Abstract
Analogical reasoning is considered to be an efficient heuristic for solving non-routine problems, and particularly helpful in design. It is during the design process, where a large collection of visual displays aid designers, in which the use of visual analogy is of specific importance. Few works have studied the effect of the use of visual analogy in design problem solving, and there is no research which has studied whether it plays a more significant role in the context of ill-defined problems or in well-defined problems. The objective of this study is to empirically compare and investigate the use of visual analogy in well-defined design problems (routine) and ill-defined design problems (non-routine). Results showed that students benefited from the use of visual analogy, which significantly helped them to improve design solutions in both design contexts. Additional results showed that architects also benefited from the use of visual analogy in ill-defined design problem solving. In contrast, visual analogy did not aid them to improve their performance in solving welldefined design problems.
Citation
Casakin, H. (2002) Well-defined versus ill-defined design problem solving: the use of visual analogy, in Durling, D. and Shackleton, J. (eds.), Common Ground - DRS International Conference 2002, 5-7 September, London, United Kingdom. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2002/researchpapers/14
Well-defined versus ill-defined design problem solving: the use of visual analogy
Analogical reasoning is considered to be an efficient heuristic for solving non-routine problems, and particularly helpful in design. It is during the design process, where a large collection of visual displays aid designers, in which the use of visual analogy is of specific importance. Few works have studied the effect of the use of visual analogy in design problem solving, and there is no research which has studied whether it plays a more significant role in the context of ill-defined problems or in well-defined problems. The objective of this study is to empirically compare and investigate the use of visual analogy in well-defined design problems (routine) and ill-defined design problems (non-routine). Results showed that students benefited from the use of visual analogy, which significantly helped them to improve design solutions in both design contexts. Additional results showed that architects also benefited from the use of visual analogy in ill-defined design problem solving. In contrast, visual analogy did not aid them to improve their performance in solving welldefined design problems.