Functional Artifact Design in Action, modeling design through philosophy of action

Functional Artifact Design in Action

modeling design through philosophy of action

SPT conference 2015 Shenyang Hans Tromp Radboud University Nijmegen v2f printable

Contents

• Background

• Applicable Action Theories

• Artifact: Conceptual Model • Modeling Design

• Conclusion

SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 2

Background

PhD thesis work title:

“On Designing Functional Artifacts,

explored through Philosophy of Action and Cognition”

At the intersection of

Philosophy of Technology & Philosophy of Cognition

3 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action

Research question:

How can we understand the creation of artifacts from a philosophy of cognition perspective

Applicable Action theories


Philosophy of Action

Donald Davidson (Davidson 1987: 106):

“practical reasoning” can precede the actual action,

[t]he intention is not part of the action, but a cause of it.

Intentions are also required to explain how complex actions are monitored and controlled.


Philosphy of action is about: • actions for reasons • actions through intentions • actions by beliefs and desires

Experiences, Knowledge, Expectations

Fred Dretske: (Dretske 1988: 79-107)

Modeling actions by beliefs and desires

Action control and adaptation


Example: vestibulo oculaire reflex. Eye muscles compensate for movements of the head in order to keep the image on the retina stable.

In case the correction control is insufficient, the control algorithm will be adapted by a higher level control loop

Change

Actual

Realisation mechanism

Control Desire

+ -

Activity

Adaptation mechanism

+ -

Philosophy of action: multi-level concept


Intentional causation

Intention: Belief & Desire

Direct interactions Body movements

Sensor – motoric systems

Agent causation

State causation

Intrinsic desires &

Affordances

Practical reasoning

• Conflict deliberations • Functional alternative deliberations

Theoretical reasoning

Desires Beliefs

*

*)This conceptual structuring is quite similar to the concept of Elisabeth Pacherie(2008).

Artifact: Conceptual Model

SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action

8

Conceptual view on Artifacts

9 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in

Action

Artifact Behavioral characteristics

Intentional domain

Physical domain

Physical Properties

Material Structure Characteristics

Desires / plans

Technical Function

Analyses are based on: the Dual Nature concept of Artifacts, worked out from a cognition perspective

Artifact: Conceptual Tripartite model *


Application context(s)

Material structure

Functions

Behavioral characteristics

Artifact

Refers to the ‘how’ and execution of action includes affordance

Refers to the “what for” of artifacts in action

Functions: plural functionality

*) An earlier version has been presented at the SPT2013 (Tromp: 2013)

‘Behavior’ of artifacts


The notion of behavior is introduced, because from a cognitive perspective: The physical structure of an artifact as such does not provide a sufficient direct connection to cognitive processes included in design activities. In many cases the knowledge of the function of an artifact in addition to the physical structure is also insufficient to use the artifact without the knowledge how to use it and/or why not to use it.

Behavior of an artifact: The effects, during the lifecycle of the artifact, intended and non-intended properties under use and changing external conditions (not restricted to the specified conditions)

Example: corkscrew

Same function but different behavior and structure


Better grip on the cork

Tends to drill a hole

Basic Design model


Design Activities: Basic model


Artificial(s) A

Artifact P

Design process activities

Application contexts

Functional requirements & constraints

Design & realisation contexts

Basic position: New Artifacts are designed on:

• modifications & combinations of existing artifacts

• knowledge of basic principles, physical laws, experiences

verification


Auxilary elements: The design process can be considered as an activity based on modifications and combinations of a set of artificials Set of Artificials = Artifacts + Artifictions (hypothetical artifacts or parts)

including: • all related information • and all representations

Design Activities: Auxillary elements

The set of artificials can include:

• actual artifacts • imaginary artifacts • actual materials • imaginary materials • any kind of software

Design : Transformations & Transitions

Most of the small steps in the design process are detailed changes (transformations) in the mind of the designer. Then selection and evaluation steps will result in a new design as the start for the next phase. .


evaluation

selection Ai+1

Ai = ai+info

selection

Transformation

Transition

Basic interaction process loop


Make (representation of) new artifact

A i+1 A i

Desired Behavior Actual Behavior Generate / Transform

material structure +

- Evaluate

closed-loop-action-control-concept

Design Models


Gero’s Function Behavior Structure (FBS) model


19

Gero: fundamental variables: • Function • Behavior • Structure

variables

Diagram from Gero 2004

Functions

expected

Behaviours

Actual Behaviours

Structure

Design description

formulation

analysis

evaluation

synthesis

reformulation

documentation

Reformulation

Reformulation

Reconfigured

FBS model vs Artifact Centred FBS model


Functions

expected Behaviour

Actual Behaviours

Structure

Design description

formulation

analysis

evaluation

synthesis

Reformulation

reformulation

documentation

Reformulation

Functions

desired Behaviours

Actual Behaviours

Structure

Representations

formulation analysis

evaluation

Transform input

reformulation

Reformulation

Reformulation

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

4 4

5

5

1 Design description is final stage replaced by representations, more central 2 Analysis structure – actual behavior representation – actual behavior 3 Reformulation of function from structure Function reformulation via Behaviors 4 Expected behavior Desired Behaviors (action theory vocabulary)

5 Synthesis expected Behavior to structure managed transformation directions *

*) will be defined later

Input from Design activities model #1 Lawson & Dorst


Design activities model #1 Lawson & Dorst (2009)

reconfigure

formulate

Move:

•Reformulate •function •behavior

•Transform •Material- struct.

evaluate

manage

represent

Capability-oriented Action-oriented

a Cognitive Action oriented model


Actual Behavior

Make representation of new artifact

A i+1 A i

Desired Behavior

Generate, Transform material structure

Evaluate & Analyse

Reformulate function / behavior

Formulate behavior

Desired Functions

Problem solution

Application context

MD

MD

MD

MD

MD

MD : Manage Direction

Additional cognitive factor: Application oriented loops

Realisation orientated loops

Incl. Affordance

Manage Directions and Representations

• Manage Direction: This generic action complements the others by providing

directions for changes.

Based on the verification / evaluation, changes have to be generated to meet the desired behavior.

Choosing strategies requires an overview of the total activity. This activity is usually a mixture of rational deliberation and intuitive knowledge based on experience in the field.

This item requires more detailed analysis.


• Representations include: sketches, drawings, partial test models, simulation models, CAD representations, prototypes, final reference models, and other kinds of representing information.

Discussion on the FBS model of designing


Kees Dorst and Pieter Vermaas (2005) made critical comments on Gero’s FBS model from the starting position: the dual nature distinction between a structural and intentional description of artifacts They stated In designing, a transition typically occurs between these two types of descriptions: functions or puposes, which may be seen as intentional descriptions of the artifact to be designed, are transformed in structural of physical descriptions of this artifact.

Although also based on the dual nature distinction in the action oriented structure defined in this presentation behavioral charcteristics are placed more central: Design here is considered as an activity composed of a set of different actions to achieve a desired result. These actions include transformations of the material structure of artifacts and / or artificial concepts in order to achieve the behavior to realise a new function or an improved performance.

Conclusion


• The dual nature of artifacts based on the tripartite conceptual model of functional artifacts offers a useful base for cognition- based analysis.

• Gero’s FBS model and Lawson and Dorst’s model #1 provide complementary input for an action-oriented cognitive artifact design model.

• The proposed Artifact Centered FBS model provides an view of the design action structure in contrast to Gero’s from the outside of the design process

• Thank you

• Questions & Comments?


26

References

• Davidson, Donald. 1987. “Problems in the Explanation of Action in Problems of Rationality.” In Problems of Rationality, edited by Donald Davidson, 101–16. Clarendon Press Oxford (2004).

• Dorst, Kees, and Pieter E. Vermaas. 2005. “John Gero’s Function-Behaviour-Structure Model of Designing: A Critical Analysis.” Research in Engineering Design 16 (1-2): 17–26. doi:10.1007/s00163-005-0058-z.

• Dretske, Fred. 1988. Explaining Behavior. MIT press (1988).

• Gero, John S., and Udo Kannengiesser. 2004. “The Situated Function–behaviour–structure Framework.” Design Studies 25 (4): 373–91. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010.

• Houkes, Wybo, and Pieter E. Vermaas. 2010. Technical Functions, on the Use and Design of Artifacts. Springer, Dordrecht.

• Kroes, Peter, and Antonie Meijers. 2006. “The Dual Nature of Technical Artefacts.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 1–4.

• Lawson, Bryan., and Kees. Dorst. 2009. Design Expertise. Oxford, UK; Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

• Pacherie, Elisabeth. 2008. “The Phenomenology of Action: A Conceptual Framework.” Cognition 107 (1): 179–217. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.003.

• Preston, Beth. 2009. “Philosophical Theories of Artifact Function.” In The Handbook of The Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

• Tromp, Hans H. M. 2013. “Design View on Functional Artifacts, in Search of the Input for a Cognitive Analysis of Artifact Design.” In , SPT2013 conferenceTrack 11. Lisbon.


Functional Artifact Design in Action, modeling design through philosophy of action

Documents

Transcript of Functional Artifact Design in Action, modeling design through philosophy of action