Notes about Gero's FBS framework and how it connects (or not) with my way of doing it.
This page is for notes. I'm developing a description of my own version at PFBS.
From [GK13]: “In searching for a way to think about designing, and axiom was proposed: The foundations of designing are independent of the designer, their situation, and what is being designed.”
From [GK13]: “Based on this axiom two hypotheses about representing designs and designing were proposed: (1) all designs could be represented in a uniform way, and (2) all designing could be represented in a uniform way.”
From [GK13]: “The observable input and output of any design activity is a set of requirements (R) that come from outside the designer….”
From [GK06]: “Many agent-based systems are based on traditional models and theories of designing that assume the world as being fixed, well-defined and unchanged by what you do. This static view of the world is not in accord with the results of empirical design research. In order to develop computational design agents as aids to human designers, we need a model of designing in which all the knowledge is not encoded a priori and which allows for a changing world within which the agent operates. and ”…the notion of situatedness… emphasizes that the agent's view of a world changes depending on what the agent does.“
From [GK13][GK06]: “Function is the teleology of the artefact (“what the artefact is for”). It is ascribed to the artefact by establishing a connection between one’s goals and the artefact’s measurable effects.”
From [GK13][GK06]: “Behaviour is defined as the artefact’s attributes that can be derived from its structure (“what the artefact does”). Behaviour provides measurable performance criteria for comparing different artefacts.”
From [GK13]: FBS also distinguished between actual and expected behaviour (and only behaviour) as a means of capturing the design tasks associated with testing. This is important.
From [GK13]: “Structure is defined as its components and their relationships (“what the artefact consists of”).”
It's very difficult to tell whether the definitions of function, behaviour, and structure constitute models of reality, or are assumed to be labels that denote actual real-world things.
Table 1 in [GK13] has some interesting examples.
From [GK06]: ”…the designer ascribes function to behaviour and derives behaviour from structure. A direct connection between function and structure, however, is not established.“
From [GK13]: Since sometimes various disruptive cognitive processes (e.g., lateral thinking) can lead from a structure to a new insight, FBS allows for mappings from structure back to behaviour and to function.
From [GK06], below are summaries of the basic processes.
Formulation (process 1) transforms the design problem, expressed in function (F), into behaviour (Be) that is expected to enable this function.
Synthesis (process 2) transforms the expected behaviour (Be) into a solution structure (S) that is intended to exhibit this desired behaviour.
Analysis (process 3) derives the “actual” behaviour (Bs) from the synthesized structure (S).
Evaluation (process 4) compares the behaviour derived from structure (Bs) with the expected behaviour to prepare the decision if the design solution is to be accepted.
Documentation (process 5) produces the design description (D) for constructing or manufacturing the product.
Reformulation type 1 (process 6) addresses changes in the design state space in terms of structure variables or ranges of values for them.
Reformulation type 2 (process 7) addresses changes in the design state space in terms of behaviour variables or ranges of values for them.
Reformulation type 3 (process 8) addresses changes in the design state space in terms of function variables or ranges of values for them.
The approach described in [FCS14] - the “casual relation template” - seems to imply a causative connection between behaviour and function. The structure of the template implies one verb causes another; this could well also connect behaviour to function1).
I think one of the important pieces missing from [FCS14] is any sense of context in which the analogizing is done; context of the participant's experiences and training, of the problem they have to solve, etc. FBS and PFBS seem to do better by having either situatedness or system environments baked in.
TODO I disagree with this figure, because I do not believe the 3 worlds overlap as shown except, possibly, at the end of a design. The external world contains unknown true things, and the agent may be mistaken about some things, so the interpreted and external worlds only overlap partly. The expected world is reasonably a subset of the of interpreted world, but similarly overlaps the external world only partly.
From [GK13][GK06]: The application of situated cognition to FBS involves admitting 3 “worlds:” the external world, the interpreted world, and the expected world. These three are collections of claims that exist in the designer's mind. However, sFBS embeds the interpreted world in the external world, and the expected world in the interpreted world. I'm not sure this makes sense. Also, the whole situatedness thing isn't described in a way that is consistent with systems thinking.
The experiments reported ever so briefly at the end of [GK13] are not reproducible, although at least citations are provided.
From [GK06]: “The interpreted world is the world that is built up inside the designer or design agent in terms of sensory experiences, percepts and concepts. It is the internal representation of that part of the external world that the designer interacts with.”
TODO The notion of including beliefs by way of situated cognition just screams using an action logic to represent it all.