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
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.
5 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
6 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
7 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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).
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 *
10 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
11 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 12
Better grip on the cork
Tends to drill a hole
Design Activities: Basic model
14 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 15
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. .
16 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
evaluation
selection Ai+1
Ai = ai+info
selection
Transformation
Transition
Basic interaction process loop
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 17
Make (representation of) new artifact
A i+1 A i
Desired Behavior Actual Behavior Generate / Transform
material structure +
- Evaluate
closed-loop-action-control-concept
Gero’s Function Behavior Structure (FBS) model
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 20
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
21 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 22
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.
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 23
• 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
24 SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action
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
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 25
• 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
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.
SPT2015 Hans Tromp: Artifact Design in Action 27
Top Related