intentions In Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 196'6. (B)

39. Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination, N. Y., Scribner, 1963. (A)"

40. Papyannis, T.; Venezia, A., "The Future of Architecture", Arts and Architecture, November, 1965, pp. 18-22. (B)

41.. Parr, A. E., "Emr,irbnmeltal Design and.Psychology", Land- scape, Winter, J964-65, pp. 15718.' (B) 42.* Pye, D. W., The Nature'of Design, N. Y., Reinhold, 1964. (A, B) 43. Ramsey, C. G.; Sleeper, H. R., Architectural Graphic Standards, 6th Edition, N. Y. Wiley, 19.70. (G) 44. Rapoport, A.;,Kantd, R. E., "Complexity and-Ambiguity in Environmental Design", AlA Joirnal, July, 1967,' pp. 210-221. (B)

45. Saphier, M., Office Planning and Design, N.. Y., McGraw- Hill, 1968. (E)

46. Sommer, R.', Personal Space, EngleWoqd Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 1969. (B) r,-

31 310

47. Studer,, R. G., "Some Aspects of the Man-Environment Interface", in Coates and Moffett, 19,69, pp. 77-100.

48. Studer; R. G.; Stea, D., "Architectural Programming, Environmental Design and Human Behavior",-J. of Social Issues, '12,2,4, 1966,.pp. 127-136.1(B)

. Thornley, D. "Design Methods in Architectural Edu- cation ", in Jones and Thornley, 1963, pp. 37-51. (A)

50. University of Wisconsin's, Department of Planning and Contruction, "Building-Program: Center for Research on Mental Retardation and Related Aspects of Human Development", Madison, University. of Wisconsin,,Octo- ber, 1967.(B, D)

51. University of Wisconsin, Department of Planning and Construction, "Building Program:,,Animal Science Building", Madison, University of Wisconsin! Aptil, 1968. (B, D)

I : , 52. Vermilya; H. P., "Vending Machines Work for Food Service ", Architectural Record; May,,1963, pp. 194-'196. (F) 0 53.'Woodson, W. E.; Conover, D. W., Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers, 2nd Ed., Berkeley, U.,of Calif.

Press, 1964.(C .

54. Zevi,. B., Architecture as Space, N. Y., Horizon Press,' 1957, (B) o 55.1twicky, F.; Wilson, A. G.,'eds.,- New Methods in Thought and Procedure; Contriblitionstothe Symposium on Methodol- ogies, N.,Y.,-Springer-Verlag, 1967. (A)

56. "Coming: The Automated Salesroom",'Architectural.Forum, December, 1968, pp. 122-123. (F) ,57. "A Designer's Thoughts do Eating Out', Design, April,

1967, p.. 20. (F), ..

1 58. "From Grid to Growth ", Progressive Architecture, November,

. 1969, pp. 100-109. (E)

59: "Metric Office Furniture" Design, August, 969, pp. 30-31.

60. "Motorway Service.Area", Architectural Design, January, 1969, pp. 19-20. (F)

61. "Room for Self-Criticism", Progressive Architecture, NOVeM7. her, 1969 pp., 122-123. 1E)

62. ''The {Trend in Vending", Design, August, 1968, p. 1 . (F),.

50-1660-AA40100