Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 17–26 | Cite as

John Gero’s Function-Behaviour-Structure model of designing: a critical analysis

Original Paper

Abstract

Over the last 12 years, the design research group at the Key Centre for Computing at the University of Sydney has been developing an extensive model of designing, looking at designing as a process in which the concepts of function, behaviour and structure of artefacts play a central role. In this paper, we critically analyse this model of designing, focussing on its internal clarity and external empirical validation. We review the model and present the definitions of the key concepts function, behaviour and structure. In doing so we show that one can distinguish at least two different versions of the model. Finally, we raise fundamental questions about the precise location of the transition between structural and intentional descriptions of artefacts in these versions, and about the empirical status of the model as a whole.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Larry Bucciarelli and Jeroen de Ridder for their participation in the discussions that led to this paper. Research by Pieter Vermaas was part of the program ‘The Dual Nature of Technical Artefacts’, which is supported by the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO) and research efforts by the Technè group.

References

  1. Bobrow DG (1984) (ed) Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems. Elsevier: Amsterdam. Reprinted from (1984) Artificial Intelligence 24Google Scholar
  2. Crane T (1998) Intentionality. In: Craig, E. (Ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 4. Routledge: London, pp 816–821Google Scholar
  3. Cross NG, Christiaans HHCM, Dorst K (eds) (1996) Analysing Design Activity. John Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorst CH (1997) Describing Design - A Comparison of Paradigms. PhD. thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. Gero JS (1990) Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine 11(4): 26–36Google Scholar
  6. Gero JS (2002) Categorising Technological Knowledge From a Design Methodological Perspective. Paper presented at the conference ‘Technological Knowledge: Philosophical Reflections’, Boxmeer, The Netherlands, June 13–15Google Scholar
  7. Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2002) The Situated Function-Behaviour-Structure Framework. In: Gero JS (ed) Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘02. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 89–104Google Scholar
  8. Gero JS, McNeill T (1998) An Approach to the Analysis of Design Protocols. Design Studies 19:21–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gero JS, Rosenman MA (1990) A Conceptual Framework for Knowledge-Based Design Research at Sydney University’s Design Computing Unit. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 5(2):65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gero JS, Tham KW, Lee HS (1992) Behaviour: A Link Between Function and Structure in Design. In: Brown DC, Waldron MB, Yoshikawa H (eds) Intelligent Computer Aided Design. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 193–225Google Scholar
  11. Kroes PA, Meijers AWM (2002) The Dual Nature of Technical Artifacts: Presentation of a New Research Program. Techne 6(2), http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n2/kroes.html
  12. Purcell AT, Gero JS, Edwards H, McNeill T (1996) The Data in Design Protocols: The Issue of Data Coding, Data Analysis in the Development of Models of the Design Process. In: Cross NG, Christiaans HHCM, Dorst K (eds) Analysing Design Activity, Wiley, Chichester, pp 225–252Google Scholar
  13. Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J (1995) Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1998) Purpose and Function in Design: From the Socio-Cultural to the Techno-Physical. Design Studies 19:161–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Searle JR (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Tham KW, Lee HS, Gero JS (1990) Building Envelope Design Using Design Prototypes. ASHRAE Transactions 96:508–520Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations