Advanced Building Simulation

14 Augenbroe
B
Domain
experts
A
Domain
experts
Context---Performance
interface
Context---Performance
Process interface
Inner design
team (architect)
Design
Repr.
Design
Coordination
Domain
experts
Figure 1.5 Variants of delegation of expert analysis to domain experts and their tools.
formalized analysis requests along with an explicit design context. Equally important is
the import of analysis results in a form that supports better-informed rational decisionmaking.
The basic distinction between designer-friendly tools (Figure 1.4) and designintegrated
tools (Figure 1.5) is the reduction and encapsulation of domain knowledge in
the first case versus enrichment and externalization of design context in the second. This
has repercussions for the way that the design team operates. Instead of a tool user, the
inner design team needs to become a central design manager, maintain a central design
repository and act as a coordinating agent for domain experts. Variants A, B, C, and D
of Figure 1.5 show different versions of how this advanced form of design evolution
strategies, and especially the integration of analysis in design evolution, may be realized.
The four variants differ in integration concepts and integration architecture.
Variant A represents the “classical” integration case attempted in projects like
COMBINE (Augenbroe 1995). In this variant, the design context information and
analysis results are exchanged between the inner design team and remote experts and
their tools. The interface is data oriented, with little or no support for process management
such as the management of task flow logic. When the exchange is embedded
in an interoperability layer to allow easy data exchange and (automated) mappings
between different views or perspectives, variant B will result. This variant uses a coordination
module that controls data exchange and performs workflow management
across the design team members and consultants. Contrary to variant A, the interface
in variant B has access to explicit knowledge about the design analysis scenarios that
are delegated to a consultant.
Variants C and D take a different approach to the team integration challenge.
Variant C represents a practical partnering approach, whereas variant D is driven by
deep software integration rather than on interoperability of legacy applications. In
variant C a team of simulation experts is invited into the inner design team, and a high
C
D