Design Patterns from Empirical Studies in Computer-Aided Design

  • Rongrong YuEmail author
  • John Gero
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 527)


This paper presents the results from studying the effect of the use of computational tools on designers’ behavior in terms of using design patterns in the conceptual development stage of designing. The results are based on a protocol study in which architectural designers were asked to complete two architectural design tasks with similar complexity, one in a parametric design environment and one in a geometric modeling environment. To explore the development of design patterns during the design process, the technique of 2nd order Markov model was used. The results suggest that there were more design patterns adopted in the parametric design environment than in the geometric modeling environment. Also, there are more design patterns related to structure in the parametric design environment than in the geometric modeling environment.


Design pattern Markov model Protocol studies 



This research has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant CMMI-1161715. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Science Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, S.-C.: The role of design creativity in computer media. In: Architectural information management, 30th eCAADe conference, Helsinki, Finland (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell, W.J.: Beyond Productivity: Information Technology. Innovation and Creativity, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black, A.: Visible planning on paper and on screen. Behav. Info. Technol. 9(4), 283–296 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bilda, Z., Demirkan, H.: An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Des. Stud. 24(1), 27–50 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fallman, D.: Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In: 21th ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florida, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, M.J., Maher, M.L.: The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des. Stud. 29(3), 222\xE2\x80\x93253 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gero, J., Tang, H.-H.: concurrent and retrospective protocols and computer-aided architectural design. In: 4th CAADRIA conference, Shanghai (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oxman, R.: Design media for the cognitive designer. Autom. Constr. 9(4), 337–346 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S.: The effect of computer mediation on collaborative designing, in between man and MACHINE? Integration, Intuition, Intelligence. In: Proceedings of 14th CAADRIA conference, Yunlin, Taiwan (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodbury, R.: Elements of Parametric Design. Routledge, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolarevic, B.: Architecture in the Digital Age: Design And Manufacturing. Spon Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gero, J.S.: Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag. 11(4), 26–36 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S.: Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information in design protocol studies. In: McDonnell, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.) About: Designing. Analysing Design Meetings, pp. 213–229. Taylor & Francis, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S.: Can entropy indicate the richness of idea generation in team designing? In: Digital Opportunities, 10th CAADRIA conference, New Delhi, India (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S.: Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Des. Stud. 29(4), 315–337 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S.: Studing software design cognition, In: Petre, M., Hoek, AVd (eds.) Software Designers in Action: A Human-Centric Look at Design Work. Chapman Hall, London (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Mass (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gero, J.S., Mc Neill, T.: An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Des. Stud. 19(1), 21–61 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Atman, C.J., et al.: A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Des. Stud. 20(2), 131–152 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suwa, M., Tversky, B.: What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des. Stud. 18(4), 385–403 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akin, O.: Psychology of Architectural Design. Pion, London (1986)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gero, J., Tang, H.-H.: The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Des. Stud. 22(3), 283–295 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dorst, K., Dijkhuis, J.: Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Des. Stud. 16(2), 261–274 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuusela, H., Pallab, P.: A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 113(3), 387–404 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ching, W.K., Ng, M.K.: Markov Chains: Models, Algorithms and Applications. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meyn, S.P., Tweedie, R.L.: Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S.: Exploring quantitative methods to study design behavior in collaborative virtual workspaces. In: New Frontiers, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on CAADRIA (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jiang, H.: Understanding senior design students’ product conceptual design activities—a comparison between industrial and engineering design students. National University of Singapore, Singapore (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: Commonalities across designing: empirical results. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, College Station (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gero, J.S., Jiang, H., Vieira, S.: Exploring a multi-meeting engineering design project. In: Chakrabarti, A., Prakash, R.V. (eds.) ICoRD’13 conference, Springer, India (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim, M.J.: The effects of tangible user interfaces on designers’ spatial cognition key centre of design computing and cognition. Faculty of Architecture, Doctor of Philosophy (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nguyen, L., Shanks, G.: Using protocol analysis to explore the creative requirements engineering process. Information Systems Foundations Workshop, pp. 133–151. ANUE Press, Canberra (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pourmohamadi, M., Gero, J.S.: LINKOgrapher: An analysis tool to study design protocols based on FBS coding scheme. In: Culley, S., et al. (eds.) Design Theory and Methodology, pp. 294–303. Design Society, Glasgow (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fowler, M.: Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gamma, E., et al.: Design patterns: abstraction and reuse of object-oriented design. In: Manfred, B., Ernst, D. (eds.) Software Pioneers, pp. 701–717. Springer, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alexander, C.: The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1979)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Razzouk, R., Shute, V.: What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Rev. Educ. Res. 82(3), 330–348 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of NewcastleNew South WalesAustralia
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations