See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262451882

A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLORING THE ROLE OF PARAMETRIC DESIGN ON

DESIGN PROCEDURE

Conference Paper · April 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 1,539

1 author:

Ata Chokhachian
Technische Universität München
38 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Microclimate // Development of A Simulation Tool for Evaluation of Urban Microclimate and Thermal Comfort for Outdoor Spaces View project

Architecture & Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ata Chokhachian on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Framework for Exploring the Role of Parametric
Design on Design Procedure

Ata Chokhachian
Architecture Department, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus
Email: ata.chokhachian@cc.emu.edu.tr

Resmiye A. Atun, Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Architecture Department, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus
Email: resmiye.alpar@emu.edu.tr

ABSTRACT
Parametricism is a term for a new call epochal global style of architecture and covers all the design
disciplines and also has become an important benchmark in design education as well. The term after
its advent in 2008 has developed a global movement that has become mature in the body of
technology and contemporary issues on architecture and urbanism. Parametric design, in recent years
has developed a motto as its being used mainly to design structures that respond to their environment,
climatic issues and contextual features. While it can operate as a powerful tool in contributing to the
realm of the design process, it is only appreciated as physical applied parametric modeling techniques.
In order to enhance this problem, this research tries to open a discussion on design process and
scrutinize the effectiveness of traditional models in order to develop a framework for parametric design
by means of embedding tools and enablers into the skeleton of design procedure. In order to achieve
an integrated approach in various design milieus, an alternative method will be developed where
parametric design will be used as a tool in answering multilingual characteristics of design process.
Main focus of this method will be based on methodology of pattern language of Christopher Alexander
(1977), emphasizing the role and importance of design. In addition, a survey is conducted among the
architects in order to extract the procedure of architecture design in practice. The final outcome is
being proposed as a framework for parametric design carrying; design sub-systems, design activities,
pattern layers and the enablers in integrated layers.

Keywords: Parametric Design, Design Procedure, Design Education, Pattern Language,

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, existing models of architectural education are in the process of adjustment to
new cultural and technological conditions of the communication age. This situation can be
seen as similar to the representation of Modernism as a pedagogical model during the period
of the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus is perhaps relevant, since this model of education evolved in a
period of a similar major shift in theory and design (Oxman, 2007). The Bauhaus
(1919e1933), and later the HfG Ulm (1955e1968), emerged in periods of conceptual and
technological change in both content and tools which means from craftsmanship to
mechanization, and it provided a theoretical orientation to different sense of design through
the integration of art and industry in order to introduce new forms, new materials, a new
orientation and innovative solutions to design in the age of industrialization and at the same
time on design process (Naylor, 1985; Wingler, 1969). Through this transformation as
adaptation for contemporary epoch, learning based upon materials and tools and the study
of nature, material science, space, color, composition, construction and representation were
the main challenge of institutions to be integrated in architecture education programs and the
process of design in early 1900s. Similar to these educational principles, a new framework
for design procedure based on multi-dimensional aspects of digital design, media,
networking and communication creates new forms of integration between the theoretical and
practical modes of design process in contemporary era. In other words, similar to Bauhaus in
that period, the advent of machine age and practical tools that were used creatively, made a
big jump in design process and the same is for recent era where the information-based
design “as a theory” is dealing with different parameters and dimensions of design
education. This evolution is going to shift different stages of design process with the aim of
focusing the design as a “procedure” rather than an “end-product” by means of implementing
contemporary and existing computerized tools. If design is considered only as an “end-
product” then the designers have to be classified according to the work that they are
specialized in, but the issue is that most of pioneer designers and architects try to interpret
design as a procedure which is applicable for different contexts and have interdisciplinary
vision on it (Lawson, 1998), like Mies van der Rohe who designed a chair for his German
Pavilion at the Barcelona International Exhibition of 1929. Accordingly Bryan Lawson admits:
“Classifying design by its end product seems to be rather putting the cart before the horse,
for the solution is something which is formed by the design process and has not existed in
advance of it.” Its highest level of value in development of such a procedure is for the
students to be a self-reliant in knowing, questioning, information-collecting, and managing
the problem definition process within a comprehensive system of design. At the moment,
with many architecture students graduating into design and construction sector, architectural
educators have to rethink the education value proposition, looking to enable aspiring young
architects to define and even design the profession of tomorrow by the implementation of the
tool which are the outcome of today`s requirements (Harriss, 2011). According to these
statements the shift for architecture design process and education can be implemented in 3
1
different stages:
1. Design for education: we do design for educating people, in other words in built
environment the design is going to talk with the language of materials, experiments and
new ideas. (the insist is on practical education)
2. Re-Designing Education: we need to design systems not staffs, in this system it is
important to be notified what is going to be offered and to whom. As we have enough
knowledge about the system that student is growing up, the education system can adopt
itself with more flexible format.
3. Design as Education: learning design thinking coupled with real construction and
fabrication skills in close relation with community and society.
The main focus of this research is to represent design through the lens of education and
question the effectiveness, adoptability and practicality of design process in contemporary
architecture education milieu.

2. METHODOLOGY
This research is mainly going to scrutinize design education by means of inspecting
design process transformation chronologically and consideration of the research is to create a
framework based on technological tools for contemporary architecture design as a system in
order to bridge theoretical context and practical achievements by means of investigating in
existing gap and develop a holistic framework for parametric design procedure. In order to
achieve this framework, pattern language is implemented as a methodology which
Christopher Alexander (1977) and his team used to deal with the problem by means of
gathering the existing solutions with the same commonalities from the standing context and
regenerate the patterns which can provide a logical answer to the query. The interior skeleton
of pattern language in Alexander`s theory consisted of three key parts (Salingaros, 2000):
first, an issue oriented discussion of the central conflicting aspect of an existing problem
(design process and design thinking); second, an examination of the existing evidence and
noticeable facts (survey on the existing tools); and finally type prescriptive recommendation
(parametric thinking model). The recommended framework is being used as the form of an
essential conceptual diagram to help guide contemporary adaptation. On the other hand, in
order to achieve the practical process of design among architects and designers, a
questionnaire survey is conducted in semi structured format and distributed online. The
outcome of the survey is analyzed in SPSS with T-test method in order to convert qualitative
stages of design into quantitative numbers and observe the defragmentation of the steps in
order to be able to bridge them by means of different enablers and computerized tools. In
consequence, the illustrated outline being projected as a system in order to have hierarchical
intersection and interrelation; this system is called “Parametric Design Procedure”.

1Emily Pilloton: Teaching design for change, Retrieved from speech on TED, Filmed July 2010, Posted
NOV 2010

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

3. FRAMEWORK OF DESIGN PROCESS TRANSFORMATION
Ancient design education, started with practical training in the apprenticeship system and
then as knowledge of abstract principles became more important to the design process
offered additional training in theory(Gelernter, 1995). Besides, Design in terms of “process”
is the product of “industrialization” movements and “Fordism” frameworks (Schumacher,
2011). In other words, since the advent of mass production and modularization, in industry
and likewise in building design and construction sector, the realm of process based activities
has entered into the architectural design. Considering design as a process has turned
managerial perspectives to architecture and has challenged this process within diverse
methods, interpretations and practices (Johansson-Sköldberg, 2013). After Second World
War, parallel with the necessity of rapid housing, need for routine and Lego-type buildings,
the process of design has simultaneously required to be covered in limited time, also this
process unconsciously neglected complexity of build environment and architecture design.
As consequence, the process which needed to be improved and embedded within practice,
has become a kind of puzzle game and no longer suggests any firm route through the whole
process. Bryan Lawson (2006) admits: “This kind of process resembles to one of those
chaotic party games where the players dash from one room of the house to another simply in
order to discover where they must go next. It is about as much help in navigating a designer
through the process as a diagram showing how to walk would be to a one-year old child.
Knowing that design consists of analysis, synthesis and evaluation linked in an iterative cycle
will no more enable you to design”.
The building and architecture design process has been studied and practiced for
hundreds of years but it was only for the first time formalized in the 1960s (Archer, 1968). It
was the first time that design was approached as process. In this field Markus (1967) and
consequently Thomas Maver (1970) suggested the process of design as the decision
sequence of “analysis”, “synthesis”, “appraisal”, and “decision” at progressively detailed
stages of the design process. They explained diagrams of the architectural design process
detailed in decision order as shown in Figure 1. The process in the illustration is like a close
loop which repeats in itself and it is an introverted approach.

Figure 1: Markus & Maver diagram of design method (Lawson, 2006)

Another perspective on design process was sketched by John Wade (1977). He

describes design as an activity to generate proposals that are going to change the existing
conditions into better ones. He splits design into 3 parts such as; initial state, method or
process of transformation and imagined future statues. In Wade`s terms, design is identified
by the process of converting existing elements and issue to the imagined future ones and
these steps are exactly outcome of his definition and consideration about design itself
2
(Figure 2).

2 For more information refer to. “J. C. Snyder, Catanese, A. J., & MacGintry, T., "Design and the

Design Process," in Introduction to Architecture, ed. Tim McGinty (McGraw-Hill, 1979)”

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

 Figure 2: Design Process, Wade, J. W. (1977)

It is possible to continue the discussion on the exploration of the maps of design process
but a considerable number have been developed by Synder (1979). Maps of the design
process similar to those previously argued for architecture have been proposed for the
engineering design process (Asimow, 1962; Haik, 2010) and the industrial design process
(Archer, 1968) and, even in some models for town planning (Levin, 1966). These abstract
maps from varying fields of design show a considerable degree of agreement that suggests
the design process is the same in all fields, but unfortunately most of the writers quoted here
have not offered any evidence that designers or architects systematically follow their maps.
By exploring different design process methods in variety of time periods which are collected
in table 1, in different steps and stages most of them have commonalities to separate and
highlight limited phases.

Table 1: Different Outlooks of Design Process, (Snyder, 1979) updated by author

Design Process
Design Process Defined Steps
Theories
Thornley Student Separation Of
Accumulation Form Presentation Of
1 Design Process (1) - main Concept
Of Data Development Solution
(1963) or Method
Investigation
Thornley Student
Program Assessment Of
2 Design Process (2) Create Refinement Presentation
Formulation Design
(1963)
Possibilities
Guenter and Corkill Synthesis And
Investigation,
Systematic Basic Definition Development Reevaluation
Analysis
3 Approach of Preliminary Volumetric And -
Program
Architectural Design Program Design Modification
Abstraction
(1970) Proposal
H. Rittle`s Summery Collect &
Problem Workout Solution Implement and
4 of Design Process Analyze
Identification Solution Assessment Communicate
(1970) Information
R. Whitaker`s Eight-
Recognition Preparation
5 step Design Process Synthesis Evaluation Execution
Definition Analysis
(1971)
J. C. Jones`s Design Information
6 Idea Synthesis Evaluation Optimization
Method (1972) Analysis
M. Asimow Detailed
Preliminary
7 Engineering Design Feasibility - Design -
Design
Process (1972) Planning
Production
Outline
Tender
RIBA Architecture Proposals
Action
8 Service Inception Feasibility Schematic -
Project Planning
(1972) Design
Completion
Detail Design
Feedback
Programming or Post Occupancy
G. T. Moore`s Choosing
Analysis Of Evaluation
9 Design Process Identify Problem Synthesis From
User
(1974) Alternatives
Requirements Implementation
Five-step Design
10 Process Initiation Preparation Proposal Evaluation Action
(Snyder, 1979)
Gavin Ambrose & Define and Select and
11 Ideate Prototype Learn
Paul Harris (2009) Research Implement
Contract
Documents
AIA Basic and
Schematic Bidding
Supplementary Predesign Design
12 - Design Administration Of
Services Services Development
Contract
(AIA)
Post Design
Service

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

 The comparison of all different stage in the same column, it’s understandable that they
are repeating the same language in different words which means that the root of all is a
linear process and this process most of the time creates an end-product. Based on review of
traditional models it could be admitted that:
1. The methods are repeating same or equivalent steps with differing in keywords.
2. Most of the procedures for design are illustrated as linear processes.
3. There boundaries of the stages are strict and the procedures are not flexible enough
4. There is no specification for scale of the project
5. These methods are behaving design as research problem solving with narrowing
down in details step by step and packing previous stages as they are finished.
6. They seem to be out of control by increasing complexity and the scale of project
(Osterhuis, 2012).
7. The realm of management is more dominant on these processes rather than
architectural footprint.
8. They seem to have been derived more by thinking about design than by
experimentally observing it, and characteristically they are logical (Lawson, 2006)
9. In the traditional design process framework the tools and methodologies are invisible
and unreadable
10. The solutions that arise from the synthesis stage of the design process, most of the
time are incomplete, may not indicate all the necessities, and they must be
evaluated rationally in the evaluation stage (Jeong & Ban, 2011).
These maps are likely to be both theoretical and practical impressions while at the same
time inflexible. They seem like to have been emerged by thinking about design rather than
experimental observations, but at the same time characteristically and structurally they are
logical and systematic. Bryan Lawson (Lawson, 2006) indicates that: “There is a danger with
this approach, since writers on design methodology do not necessarily always make the best
designers. It seems reasonable to suppose that our best designers are more likely to spend
their time designing than writing about methodology. If this is true then it would be much
more interesting to know how very good designers actually work than to know what a design
methodologist thinks they should do! One compensating factor here is that most academic
writers are also involved in teaching design, and thus have many years of experience of
observing their students. However, that also begs the question as to whether students might
design differently to the way experienced practitioners work”.

3.1 Transparent Multi-Layering System

In order to make the steps of design close to more flexible system and be able to bring
the reality in a way that different parameters and tools could be adopted and integrated in
diverse phases, the design process is proposed as “transparent multi-layering system”
(Figure 3). In this model the term “process” is replaced with “systems” and the stages of
design are replaced by “sub-systems”. In comparison with the five step design process
“initiation, preparation, proposal making, evaluation and action” (Snyder, 1979), the
proposed model could be possibly flexible to be adopted with existing methodologies, tools
and “enablers” in different stages of design activity. The layering ideas could be supported
by “System-enabler model” that Michael J. Ostwald (2012) in his article entitled “Systems
and Enablers: Modeling the Impact of Contemporary Computational Methods and
Technologies on the Design Process” starts wholly new and diverse discussion on design
procedures with the perspective of computational tools. He presents a new model for
architectural design process and discusses how it has changed over time. Rather than being
a conventional “design as process” model, the new model is trying to concentrate on the
relationship between the meta-conditions of design.

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

 Sub-Systems

Figure 3: Transparent layering system (Applicable for all kinds of processes), Proposed by author

System enabler mode of design process which is embedded by CAD, BIM, generative
design and information modeling is a system or “transparent layering system” that is
systematically networked (Figure 4). In this model the systems are collectively required to
place the representational and proportional systems within an indexical framework which
means, information for the first time has become central feature of design process.
Moreover, BIM, parametric design and generative methods have enabled consistent way of
thinking during design procedure. The two major areas of necessary improvement for the
building profession can be identified as “tool-related” targeting developments of tool usability
and “process-related” targeting practical integration of simulation, evaluation and
conceptualization tools in the design process (Ostwald, 2012). The tools are labeled as
“enabler” and are acting like methodologies according to different kinds of problems in each
subsystem.

Figure 4: System-Enabler model: The design process at the start of the 21st Century (Ostwald, 2012)

The keyword of methodology is properly and contextually embedded in research

problems but unfortunately the realm of these tools is questionable in design procedure and
mainly in architecture design.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

3.2 Architecture Design as Research Process
Following the previous discussion and explained models, and the necessity of
methodical approach toward design, which has to have capacity of creating interrelation
between principles and elements, it is essential to have some dialogues on the shared
qualities of design and research. The beginning of design procedure, in design process or
even in design thinking, has to follow certain information collecting and research. Also
architecture design is not similar with product design or industrial design, and the misleading
part is that, most of the time the design process which architects use, is specified for small
scales that all the components and subsystems are in control (Clarkson & Eckert, 2005). For
example in product design there are lots of inspirational magnets that are motivating the
designers and they try to choose only some of them because the scale of the project dictates
it to them, but it’s totally different in architecture design. Obviously, research is undetectable
part or design procedure. In traditional design processes in the commencing steps the
maximum research is done as data collection but as the process goes on the research loses
its effectiveness. In order to have parallel approach, the research should be enabled with
certain components in complete timeframe of the procedure. Then if research is extended
into the whole design process, for example the data collection stage will act as a process in
itself, in other words, there will be no gap between data collection and synthesis stages and
both will function accordingly with upcoming problems in every phase of the design
procedure (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Proposed division for design and research in the process

In systematic way of thinking for design, research could be reasonable platform and the
process of thinking about the research can occur in 3 categories among the designers who
are engaged in practice: searching for understanding, searching for ideas and searching for
solutions (Press & Cooper, 2003). These 3 subcategories also could be interpreted in design
procedure by means of having more accurate understanding of the existing ideas and
solutions in order to produce more creative responses. Moreover, in the case of design, the
initiative force is commonly referred to as a “problem” (need for a new building or product)
that encourages the development of a designed artifact or product as a solution that will be
attained in the future. In research, the drive is usually outlined in terms of a “question” to be
answered at least in part by investigative current or past evidence but at the same time all
these procedures are “systematic thinking models” (Groat & Wang, 2013).
In mid-1900s there was a shift in architecture profession where the architects found
themselves in a situation more than a simple problem solver and they were facing issues
such as management programing, and other problems which are not directly related to
building design and construction. For instance, they begin to care more about human
behavior and discussed more on psychological, sociological and anthropological effects on
their design and their design on them. This point can be called the evolution of design
because in this stage the designer or architect needs to change the direction of design from
process design toward system design, where all of these components and parameters that
dealing with art, science, practice, human behavior, management and etc. will shape the
architecture in multidimensional approach (Zha et al., 2008). So the architect is going to
design a process rather than following the existing ones. This only can be achieved by
considering research as a supportive tool for design. In other words; research will enable the
procedure of design by means of putting all existing parameters together and abstract the
solution which can push the problem steps forward. The newly born style called
“Parametricism” seems to be able to have systematic perspective on design and its
procedure by means of transforming information into the body of design.

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

4. PARAMETRIC DESIGN
3
Tim Love (2009) divides the adoption of parametric design procedure to architectural
and urban design into two strands. At the one end of the spectrum, parametric design tools
are used for “form-making”, while at the other, the same technology facilitates “a metric-
based emphasis on social and/or ecological relevance” that both are going to be considered
in the research.
The necessity of research in new tools and bringing technology into design procedure
could be possibly investigated because there is not long time, that architecture is pioneer in
implementation of digital technology and innovation. Certainly, architects and designers have
not any effect on invention of digital technology and tools but they have just accepted,
implemented and embarrassed it. They are using animation software from the movie making
4
industry or CAD-CAM technology from air-crafting manufacturers. By means of these tools
and enablers, in the 1990s architects and designers tried to give more tangible
representation to the digital media. An extraordinary architectural experience, by the aid of
new aesthetics of free form finding procedures have become a foundation of technological
achievements and platform of education for all of the designers because most of them eager
to be part of this development. Mario Carpo (2013) states that: “Free form represented and
symbolized a new techno-cultural environment where all the tenets of industrial modernism
had been jettisoned, and a new universe of differentiation, variation, and choice – which
Postmodernism had advocated, but could not deliver – became possible, tangible and
affordable and, some claim, even pleasurable. In the process, architects and designers
contributed to some significant technological advances, and digital design theory in the
1990s set the trends for digital thinking at large”.
The necessity of transformation in modes of thinking could be the main agenda toward
designers and architects. In order to shift into digital and computational thinking, the first step
is to build up computational knowledge and basic awareness on parametric issues, so in this
chapter we are going to have different point of views on definition and implementation of
parametric design from design procedure lens in order to create platform for holistic design
system.
“Parametricism” is a term for a new what call epochal global style of architecture and all
the design disciplines including urbanism, architecture, interior design, graphic design,
product design, and even fashion design. The term first launched in 2008 in Venice biennial
5
but after these all years now it’s a global movement. Furthermore, through the past fifteen
years digital media computational tools in architecture were implemented in different
methods and affected the entire field of architecture construction and design. Digital media
were practical only as a representational tool for presenting ideas, at the beginning. With
developing digital tools and technology architecture has faced new tools for diverse activities
within architecture design process in digital media (Schnabel, 2007). Furthermore,
parametric design has its roots in the digital media improvement, animation techniques, and
computational tools of the mid-1990s. The style has been introduced and emerged in recent
years by advancement of innovative parametric design systems. Nowadays, the single and
dominant style for practice of contemporary architecture is “Parametricism” (Schumacher,
2008).
A parametric illustration of a design is known usually by means of a dimensional
multiplication and variation or quantitative ones. But any other qualities like color, scale,
orientation about the form or even more qualitative restrictions could be varied
parametrically. In order to design parametrically means; to design a parametric system that
sets up a design space which could be explored through the diversification and variations of
6
the parameters. In other words, parametric design is a process of choosing appropriate set
of parameters with the most sufficient correlation to fulfill the design problem requirements
and setting up the model definition that then could be used to explore the solution space. In
principle, parametric design procedures can control, coordinate and address variety of
programmatic references and concerns if rules for the design are obvious and the

3
LOVE, TIM. 2009 “Between Mission Statement and Parametric Model”, Retrieved from
http://www.designobserver.com/places/entry.html?entry=10757
4
CAD: Computer Aided Design, CAM: Computer Aided Manufacturing
5
Patrik Schumacher, Parametric Architectural Order, Lecture at Georgia Tech, February 2012
6
Kilian, Axel. MIT, From an interview conducted in March 2004 by Victor Gane

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

constraints and assumptions are sufficiently set prior from the beginning of the design
process (Madkour et al., 2009).
There are diverse definitions of parametric design from scholars and practicing
architects. Frank Gehry (2004) believes that parametric design is a system that affords
inputs and outputs and that generates design spaces and mechanisms to arrive at a
solution. But Axel Kilian (2006) discusses parametric design as a process of choosing
appropriate set of parameters with the most sufficient correlation to fulfill the design problem
requirements. Parametric design system makes possible the communication and
transformation between a built environment`s geometric frame and physical or other
parameters (Chronis et al., 2012). The advantage of parametric design is to plan and
synthesize the overall requirements and relationships of many design elements into one
form. This process allows the designer to investigate variety of possible solutions quickly.
Another key aspect in the usage of parametric design enablers in the design practice is the
assortment of rules and the transformation of design problems and associated references
into parameters, features and dependencies. Hernaldez (2006) has broader perspective on
parametric design as a process and he admits, “parametric design is the process of
designing in environment where design variations are effortless, thus replacing singularity
with multiplicity in the design process”. And in systematic perspective parametric modeling
system allows designers and architects to model classes of design and parts of the process.
In other word the project and the process are in parallel system which could possibly lead to
the solution (Woodbury et al., 2011).
In the literature there is a great effort on parametric form finding whereas, parametric
modeling and form finding only allows variations, which enhance the generation of related
forms within the same family of forms, this does not allow geometrical transformations into
produce an infinite number of design solutions. It is also limited in its flexibility to allow the
generation of sophisticated forms and surfaces (Abdullah & Kamara, 2013; Carpo, 2013;
Chronis et al., 2012; Kourkoutas, 2007; Madkour et al., 2009; Osterhuis, 2012). Thus, the
development of “Design Systems” rather than “Design Processes” is proposed to overwhelm
some of the restrictions and limitations of parametric design. Furthermore, the need for
scripting design thinking to more fully achieve the benefits of design systems is usually
beyond the designers/architects who are involved in the design procedure. The nature and
complexity of the architecture design stage, as well as the demand to generate variety of
design solutions directed to the idea of integrating “Parametric Design” with “Design
Thinking” and other significant generative methodologies and enablers to introduce a new
approach in the name of “Parametric Design Thinking”.
This assimilation can be seen as taking viable aspects of parametric design and design
thinking to overcome the limitations of parametric design. This system takes different
parameters; Geometric Parameters, Topological Parameters, Representational Parameters,
Material Parameters, Environmental Parameters, Mathematical parameters, Human
Parameters and etc. (Jabi, 2013) as inputs, and computes them through an encapsulated
systematic process to interactively generate and explore solutions for the design problem.

Figure 6: Network of parameters and enablers

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

 Moreover, BIM, parametric design and generative methods have enabled consistent way
of thinking during design procedure. The two major areas of necessary improvement for the
building profession could be identified as “tool-related” targeting advancements of tool
functionality and “process-related” targeting functional integration of simulation tools in the
design process. The successful parametric design system can be defined as a one that
creates the most connectivity between capabilities of computational tools (Lawson, 1998)
and existing parameters and constraints (Jabi, 2013). This connectivity in this research is
going to be discussed by assistive technologies in design in order to create maximum
integration within theory and practice (Figure 6).

5. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ARCHITECTURE DESIGN

Assistive technology is one of the supporting strategies for architects, planners and
engineers and it’s applicable in design process in order to have consistency of framework,
toolsets, and specific software applications. These tools are being applied to the building
design procedure with respect to the requirements of the project and user with significant
knowledge based and scientific results. The input data could be variety of parameters or a
set of comparison of values or individual attributes such as detailing or structural constraints.
However, the possibility to examine and control these parameters through the design
procedure including qualitative spatial integrations and quantitative components has been
recently investigated only by few scholars.
Assistive technology based on both geometric and qualitative representation and
conceptual reasoning by the aid of complex set of data visualization can help to facilitate
architecture design procedure for architects and designers. (Bhatt et al., 2013) There are
number of important application that could be implemented in design procedure in the
context of building design. These application are summarized in Table 2 providing
information regarding; a brief description, terms of application and the sub-system that the
enablers could possibly boost.

Table 2: List of tools & enablers for design procedure, by author

Tool Description Application Sub system
enables all the participants in design and construction of
Clarify and
a project to access the project drawings, illustrations and
1 VISCON Communicate build Whole process
documents from anywhere inside the office or on site
ability information
(Bouchlaghem et al., 2005)
used to create the solar envelope that shows the
2 SUSTARC maximum available volume possible to build (Capeluto et parametric analysis Evaluation
al., 2003)
Decision making
To evaluate the existing situation, the proposed solution
3 FLUENT Create the solutions in Evaluation
and the mitigation design. (Capeluto et al., 2003)
urban context
A graphic interface which can build a hierarchically Modeling 3D
4 AUTOLISP Conceptual
structured library of types (Madrazo, 1999) compositions
Used to search for design solutions, evaluate them and
GENETIC Late stages of
5 continue the search guided by the results of evaluation. Optimization
ALGORITHMS design
(Caldas & Norford, 2002)
it is intended to serve as the performance expert who
Performance
6 PREVENT stands behind the shoulder of the architect Comfort zone
Evaluation
(Wiezel & Becker, 1996)
Intuitive system for searching floor plans by using a early design
7 a.SCatch floor plan analysis
sketch-based interface. (Ahmed et al., 2014) phase
Define box volume, the size of the openings, material
early design
8 Energy_10 properties, the mechanical system to be used and basic Energy Analysis
stages
schedules. (NREL, 2005)
Energy analysis tool in order to get a more precise
late design
9 eQuest simulation Energy Analysis
stages
(Yezioro et al., 2008)
temperature and
Comprehensive simulation engine for better temperature last design
10 EnergyPlus comfort prediction &
and comfort prediction. (Yezioro et al., 2008) stages
evaluation
tools with digital capabilities respecting the designer’s
Hybrid Ideation formulating ideation
11 needs for uninterrupted reflective conversation (Dorta et
Space (HIS) new concepts process
al., 2008)
Tool for organizing and sharing product information decision
design strategies and
12 PLA(id) online making
development tools
(Ofluoglu et al., 2002) Detailing
Bridging conceptual
Allows architects to sketch the coarse organization and conceptual
13 ConDes design and CAD
functionality of a building (Kraft & Nagl, 2007) design
environment

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

 Creates a geometric model, appropriate for improve the interaction
conceptual
14 DONKEY structural analysis, by using algorithmic between designers and
design
architecture(Svoboda et al., 2013) structural engineers
Combines the directness of
Innovative system dedicated to mass study and early stage of
physical scale modeling with
15 DDDoolz spatial design. architectural
an intuitive computer user
(de Vries & Achten, 2002) design
interface.
Accesses a set of databases which hold information
design decision Integrated
16 GOAL on climate, unit costs of materials, user
support system appraisal
requirements, building regulations (J. Petric, 1993)
A preference-based formalization of design
interactive
17 SEMPER intentions and criteria of freedom of design performance evaluation
design process
parameters. (T. Maver, 2000)
Decision support system for urban planning, with a Early Stages of
simulate the impact of
18 CITYZOOM specific built-in city model (Donath & Lobos, 2009; the Design
alternative urban regulations
Grazziotin P., 2004) Process
The space program is a transcription or translation
conversion of needs of user Early Stages of
of the needs of the client into an architectural
19 Space program to architectural the Design
programmatic language, or words and figures
programmatic linguistic Process
(Donath & Lobos, 2009; Lobos, 2006)
allow the user to interactively select room
CB daylight design solution
20 properties, daylight conditions and daylight system Daylight Evaluation
systems design assessment
variables (Martin & E., 1996)
For a desired day lighting performance in a room, it
21 GENWIN can generate all satisfactory window configurations Design appropriate opening design solutions
(Khemlani, 1995)
set of automated computational processes that prescribes interactions design
Research
22 simulate a spatial–structural design process(Davila between spatial and processes early
Engine
Delgado & Hofmeyer, 2013) structural design stages
Design The tool enables fast estimation of energy and
energy performance of early design
23 Performance energy performance of the specific design
buildings stages
Viewer (DPV) (Schlueter & Thesseling, 2009)
Window
Simple building simulation tool for integrated integrated simulation the early design
24 Information
daylight and thermal analysis (Hviid et al., 2008) hourly daylight levels process
System (WIS)

The deficiency for having a pattern as a design procedure is to find and construct a
platform which is also flexible enough to work as system. So the commencing phase of the
work is done to review and analyze the current available software for architecture with a
focus on their applicability within design procedure. Moreover, there is an opportunity to
highlight missing digital tools required for enhancing and encouraging different stages of
architecture design procedure with the integration of design systems and innovative
technologies. The above mentioned list is the abstract of more than 200 related researches
7
concerning with design enablers. The tools are included in the category of: CAAD tools,
simulation tools, visualization tools, performance evaluation tools, design decision supportive
tools and late design stages enablers.
Based on the investigation upon design procedure theories and computerized tools,
questionnaire survey was conducted in structured format (Robertson & Radcliffe, 2009) with
close-end and open-end questions in online layout and tried to use a variety of methods to
reach practitioners: by means if publishing links for surveys through professional newsletters
and magazines, in national associations of architects and online databases of professionals
architects. There was totally 62 responds and out of them 50 questionnaire selected as
reliable ones. There were participants from different countries such as; Cyprus, Iran,
Germany, New Zealand and Britain. Generally the occupation of the contributors was
freelance architects or member of architecture teams with the educational background of
postgraduate studies and the experience of 4 to 6 years in architecture profession. About the
using of CAAD tools, approximately 40% of the participants have been using CAAD
packages in their design and profession for more than 7 years. Also most of the applicants
using CAAD tools constantly or occasionally in their design work. As the design process and
the stages of design are qualitative data, in order to convert them into quantitative ones,
Likert scaling system (Likert, 1932) is applied and the raw data was analyzed in SPSS with
one sample T-test method (Student, 1908) in order to calculate the weight of each attribute
and extract the order of design activity. Upon pervious discussions, the design process has
faced major fluctuations and there are diverse models for theoretical and practical
framework. In this research, design procedure steps are been studied mainly through the
lens of practice and tried to have a systematic order for design stages. In below tables, the

7 CAAD: Computer Aided Architecture Design

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

statistics and T-test calculations are available. . In Table 3 the design stages along with sub-
systems are illustrated according to possible enablers and software in order to enhance the
design procedure.

Table 3: Enablers embedded into architecture design system

Std. T-test
Sub-systems Design stages N Mean Enablers
Deviation Value
a.SCatch
Data collection 50 3.04 2.806 0.1
Research Engine
Energy_10
CITYZOOM
Analyze 50 4.12 2.700 2.9
Window Information
Representational System (WIS)
GENETIC
ALGORITHMS
Ideation 50 4.16 1.931 4.2 Hybrid Ideation Space
(HIS)
DDDoolz
DONKEY
Synthesize GOAL
50 4.92 2.212 5.2
information CB daylight systems
design
Proportional FLUENT
AUTOLISP
Conceptualization 50 4.92 2.617 6.1 ConDes
Design Performance
Viewer (DPV)
PLA(id)
Drafting 50 6.20 2.100 9.2
GENWIN
SUSTARC
Indexical
PREVENT
Evaluation 50 5.48 1.898 10.4
eQuest
SEMPER
Detailing 50 7,12 2,789 10.8 EnergyPlus
Operational
Presentation 50 7.88 2.379 14.5 VISCON

Second phase of the survey in aimed to learn from the designers and architects about
their awareness on the existence of assistive tools and the method they use in architecture
design, as well as identifying the obstacles that they may face during CAAD. Figure 7
illustrates the rate of this awareness about the tools that are extracted from literature and
practice in previous discussions. The similarity among all enablers is that more than 75% of
the designers have not heard about these tools and the ones who have heard about them
they do not use them in design procedure.

60

50

40
Contributors

30
Never heard about
20 Heard but not using
Currently using
10
Not using any more

Figure 7: Awareness rate of contributors toward computational enablers

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

 There are certain reasons that the designers do not use existing tools, for instance the
main highlighted barrier is lack of training facilities in institutional system or in e (Figure 8).

Figure 8: The reasons for NOT using CAAD tools in design procedure

In the commencing stages of design, educational background of the designer play the
main role and could extremely boost the ability of designer if he/she has been well equipped
upon required awareness and knowledge about the tools within design procedure and this
awareness needed to be built up in educational and institutional systems as one of the main
criteria of architecture education. Moreover, with the existence of these tools sets, still the
question remains that most of the available design tools do not include the overall design
process. They rather consider only one of design stages. Likewise, most design tools for the
early stages are manual ones (Yezioro, 2009).

6. PARAMETRIC DESIGN THINKING FRAMEWORK (PDT)

This research tried to have a systematic and comprehensive approach and perspective
on design procedure, and it is briefly discussed that traditional design procedures seem not
to be efficient enough to be applied for contemporary architecture design and even design
education in computational and computerized age. It is tried to implement maximum
potentiality of architecture theory within practice in order to propose a system which has the
capacity of dealing with complex problems not only in theoretical framework but at the same
time in practical discourses. The main structure of the PDT model is based on theory of
pattern language and each problem in design procedure could possibility managed within
series of patterns. These patterns are enabling to deal with complex problems by means of
implementing certain tools that we discussed. These tools and enablers in themselves are
following bottom-up and top-down process. In other words, the top-down geometrical,
parametrical and/or non-parametrical forces are imposed from the designer into the program
and at the same time there are bottom-up forces that the tools are imposing to the designer
or operator. Generally the procedure is that the top-down force inserts specific data and
information into the parametric bottom-up system(Osterhuis, 2012).

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

 Figure 9: Knowledge-based Model for design procedure, Proposed by author

These systems in themselves are clusters of design activity layers and in outer layers
there are sub-systems of design (representational, proportional, indexical, operational) which
are layered on top of each other. Mainly PDT model is knowledge-based system in order to
have maximum connectivity, flexibility, applicability, transformability and updatability
according to diverse dimensions of contemporary changing era and available tools. The
intersection and relation of these three items are illustrated in Figure 9.

7. CONCLUSION
In the proposed model as well as enhancing design process in a systematic manner it is
tried to build up a common ground for different kind of parameters quantitative and/or
qualitative together by means of highlighting the necessity of implementing methodologies
and tools in design procedure. This system works in multi layering method and there is no
linear or any kind of strict process. This flexibility gives chance to the system to embed
infinite number of parameters in design procedure. Another issue is about pattern layer that
is located between the design activity and the enabler or methodologies. So as the design
activity goes in hierarchical manner the enabler in different layers creates solutions in the
shape of patterns and this procedure goes on (Figure 10).
The PDT model starts with understand the sub-systems of design which is supported by
series of design activities. The design activity layer starts with data collection “procedure” not
essentially a “step” because in representational sub-system, the design activity consists of
data collection, analyze and ideation with the support of knowledge data base in the shape
of design patterns. These patterns according to the scale and complexity of the project could
be altered.
The alteration of patterns is the positive outcome of having diverse methodologies and
tools for each design problem. This procedure goes on for commencing sub-systems and
there is no end product because, since the beginning of procedure the start and the end is
visible, manageable, understandable and applicable. This flexibility in design is the outcome
of parametric thinking because any small alteration in any sub-system or design activity will
affects the whole procedure of design and this alteration and differentiation is not hidden in
contrast with traditional design processes.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

 Figure 10: Parametric Design Thinking model (PDT), Proposed by author

The improved characteristics of design process in PDT framework could be illustrated

as:
1. There is no linear process like manufacturing system for design because design is about
creating values not products.
2. The projected framework is not an introverted system in strict boundaries and stages, the
system possibly has the degree of flexibility according to design alterations.
3. The scale of the project is applicable in PDT framework because, the patterning system
allows the designer to choose among density of patterns according to the scale of project.
4. The balance between design and research is tried to be kept during the procedure, and
each enabler in itself acts like a process in order to be able to create solutions and
patterns.
5. The term complexity is embedded in the PDT model and it could possibility be adapted to
complex problem solving procedures which is the main necessity of contemporary
architecture.
6. The framework is specially generated for architecture design in contrast with traditional
design processes that applied for different discourses. Contemporary era necessitated
specialization in each field and the implementation of pattern layers and different enablers
in PDT model gives the sense of specific architecture design system to it.
7. PDT framework is abstract of practice and theory and is generated by researching in
existing and ongoing design activity among architects not only the theorists in order to
prevent any unpractical reflection.
8. Computer aided design tools act as practical enablers in PDT model in order to bridge
design activities to avoid incomplete and ineffective linear process of traditional design.
Parametric design thinking framework is the beginning of long journey for contemporary
design procedure and design education, there is a common ground for further studies in
detail. The main achievement of this model could be estimated as bringing different
parameters into the structure of design procedure and reflection of the term “technology” on
detailed phases of design by means of improving the gap between theory and practice by
means of implementing existing tools. The term technology is conducted as a discipline of
systematic thinking rather than a simple product. This model in the future could be tested
and implemented for designers and even in architecture schools step by step. It is not
possible to detach design process from design education and the contemporary education

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

system as well as architecture discipline needs to have training systems based on
technological and assistive tools. Lawson (1998) “The designers of today can no longer be
trained to follow a set of procedures since the rate of change of the world in which they must
work would soon leave them behind. We can no longer afford to immerse the student of
architecture or product design in a few traditional crafts. Rather they must learn to appreciate
and exploit new technology as it develops.”
To sum up, in contemporary era the perception and perspective of the students is
changing. The problem is not with the pace of technology; design education pedagogy must
shift in a way that covers communicational aspects of education in different shapes. The
other problem is that the speed of information generation is too high, then it doesn`t have the
room to settle down. The effect of this is obvious on new generation’s attitude in thinking on
the surface and seldom going in the details and depth of issues. So the shift in different
dimensions with networking and communication-based modifications will fill the gaps in
futuristic manner.

8. REFERENCES
ABDULLAH, H. K., & KAMARA, J. M. (2013). Parametric Design Procedures: A New Approach to
Generative-Form in the Conceptual Design Phase. Paper presented at the AEI 2013.
AHMED, S., WEBER, M., LIWICKI, M., LANGENHAN, C., DENGEL, A., & PETZOLD, F. (2014).
Automatic analysis and sketch-based retrieval of architectural floor plans. Pattern Recognition Letters,
35(0), 91-100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2013.04.005
AIA. The American Institute of Architects. Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architects.
ALEXANDER, C., ISHIKAWA, S., & SILVERSTEIN, M. (1977). Pattern languages. BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Center for Environmental Structure.
ARCHER, B. (1968). The structure of the design process. In: Emerging methods in environmental
design and planning. London: MIT Press.
ASIMOW, M. (1962). Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
ASIMOW, M. (1972). J.C. Jones Design methods Engineering Design Process. London: John Wiley &
Son.
BARRIOS HERNANDEZ, C. R. (2006). Thinking parametric design: introducing parametric Gaudi.
Design Studies, 27(3), 309-324. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.11.006
BHATT, M., BORRMANN, A., AMOR, R., & BEETZ, J. (2013). Architecture, computing, and design
assistance. Automation in Construction, 32(0), 161-164.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.01.001
BOUCHLAGHEM, D., SHANG, H., WHYTE, J., & GANAH, A. (2005). Visualisation in architecture,
engineering and construction (AEC). Automation in Construction, 14(3), 287-295.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.08.012
CALDAS, L. G., & NORFORD, L. K. (2002). A design optimization tool based on a genetic algorithm.
Automation in Construction, 11(2), 173-184. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00096-0
CAPELUTO, I. G., YEZIORO, A., & SHAVIV, E. (2003). Climatic aspects in urban design—a case
study. Building and Environment, 38(6), 827-835. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00063-
X
CARPO, M. (2013). The Ebb and Flow of Digital Innovation: From Form Making to Form Finding - and
Beyond. Architectural Design, 83(1), 56-61. doi: 10.1002/ad.1525
CHRONIS, A., LIAPI, K. A., & SIBETHEROS, I. (2012). A parametric approach to the bioclimatic
design of large scale projects: The case of a student housing complex. Automation in Construction,
22(0), 24-35. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.007
CLARKSON, J., & ECKERT, C. (2005). Design process improvement: a review of current practice.
London: Springer.
DAVILA DELGADO, J. M., & HOFMEYER, H. (2013). Automated generation of structural solutions
based on spatial designs. Automation in Construction, 35(0), 528-541.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.06.008

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

DE VRIES, B., & ACHTEN, H. H. (2002). DDDoolz: designing with modular masses. Design Studies,
23(6), 515-531. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00006-6
DONATH, D., & LOBOS, D. (2009). Plausibility in Early Stages of Architectural Design: A New Tool for
High-Rise Residential Buildings. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 14(3), 327-332.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1007-0214(09)70048-3
DORTA, T., PÉREZ, E., & LESAGE, A. (2008). The ideation gap:: hybrid tools, design flow and
practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121-141. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.004
GAVIN, A., & PAUL, H. (2009). Basics Design 08 : Design Thinking : Design Thinking. Crans-pres-
Celigny, CHE: AVA Publishing.
GEHRY, F. O. (2004). Reflections on designing and architectural practice.
GELERNTER, M. (1995). The ancient world Source of Architectural Form (pp. 36-68). New York:
Manchester University Press.
GRAZZIOTIN P., B. T., SCLOVSKY L. (2004). A tool for the visualization of the impact of urban
regulations: Cityzoom. Paper presented at the 8th Iberoamerican Congress of Digital Graphics, Porte
Alegre, Brasil.
GROAT, L., & WANG, D. (2013). Does Design Equal Research? Architectural research methods
(Second ed., pp. 25). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
GUENTER, P. A. C. R. F. (1970). Systematic Approach to Design. Lincoln: Department of Architecture,
university of Nebraska.
HAIK, Y., & SHAHIN, T. M. M. (2010). Engineering design process: CengageBrain.
HARRISS, H. (2011). LEARNING ARCHITECTURE THROUGH LIVE PROJECTS. Design and
Environment Oxford Brookes University(Education Category).
HVIID, C. A., NIELSEN, T. R., & SVENDSEN, S. (2008). Simple tool to evaluate the impact of daylight
on building energy consumption. Solar Energy, 82(9), 787-798.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.03.001
J. PETRIC, T. W. M. (1993). CAD in the Design Studio. Paper presented at the ECAADE’93,
Eindhoven University of Technology.
JABI, W. (2013). Parametric Design for Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishers.
JEONG, S. K., & BAN, Y. U. (2011). Computational algorithms to evaluate design solutions using
Space Syntax. Computer-Aided Design, 43(6), 664-676.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.02.011
JOHANSSON-SKÖLDBERG, U., WOODILLA, JILL, ÇETINKAYA, MEHVES. (2013). Design Thinking:
Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146. doi:
10.1111/caim.12023
JONES, J. C. (1972). Design Methods. London: John Wiley & Sons.
KHEMLANI, L. (1995). GENWIN: A generative computer tool for window design in energy-conscious
architecture. Building and Environment, 30(1), 73-81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-
1323(94)E0027-O
KILIAN, A. (2006). Design innovation through constraint modeling. International Journal of Architectural
Computing, 4(1), 87-105. doi: 10.1260/147807706777008993
KOURKOUTAS, V. (2007). Parametric Form Finding in Contemporary Architecture Master's thesis, TU
Vienna.
KRAFT, B., & NAGL, M. (2007). Visual knowledge specification for conceptual design: Definition and
tool support. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21(1), 67-83.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2006.10.001
LAWSON, B. (1998). Towards a computer-aided architectural design process: a journey of several
mirages. Computers in Industry, 35(1), 47-57. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(97)00083-3
LAWSON, B. (2006). How designers think: the design process demystified. Architectual Press, Oxford:
Routledge.
LEVIN, P. H. (1966). The design process in planning. Town Planning Review, 37(1), 5.

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

LIKERT, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, Vol 22(140),
55.
LOBOS, D. (2006). Plausible design of floor plans: A methodology supported by information technology
tools. Paper presented at the 10th Iberoamerican Congress of Digital Graphics (SigradiX), Santiago,
Chile.
MADKOUR, Y., NEUMANN, O., & ERHAN, H. (2009). Programmatic Formation: Practical Applications
of Parametric Design. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7(4), 587-604. doi:
10.1260/1478-0771.7.4.587
MADRAZO, L. (1999). Types and Instances: a paradigm for teaching design with computers. Design
Studies, 20(2), 177-193. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00033-7
MARKUS, T. (1967). The role of building performance measurement and appraisal in design method.
The Architects’ Journal, 20(15), 67–73.
MARTIN, M., & E., S. S. (1996). A computer-based daylight systems design tool. Automation in
Construction, 5(3), 193-209. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-5805(96)00151-3
MAVER, T. (2000). A number is worth a thousand pictures. Automation in Construction, 9(4), 333-336.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00016-3
MAVER, T. W. (1970). Appraisal in the building design process. In M. GT (Ed.), Emerging methods in
environmental design and planning (pp. 195–202). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
MOORE, G. T. (1974). The Design Process. Department of architecture. University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee.
NAYLOR, G. (1985). The Bauhaus reassessed: sources and design theory. London: Herbert Press.
NREL. (2005). ENERGY-10, The National Renewable Energy Laboratory with funding from the U.S.
OFLUOGLU, S., COYNE, R., & LEE, J. (2002). PLA(id): a tool for organising and sharing on-line
building product information. Automation in Construction, 11(5), 585-596.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(01)00068-1
OSTERHUIS, K. (2012). Simply complex, toward a new kind of building. Frontiers of Architectural
Research, 1(4), 411-420. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2012.08.003
OSTWALD, M. J. (2012). Systems and Enablers: Modeling the Impact of Contemporary Computational
Methods and Technologies on the Design Process. In X. W. N. Gu (Ed.), Computational Design
Methods and Technologies: Applications in CAD, CAM and CAE Education (pp. 1-17). Hershey:
Information Science Reference.
OXMAN, R. (2007). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge,
models and medium. ront matter Design Studies, 29 99e120.
PRESS, M., & COOPER, R. (2003). The design experience: the role of design and designers in the
twenty-first century: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
RIBA. (1972). In a. S. Royal Institute of British Architects (Ed.), J.C. Jones Design methods (pp. 24).
London: John Wiley & Son.
RITTLE, H. (1970). Summery of Standard Descriptions of the Design Process. Department of
Architecture, The University of California: Berkeley.
ROBERTSON, B. F., & RADCLIFFE, D. F. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in
engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136-146.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.007
SALINGAROS, N. A. (2000). The structure of pattern languages. Architectural Research Quarterly,
4(2), 149-161.
SCHLUETER, A., & THESSELING, F. (2009). Building information model based energy/exergy
performance assessment in early design stages. Automation in Construction, 18(2), 153-163.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.07.003
SCHNABEL, M. A. (2007). Parametric Designing in Architecture. Sydney.
SCHUMACHER, P. (2008). Parametricism-A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design. AD
Architectural Design - Digital Cities, London, 79(4, July/August).
SCHUMACHER, P. (2011). Autopoeisis of Architecture : A New Framework for Architecture. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: Wiley.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

SNYDER, J. C., CATANESE, A. J., & MACGINTRY, T. (1979). Design and the Design Process. In T.
McGinty (Ed.), Introduction to architecture (pp. 152-190): McGraw-Hill.
STUDENT. (1908). The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 1-25.
SVOBODA, L., NOVÁK, J., KURILLA, L., & ZEMAN, J. (2013). A framework for integrated design of
algorithmic architectural forms. Advances in Engineering Software.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.05.006
THORNLEY, D. G. (1963). Design Method in Architecture Education. Paper presented at the
Conference on Design Methods, New York.
WADE, J. W. (1977). Architecture, problems, and purposes: John Wiley & Sons.
WHITAKER, R. (1971). Eight-step Design Process. Department of Architecture,University of
Wisconsin: Milwaukee.
WIEZEL, A., & BECKER, R. (1996). CAD model for performance evaluation. Building and Environment,
31(4), 345-361. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-1323(96)00004-2
WINGLER, H. M. (1969). Bauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago. Chicago: MIT Press,Cambridge,
MA.
WOODBURY, R., WILLIAMSON, S., & BEESLEY, P. (2011). PRARMETRIC MODELLING AS A
DESIGN REPRESENTATION IN ARCHITECTURE: A PROCESS ACCOUNT. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association.
YEZIORO, A. (2009). A knowledge based CAAD system for passive solar architecture. Renewable
Energy, 34(3), 769-779. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.008
YEZIORO, A., DONG, B., & LEITE, F. (2008). An applied artificial intelligence approach towards
assessing building performance simulation tools. Energy and Buildings, 40(4), 612-620.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.04.014
ZHA, X. F., SRIRAM, R. D., FERNANDEZ, M. G., & MISTREE, F. (2008). Knowledge-intensive
collaborative decision support for design processes: A hybrid decision support model and agent.
Computers in Industry, 59(9), 905-922. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2008.07.009

A Framework For Exploring The Role Of Parametric Design On Design Procedure

 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, UNSPOKEN ISSUES in ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION - 2014

View publication stats