Advertisement

Beyond the Design Perspective of Gero’s FBS Framework

  • Gaetano Cascini
  • Luca Del Frate
  • Gualtiero Fantoni
  • Francesca Montagna

Abstract

Among the various model based theories, the Gero’s FBS framework is acknowledged as a well-grounded, effective and tested reference for describing both analysis and synthesis design tasks. Despite its design-centric nature, the FBS model can provide a valid support also to represent processes and tasks beyond its original scope. The specific interest of the authors is to extend the FBS application to model also uses and misuses of objects, interpretations of the users, needs and requirements. In fact, as partially addressed also in literature, some issues arise when the classical FBS framework is adopted to model particular aspects such as the user’s role, values and needs, as well as to produce an explicit representation of failures and redundant functions. The full paper presents an extended classification of aspects, beyond the design perspective, which currently cannot be represented by the FBS model and some directions for its possible extension. Several examples clarify the scope and the characteristics of the proposed model.

Keywords

User Interface Interact Interface Design Intent Design Perspective Cherry Tomato 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gero, J.S.: Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: The situated function-behavior-structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vermaas, P.E.: The Flexible Meaning of Function in Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 2009), Stanford University, California, United States, August 24-27, vol. 2, pp. 113–124 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J., Pardasani, A.: Collaborative conceptual design – state of the art and future trends. Computer-Aided Design 34, 981–996 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R.: Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16, 162–177 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erden, M.S., Komoto, H., van Beek, T.J., D’Amelio, V., Echavarria, V., Tomiyama, T.: A Review of Function Modeling: Approaches and Applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, 147–169 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cascini, G., Fantoni, G., Montagna, F.: Reflections on the FBS model: proposal for an extension to needs and requirements modeling. Submitted to the International Design Conference - Design 2010, Dubrovnik - Croatia, May 17-20 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: Understanding Innovation as Change of Value Systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP Working Conference on Computer Aided Innovation (CAI), Harbin, China 20-21, pp. 38–50 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deng, Y.M., Britton, G.A., Tor, S.B.: Constraint-based functional design verification for conceptual design. Computer-Aided Design 32, 889–899 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown, D.C., Blessing, L.: The relationship between function and affordance. In: DETC2005-85017, Long Beach, California, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Norman, D.A.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, Inc. (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vermaas, P.E.: The physical connection: engineering function ascriptions to technical artefacts and their components. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37(1), 62–75 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuipers, B.: Qualitative Reasoning: modeling and simulation with incomplete. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keuneke, A., Allemang, D.: Exploring the no-function-in-structure principle. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 1, 79–89 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R.: Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16, 162–177 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaver, W.W.: Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching Through Technology, pp. 79–84. ACM Press, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Del Frate, L., Franssen, M., Vermaas, P.E.: Towards defining technical failure for integrated product development. In: Proceedings of TMCE 2010 Symposium, Ancona, Italy, April 12-16, pp. 1013–1026 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Becattini, N., Cascini, G., Rotini, F.: Correlations between the evolution of contradictions and the law of ideality increase. In: Proceedings of the 9th ETRIA/CIRP TRIZ Future Conference, Timisoara, Romania 4-6, pp. 26–34 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Umeda, Y., Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawa, H.: FBS Modeling: Modeling scheme of function for conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the 9th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, Amsterdam, NL 11-19, pp. 271–278 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vicente, K.J.: Cognitive Work Analysis, Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-based Work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IEC 61508-4 Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems - Part 4: Definitions and abbreviations. International Electrotechnical Commission (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    IEC 60812 Analysis Techniques for System Reliability Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). International Electrotechnical Commission (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maier, J.R.A., Fadel, G.M.: Affordance-based methods for design. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, vol. 3, pp. 785–794 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dallard, P., Fitzpatrick, A.J., Flint, A., Le Bourva, S., Low, A., Ridsdill Smith, R.M., Willford, M.: The London Millennium Footbridge. Structural Engineer 79(22), 17–33 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaetano Cascini
    • 1
  • Luca Del Frate
    • 2
  • Gualtiero Fantoni
    • 3
  • Francesca Montagna
    • 4
  1. 1.Politecnico di MilanoItaly
  2. 2.Delft University of TechnologyNetherlands
  3. 3.Università di PisaItaly
  4. 4.Politecnico di TorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations