Abstract
The Function-Behavior-Structure model (FBS) of design conceptualizes objects in terms of function, behavior, and structure. It has been widely utilized as a foundation for modelling the design process that transforms posited functions to a description of behaviors. Nevertheless, the FBS model is still regarded as a subjective and experience-based process and it provides no theory about how a function is transformed into behavior. Research has shown that the critical concepts of function and behavior have many different definitions. This paper suggests a viable alternative and contrasts it with the FBS framework of design using published study cases. The results point to several benefits gained by adopting the proposed method.
Highlights
To develop a science of designing, design research aims at a better understanding of design, the development of tools to aid designers, and the potential automation of some design tasks
“The conceptual design phase is acknowledged as critical. It offers the greatest scope for significant enhancements and decisions made in this phase impact all subsequent design phases” [4]. This phase can be based on the framework called the Function-Behavior-Structure model (FBS)
The point of these examples is to show that the notions of function, behavior, and structure can be discussed as features of the Flowthing Model (FM) diagrammatic representation
Summary
To develop a science of designing, design research aims at a better understanding of design, the development of tools to aid designers, and the potential automation of some design tasks. “The conceptual design phase is acknowledged as critical It offers the greatest scope for significant enhancements and decisions made in this phase impact all subsequent design phases” [4]. This phase can be based on the framework called the Function-Behavior-Structure model (FBS). The FBS-based design conceptualizes objects in terms of function, behavior, and structure It has been widely utilized as a foundation for modelling the design process [1][5,6]. This paper suggests a viable alternative to the FBS model of design in terms of a diagrammatic language that is akin to specifications in software engineering It applies this alternative to the concepts of function, behavior, and structure. The model has been adapted to several applications [10--15]; the example given here is a new contribution
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
