Argumentation-based negotiation for collaborative engineering design

Jin, Yan; Geslin, Mathieu

doi:10.1504/ijce.2009.027443

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, understanding how students engage in argument from evidence within K-12 engineering settings has not been studied extensively. Studies about arguments in engineering contexts have described that the fundamental parts of the engineering argument are different than those of a scientific argument (Jin & Geslin, 2009;Mathis, Siverling, Glancy, Guzey, & Moore, 2016;Siverling, Suazo-Flores, et al, 2017). Given the prevalence of the terminology within engineering that engineers make evidence-based decisions (Crismond & Adams, 2012;Dyba et al, 2005;Woods et al, 2000), the term "evidence-based reasoning" (EBR) is used to describe engaging in argument from evidence in engineering contexts (Mathis et al, 2016) as a way of highlighting these disciplinary differences and more accurately representing the practice of engineers.…”

Section: Engaging In Argument From Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Students' use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design‐based STEM integration

Siverling

Suazo‐Flores

Mathis

et al. 2019

School Sci & Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering design‐based STEM integration is one potential model to help students integrate content and practices from all of the STEM disciplines. In this study, we explored the intersection of two aspects of pre‐college STEM education: the integration of the STEM disciplines, and the NGSS practice of engaging in argument from evidence within engineering. Specifically, our research question was: While generating and justifying solutions to engineering design problems in engineering design‐based STEM integration units, what STEM content do elementary and middle school students discuss? We used naturalistic inquiry to analyze student team audio recordings from seven curricular units in order to identify the variety of STEM content present as students justified their design ideas and decisions (i.e., used evidence‐based reasoning). Within the four disciplines, fifteen STEM content categories emerged. Particularly interesting were the science and mathematics categories. All seven student teams used unit‐based science, and five used unit‐based mathematics, to support their design ideas. Five teams also applied science and/or mathematics content that was outside the scope of the units' learning objectives. Our results demonstrate that students integrated content from all four STEM disciplines when justifying engineering design ideas and solutions, thus supporting engineering design‐based STEM integration as a curricular model.

show abstract

Section: Engaging In Argument From Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Students' use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design‐based STEM integration

Siverling

Suazo‐Flores

Mathis

et al. 2019

School Sci & Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ABEN framework (Jin & Geslin, 2009) provides a detailed argumentation-based model of dialogues for a form of collaborative engineering design called co-construction. It encompasses protocols, strategies and tactics, but does not include any argument evaluation mechanism.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation

Baroni

Romano

Toni

et al. 2015

Argument & Computation

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to support Issue-Based Information System style debates on design alternatives, by providing an automatic quantitative evaluation of the positions put forward. It also identifies several formal properties of the proposed quantitative argumentation framework and compares it with existing non-numerical abstract argumentation formalisms. Finally, the paper describes the integration of the proposed approach within the design Visual Understanding Environment software tool along with three case studies in engineering design. The case studies show the potential for a competitive advantage of the proposed approach with respect to state-of-the-art engineering design methods.Keywords: argumentation; debate; design rationale; Issue-Based Information System (IBIS); decision support Engineering design is often described as an information-processing activity based on problem-solving within the constraints of bounded rationality (Simon, 1996;Simon & Newell, 1971). It consists of decomposing an initial problem into a range of sub-problems, proposing and assessing partial solutions, and integrating them as to satisfy the overall problem. This process is collaborative and often involves communication between non-co-located engineers. The development and communication of design solutions require engineers to form and share design rationale, that is, the argumentation in favour or against proposed designs.These aspects of the engineering design process have led to the development (Kunz & Rittel, 1970) and subsequent investigation (Buckingham Shum & Hammond, 1994;Fischer, Lemke, McCall, & Morch, 1991) of the issue-based information system (IBIS) method, a graph-based formalisation of the decisions made during a design process along with the reasons why they were made. The IBIS method envisions a decision-making process where problems (or issues) are given solutions (or answers) after a thorough debate involving technical, economical, life, environmental and safety considerations. It also provides means to actively develop, communicate and record the reasons (or arguments) in favour or against the options explored during the design process. Initially, IBIS was conceived purely as a conceptual information system and its first implementations were paper-based and totally operated by hand. However, over time several software tools supporting editing and visualisation of IBIS graphs have been developed, for example, Compendium, DRed and design Visual Understanding Environment (designVUE) (e.g. see Aurisicchio & Bracewell, 2013;Buckingham Shum et al., 2006). These IBIS-based tools,

show abstract

“…The corresponding decision model is described as (8) denotes the set of the parameter vectors possessed by the ancestor designers of . An augmented price schedule is included in the objective function as a penalty to influence decision-making.…”

Section: B Decision Making Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jin and Lu [7] described an argumentation-based information model to support collaborative design decision making in a multiagent negotiation framework. Jin and Geslin [8] developed an argumentation-based engineering negotiation approach that provides a structured framework for designers to identify design situations and make joint decisions without full knowledge of the design solutions. Various negotiation strategies have been proposed to guide the design process [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jin and Geslin [8] developed an argumentation-based engineering negotiation approach that provides a structured framework for designers to identify design situations and make joint decisions without full knowledge of the design solutions. Various negotiation strategies have been proposed to guide the design process [9]. Li et al [10] proposed a negotiation based collaborative design approach for component reuse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multitarget Hierarchical Negotiation for Distributed Design in Collaborative Product Development

Lin

Tien

Chu

2014

IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distributed design in collaborative product development involves interorganizational teams of different disciplines, often geographically separated, that work jointly for the interest of an overall goal. The teams must agree on the product design without fully disclosing individual design information. Price-based negotiation is an effective design methodology under such circumstances. This work improves the negotiation mechanism based on the price schedules decomposition algorithm (PSDA), which only allows bi-level negotiation with a single design target, in two regards. The augmented price schedules decomposition algorithm (APSDA) is proposed to simultaneously consider multiple design targets in negotiation. Decision models and negotiation protocols are developed for complex design tasks decomposed in a hierarchy. The resultant APSDA-based negotiation mechanism enables multi-target hierarchical distributed design. A test scenario implemented with multiagent technologies validates the effectiveness of this mechanism. This study solves automating engineering collaborations with secure information sharing.Note to Practitioners-In collaborative product development, designers often need to collaborate on an overall design goal with individual objectives and potential conflicts. Individual design rationales may not be completely transparent to each other. This work proposes an automatic negotiation mechanism to conduct distributed design in such a circumstance. This mechanism is implemented in a multiagent environment and tested with a scenario of distributed weight allocation in the development of a training simulator. The test results validate the effectiveness of the mechanism.

show abstract

Argumentation-based negotiation for collaborative engineering design

Cited by 20 publications

References 41 publications

Students' use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design‐based STEM integration

Students' use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design‐based STEM integration

Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation

Multitarget Hierarchical Negotiation for Distributed Design in Collaborative Product Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About