<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SmartGeometry 2009 Conference Day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aecbytes.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/10/smartgeometry-2009-conference-day/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aecbytes.com/blog/2009/04/10/smartgeometry-2009-conference-day/</link>
	<description>A Forum for AECbytes Readers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:21:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dominik Holzer</title>
		<link>http://aecbytes.com/blog/2009/04/10/smartgeometry-2009-conference-day/#comment-26175</link>
		<dc:creator>Dominik Holzer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:07:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aecbytes.com/blog/2009/04/10/smartgeometry-2009-conference-day/#comment-26175</guid>
		<description>In response to the above question, I&#039;d like to argue that optioneering as such is rather a method and that it does not necessarily rely on any specific software. Optioneering logic implies a form of understanding between collaborating parties who discuss the criteria space for a design or a specific problem at the outset of their collaboration. They then address and trade-off the criteria through a controlled set of alterations that yield informed choices for decision-making (best done in teams).

There is a variety of technology available to support these processes that are intrinsically social in the context of the built environment:

Parametric modelling tools such as Bentley’s Generative Components,  Gehry Technologies’ Digital Project, or Rhino’s Grasshopper plugin help to generate a quick turnaround of what I call ‘Geometry Cases’ that help to keep a design in a flexible, yet controlled state.  Multi-criteria decision analysis MCDA tools for engineering design optimisation such as ModelCenter from ‘Phoenix Integration’ and modeFRONTIER from ‘Esteco’ help solve complex trade-studies using optimization algorithms and  Design of Experiments (DoE).  These tools are rather generic as they support many kinds of MCDA and they do not necessarily focus on the building industry. 

The development of DesignLink that I have started in collaboration with Arup is addressing the lack of an appropriate tool in support of optioneering in the building industry by specifically linking building performance analysis tools with parametric design updates. DesignLink calls up applications, communicates between them and stores design data for comparison and decision support. It is currently being tested and expanded at Arup and we plan to open-source it to get stronger support industry-wide. 

In case you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at: dholzer@aecconnect.com

Regards

Dominik</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to the above question, I&#8217;d like to argue that optioneering as such is rather a method and that it does not necessarily rely on any specific software. Optioneering logic implies a form of understanding between collaborating parties who discuss the criteria space for a design or a specific problem at the outset of their collaboration. They then address and trade-off the criteria through a controlled set of alterations that yield informed choices for decision-making (best done in teams).</p>
<p>There is a variety of technology available to support these processes that are intrinsically social in the context of the built environment:</p>
<p>Parametric modelling tools such as Bentley’s Generative Components,  Gehry Technologies’ Digital Project, or Rhino’s Grasshopper plugin help to generate a quick turnaround of what I call ‘Geometry Cases’ that help to keep a design in a flexible, yet controlled state.  Multi-criteria decision analysis MCDA tools for engineering design optimisation such as ModelCenter from ‘Phoenix Integration’ and modeFRONTIER from ‘Esteco’ help solve complex trade-studies using optimization algorithms and  Design of Experiments (DoE).  These tools are rather generic as they support many kinds of MCDA and they do not necessarily focus on the building industry. </p>
<p>The development of DesignLink that I have started in collaboration with Arup is addressing the lack of an appropriate tool in support of optioneering in the building industry by specifically linking building performance analysis tools with parametric design updates. DesignLink calls up applications, communicates between them and stores design data for comparison and decision support. It is currently being tested and expanded at Arup and we plan to open-source it to get stronger support industry-wide. </p>
<p>In case you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at: <a href="mailto:dholzer@aecconnect.com">dholzer@aecconnect.com</a></p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>Dominik</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bumbalough</title>
		<link>http://aecbytes.com/blog/2009/04/10/smartgeometry-2009-conference-day/#comment-26161</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Bumbalough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aecbytes.com/blog/2009/04/10/smartgeometry-2009-conference-day/#comment-26161</guid>
		<description>This is a very interesting application of optioneering logic.  Is there a website with this technology available yet commercially?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a very interesting application of optioneering logic.  Is there a website with this technology available yet commercially?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.235 seconds -->

