Function Behavior Structure Framework Research Articles

Development of an agent-based model incorporating Function–Behavior–Structure framework to enable systems engineering design process evaluation

An important step in the development of any process is evaluation. Evaluation ensures that the process affects effectiveness, efficiency, or other metrics as designed. Without evaluation, processes must stand solely on the theories, axioms, and/or heuristics that formed them. Outcome or objectives-based evaluations are especially useful in seeing if the expected impact is realized. Systems and design engineering present problems for outcome evaluations due to system design efforts being long in duration, expensive, organization/team specific, and environment/context specific. These characteristics make repeating the same effort under the same conditions using different processes difficult, if not impossible. While a comparison of processes for evaluation in a real application may not be feasible, a simulation of the processes with agents that capture system design behaviors may produce findings to support hypotheses. This paper examines the use of agent-based modeling and simulation to compare pseudo-waterfall and pseudo-agile engineering processes for a simple design problem. The Function–Behavior–Structure (FBS) model of design is used along with empirical data from FBS studies to examine the performance of a two-person design team using pseudo-waterfall and pseudo-agile engineering processes. The results of this exercise show possible advantages of agile-like processes in total time to complete the design.

CCDSF: A Computational Creative Design Systems Framework

From a mixed perspective of the fields of computational creativity and design research, we present a formal framework called Computational Creative Design Systems Framework (CCDSF) for describing, analyzing, and modeling Computational Creative Design Systems (CCDSs), either as autonomous agents or as collaborative systems integrating different agents, including both pure computational and human–computer scenarios. The CCDSF extends and unifies three existing frameworks: (i) the Function–Behavior–Structure framework for designing, to integrate design domain-specific knowledge; (ii) the Creative Systems Framework, to model design as a creative process; and (iii) the Conceptual Spaces Theory framework, to define the CCDSF at a more neutral level to be compatible with both the conceptual-space nature of the creative process and the implementation-level representation systems. The CCDSF core is a layered schema that structures the activity of designing through design concepts produced by design processes instrumented by agent-specific perception and action strategies, within a hierarchy of what we call design levels. Each layer of the schema constitutes a creative system that can implement exploratory, combinational, and transformational creativity mechanisms, including the possibility of defining the system at a meta-creative level. The hierarchical arrangement of creative systems defines the architecture of a CCDS. This architecture enables modeling CCDSs considering both the perspective of the generation and evaluation of artifacts that could be deemed creative and the precise modeling of the cognitive process of design, emphasizing its situated nature. To illustrate its usefulness, in the last part of this paper, we use the proposed framework to describe a real system in the videogame design domain.

On the cognitive microfoundations of effectual design: the Situated Function–Behavior–Structure framework

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to extend effectuation theory at the front end by building cognitive foundations for the effectual design process.Design/methodology/approachWe adopt an integrative conceptual approach drawing on design cognition theory to explain entrepreneurial cognition.FindingsWe find a significant gap in the entrepreneurial cognition literature with respect to effectuation processes. We thus integrate the Situated Function–Behavior–Structure framework from design theory to elaborate on the cognitive processes of effectuation, specifically with regard to the opportunity development process. This framework describes the cognitive subprocesses by which entrepreneurs means and ends are cyclically (re)formulated over time until a viable “opportunity” emerges, and the venture is formalized, or else, the entrepreneur abandons the venture and exits.”Practical implicationsUnravelling this entrepreneurial design process may facilitate more appropriate and effective design work by entrepreneurs, leading to more successful product designs. It also should facilitate the development of better design techniques and instruction.Originality/valueThis research contributes to new cognitive foundations for effectuation theory and entrepreneurial process research. It better explains how means are transformed into valuable goods over time through an iterative reconsideration of means-ends frameworks. This theoretical elaboration will expectedly facilitate additional research into the iterative cognitive processes of design and enable more formulaic design thinking.

Agent-Based Simulation of Hardware-Intensive Design Teams Using the Function–Behavior–Structure Framework

Agile processes have been used in software development, with many case studies indicating positive changes in productivity when these processes are used. Agile processes are beginning to be applied to work beyond software-centric systems. There does not yet exist a diverse set of studies on the effectiveness of Agile processes on hardware-intensive systems. The research in this article applies a modeling and simulation-based approach which uses the function–behavior–structure framework to evaluate the effectiveness of waterfall and Agile processes. The simulation was validated against case studies of software-centric design efforts. When applied to a space launch vehicle—a highly coupled, hardware-intensive system—the simulation shows that the benefits of Agile may not be as great as those seen with software-intensive systems.

Human factors integration in manufacturing systems design using function–behavior–structure framework and behaviour simulations

Human factors integration is often achieved during detailed manufacturing system design phases. Whereas, significant decisions are token when overall primary design is set. Accordingly, this paper introduces a new design framework based on the function–behavior–structure to consider human factors earlier in the design process. The main idea consists in analysing the behavioural interactions between workers and manufacturing equipment driven from the system structure. Relevant human and health related factors to these interactions are then integrated in the analysis. These interactions are model and simulated to assess the system design using specific productivity and working conditions indicators.

A FBS-based energy modelling method for energy efficiency-oriented design

Energy efficiency-oriented design is highly valued in reducing the energy consumption during product use and models for characterizing energy consumption are widely regarded as essential prerequisites of energy efficiency-oriented design. Unfortunately, correlating energy consumption with the products’ design features during the design process is a difficult task. To address this challenge, this paper uses the Function-Behaviour-Structure (FBS) ontology as a bridge to link design features and energy consumption throughout the design process and proposes a FBS-based energy modelling method. This method divides the energy modelling process into two steps. The first is to identify the required energy information and characteristics from available data on the design. The second step is to arrange the obtained information in a logical order to create energy models. Two tools, namely the modified FBS framework and the energy flow diagram, are introduced to aid designers in respectively dealing with the two energy modelling steps. To demonstrate this method, a case study considering mechanical linkage servo press is carried out.

Software engineering process theory: A multi-method comparison of Sensemaking–Coevolution–Implementation Theory and Function–Behavior–Structure Theory

ContextSoftware engineering has experienced increased calls for attention to theory, including process theory and general theory. However, few process theories or potential general theories have been proposed and little empirical evaluation has been attempted. ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper is to empirically evaluate two previously untested software development process theories – Sensemaking–Coevolution–Implementation Theory (SCI) and the Function–Behavior–Structure Framework (FBS). MethodA survey of more than 1300 software developers is combined with four longitudinal, positivist case studies to achieve a simultaneously broad and deep empirical evaluation. Instrument development, statistical analysis of questionnaire data, case data analysis using a closed-ended, a priori coding scheme and data triangulation are described. ResultsCase data analysis strongly supports SCI, as does analysis of questionnaire response distributions (p<0.001; chi-square goodness of fit test). Furthermore, case-questionnaire triangulation found no evidence that support for SCI varied by participants’ gender, education, experience, nationality or the size or nature of their projects. ConclusionsSCI is supported. No evidence of an FBS subculture was found. This suggests that instead of iterating between weakly-coupled phases (analysis, design, coding, testing), it is more accurate and useful to conceptualize development as ad hoc oscillation between making sense of the project context (Sensemaking), simultaneously improving mental representations of the context and design space (Coevolution) and constructing, debugging and deploying software artifacts (Implementation).

Extending the situated function–behaviour–structure framework to human–machine interaction

Despite the increasing importance of human–machine interaction (HMI) in design, there are not reference models defining and describing design activities where users are directly involved in the team. Some years ago, the situated function–behaviour–structure (FBS) framework was developed to model traditional engineering design processes but these mainly focus on technological matters and users are not directly addressed. The goal of this research is to extend this framework to cover several aspects of the HMI field. To achieve this goal, an existing design aid named interaction design integrated method is exploited. The design activities based on this aid are mapped onto the situated FBS framework to highlight possible lacks or misalignment. The outcomes are used to find where and how to intervene to extend the framework. The mapping highlighted six criticalities and their analysis allowed for adding the users as a new agent in the design process, as well as for introducing new variables and design activities referred to this new actor.

Is designing independent of domain? Comparing models of engineering, software and service design

This paper presents a quantitative method for analysing process models of designing independently of the specific design domain. The method uses the situated function–behaviour–structure framework as the basis for a simulation model of a designer acting according to these models. The results of these simulations are sequences of design issues that are analysed using cumulative occurrence graphs with associated quantitative measures. The paper illustrates the approach by analysing and comparing three models of designing from different domains: Pahl and Beitz’ model of engineering design, the rational unified process of software design and a model of design for six sigma in service design. The quantitative results indicate some commonalities across the different models. These commonalities are related to the start of cognitive effort spent on design issues, the continuity of the cognitive effort throughout the design process and the constancy of the speed with which design issues are generated.

Situating needs and requirements in the FBS framework

The paper proposes an extension of Gero's Function–Behaviour–Structure (FBS) framework aimed at representing Needs and Requirements and their relationships with the Function, the Behaviour and the Structure of an artefact. Needs and Requirements are modelled as further types of variables to describe, with the same formal approach of the situated FBS model, the transformation processes, which occur in the earlier stages of design. The proposed model is clarified through an application to the information gathered within an industrial project to reduce water and energy consumption of a washing machine. By situating Needs and Requirements into the FBS framework, it is possible to properly represent all the tasks and the related cognitive processes characterising the earliest stages of the new product development.

B-Cube, behavioural modelling of technical artefacts

A new model, B-Cube, is described for managing knowledge at the behaviour level of the function–behaviour–structure framework. The model proposes a three-dimensional approach to the behavioural modelling of technical artefacts using definitions based mainly on the meta-ontology DOLCE as concepts of behaviour.The present work aims to show how these terms and those from the NIST functional basis can complement each other in functional design. It is assumed that this model achieves similar objectives with behaviours to those obtained by the NIST functional basis with functions, i.e. the representation of behaviours in CAD and KBS, a scheme for the modelling of behaviours and a universal set of behaviours. The modelling language IDEF was adapted to be able to produce a graphic example of the modelling of technical artefacts in the FBS framework using B-Cube terminology at the behaviour level.

A multi-relational and interactive model for supporting the design process in the conceptual phase

The article presents an interactive model that increases the possibilities of exploration during the design process, increasing the number of ways to guide and build the design alternatives. The model considers a knowledge representation, based on the function–behaviour–structure framework that increases the number of relations between the representation levels. With this model, the designer can explore and converge the design space by means of rules that connect the abstraction levels. The model begins the synthesis from any level of abstraction; it explores the knowledge by means of pop-up menus, which can be freely selected by the user and makes it possible to go back to higher levels of abstraction during the synthesis. The paper starts with a brief survey of some of the most significant functional synthesis models and the knowledge schemes used, and then it describes the proposed model and its application to a design case.

An ontologically-based evaluation of software design methods

AbstractThis paper develops an ontological basis for evaluating software design methods, based on the situated function–behaviour–structure framework. This framework accounts for the situatedness of designing, viewing it as a dynamic activity driven by interactions between designers and the artefacts being designed. On the basis of this framework, we derive a general evaluation schema that we apply to five software design methods. The ideas presented in this work contribute to a better understanding of design methods, and uncover opportunities for method integration and development.

A function–behavior–structure ontology of processes

AbstractThis paper presents how the function–behavior–structure (FBS) ontology can be used to represent processes despite its original focus on representing objects. The FBS ontology provides a uniform framework for classifying processes, and includes higher level semantics in their representation. We show that this ontology supports a situated view of processes based on a model of three interacting worlds. The situated FBS framework is then used to describe the situated design of processes.

An ontology of situated design teams

AbstractThis paper presents an ontological framework for situated design teams in which the team is both the subject and the object of designing. Team designing is modeled using the set of processes provided by the situated function–behavior–structure framework. This is a formal basis for understanding the drivers for change in the product to be designed and in the design team. We specifically focus on changes in a team's structure that emerge from interactions among individual team members and subteams.

The situated function–behaviour–structure framework

This paper extends the function–behaviour–structure (FBS) framework, which proposed eight fundamental processes involved in designing. That framework did not explicitly account for the dynamic character of the context in which designing takes place, described by the notion of situatedness. This paper describes this concept as a recursive interrelationship between different environments, which, together with a model of constructive memory, provides the foundation of a situated FBS framework. The eight fundamental processes are then reconstructed within this new framework to represent designing in a dynamic world.