Design Computing and Cognition '12 2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_28
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beyond Function−Behavior−Structure

Abstract: Our research is investigating the relationship between design problem formulation and creative outcome. Towards that goal we have conducted experiments with designers engaged in problem formulation. In order to analyze such empirical data, a formal representation is needed. One popular model is the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) model and its several variants. Our problem map (P-map) model shares many common features with FBS but also many differences. A symmetric hierarchical representation is introduced n… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because this paper focuses specifically on the tool and the ontology has been thoroughly described in previous papers, we will only focus on aspects of the ontology relevant to our tool and describe these aspects in the context of a running example. For a more detailed discussion of why we prefer this representation over the function-behavior-structure and structurebehavior-function ontologies, see the work of Dinar et al [22]. To summarize this discussion, problem maps are more expressive than previous ontologies in three respects: they can model requirements, disjunctive hierarchical structure among elements in each category (e.g., among requirements), and metacognitive issues that designers may consider during the design process.…”
Section: Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Because this paper focuses specifically on the tool and the ontology has been thoroughly described in previous papers, we will only focus on aspects of the ontology relevant to our tool and describe these aspects in the context of a running example. For a more detailed discussion of why we prefer this representation over the function-behavior-structure and structurebehavior-function ontologies, see the work of Dinar et al [22]. To summarize this discussion, problem maps are more expressive than previous ontologies in three respects: they can model requirements, disjunctive hierarchical structure among elements in each category (e.g., among requirements), and metacognitive issues that designers may consider during the design process.…”
Section: Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Problem Formulator must represent these disjunctive protosolutions in an efficient manner. To this end, the system relies on the problem map [21][22][23] ontology shown in Fig. 1 for representing conceptual designs.…”
Section: Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two design theories answer the question ''function is realized through structure.'' Function behavior structure model 2,20,21 considered behavior as expected structure dynamic characteristics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coding scheme has been used in a number of studies (Gero & McNeill, 1998; Kan et al, 2007; Bilda & Gero, 2008; Gero, 2010 b ). Recently, Dinar et al (2012) proposed the problem map model, which is another domain-independent coding scheme but intended to focus on the analysis of problem formulation in design.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%