Analysis of interconnected decision areas (AIDA)

on

When analysing a prob­lem a num­ber of dif­fer­ent deci­sions may have to be tak­en. These deci­sions are inter­con­nect­ed to each oth­er and will have influ­ence over their fea­si­bil­i­ty. This method, which is sim­i­lar to Mor­phol­o­gy, can be used at any stage of the design process. Its aim is to quick­ly elim­i­nate unlike­ly solu­tions and pro­pose com­bi­na­tions of inter­con­nect­ed ideas to cre­ate fea­si­ble solu­tions. Three steps are required:

  1. Estab­lish Deci­sion areas
  2. Chart options
  3. Rep­re­sent the deci­sion areas and options : Option Graph

This method can be repeat­ed with new deci­sion areas to cre­ate a more focused idea. How­ev­er this is a good stage to cre­ate the appro­pri­ate visu­als to clear­ly illus­trate the options.

Options for the design of an all weath­er child’s push chair

A. Type of cover
  • A1. Per­ma­nent (ridged)
  • A2. Remov­able
B. The position of the access area
  • B1. Between both axles
  • B2. At front
  • B3. At back
C. Arrangement of handles
  • C1. Straight across bar
  • C2. Par­al­lel bars
  • C3. Adjustable
D. Storage of unit
  • D1. Min­i­mal flat pack
  • D2. Fold­ing
  • D3. Ridged frame
E. Seat arrangement
  • E1. Fac­ing Back­wards
  • E2. Fac­ing for­wards

A1:D1. If the cov­er is per­ma­nent it is unlike­ly that the unit can become min­i­mal

A1:D2. If the cov­er is per­ma­nent it is unlike­ly that the unit can be effec­tive­ly fold­ed

B2:E1. If the access is from the front it would be imprac­ti­cal for the seat to face back­wards

B3:E2. If the access is from the back it would be imprac­ti­cal for the seat to face for­wards

C1:B1. If a straight across bar is used it would be dif­fi­cult to gain access from the back

C1:E1. Using the straight han­dle would imply that a back­wards fac­ing seat would be imprac­ti­cal

The fol­low­ing dia­gram can then be gen­er­at­ed. It out­lines the no go areas by con­nect­ing the sub fac­tors by a line.