You are on page 1of 15

Automation in Construction 8 Ž1999.


Performance-based design
Yehuda E. Kalay
Department of Architecture, UniÕersity of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Abstract Even before Louis Sullivan coined the phrase ‘Form Follows Function,’ architectural researchers have sought, to no avail, a causal relationship between these two primary constituents of the building enterprise. This paper attempts to explain why this quest has been futile, and proposes a performance-based design paradigm, instead of the prevailing process-based paradigms. It suggests that the driving force behind any design activity is the desire to achieve a qualitative solution for a particular combination of form and function in a specific context. Furthermore, it suggests that quality can only be determined by a multi-criteria, multi-disciplinary performance eÕaluation, which comprises a weighted sum of several satisfactionrbehavior functions. The paper develops a performance-based design methodology and demonstrates its application in an experimental, knowledge-based CAD system. q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Design methods; Design process; Paradigms of design; Design knowledge; Performance evaluation

1. Introduction The quest for understanding how humans perform complex cognitive activities, such as architectural and engineering design has been the raison d’etre of ˆ design methods research for the past four decades. Behind this quest stands the need to improve the quality of the built environment, as well as the processes of its procurement Ždesign, construction, and management.. Why, then, after four decades of diligent research and development, we find that buildings are far from perfect in their ability to satisfy all the physical, social, cultural, and economic needs of the people who are affected by them? Why, in fact, the more we know about the built environment, the less satisfied we are with our creations? In their quest to affect such desired improvements, design method researchers have sought to

understand how designers do what they do when they design. This understanding would lead, it was hoped, to the development of methods and tools that can help architects and engineers consistently and reliably achieve desired high-quality results. Many approaches have been tried, including psychological, philosophical, and engineering research methods w1,3,12,18x. For the most part, this endeavor has been guided by the Aristotelian notion that design is a process that seeks a convergence of form and function: a physical means that can support certain human needs or activities, subject to certain conditions and constraints. Following Louis Sullivan’s proclamation that ‘Form Follows Function’ w27x, most architectural design methods researchers sought a processes-based, causal relationship between form and function. At the core of this quest lay three assumptions: Ž1. that a physical system’s significant geometrical Žand ma-

0926-5805r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 6 - 5 8 0 5 Ž 9 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 - 7

architectural design often begins with an incubation. or utility. has emerged from the work of researchers like Alexander w4x and Archea w6x. attributed to Simon w24x. The other paradigm. attempted to explain the process of design as a unique instance of general problem-solÕing. for instance. neither can be considered the basis for seeking the other. When presented with these theoretical paradigms. It suggests that the quest for design tools must begin not by exploring how architects design. which begins with a statement of forms or functions. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 terial. introspective phase. The first. Instead of the well-behaved theoretical process. but rather by asking what they do when they design.E. nor their many derivatives and permutations. and the circumstances under which the two come together. They would argue that design. the functional objectives Žgoals. from a practical implementation point of view. has gained much favor with architects themselves. it accounts for performance variances of the same formrfunction combinations within different contexts. neither of these two paradigms. it attempts to achieve. while some forms and functions do exist at the outset of the design process. this changed research agenda raises the question: how will such an account help bring about the sought improvement in the design process or its products? The answer lies in performance eÕaluation. It postulated that designers begin with a kit of forms Žthat include materials as well as shape. which are modified and adapted according to certain rules until they achieve some desired functional qualities. depends on . two different paradigms of design have emerged. The viability of the proposed paradigm.396 Y. While logically consistent and computationally convenient. the performance of a proposed design solution can only be determined by an interpretive. which can be applied with some assurance of success in every case where a form must be produced that will optimally facilitate and support a given set of functional needs. because it will not purport to describe how each individual pursues the design process. ‘wicked’ process. then how can they form a basis for the development of design tools that purport to assist them? Indeed. and Ž3. On the other hand. is a serendipitous. that finding a causal relationship between form and function will lead to the development of a method. Moreover. and case studies. alternative. the existence of intuitive leaps introduces discontinuity in the causalitybased search process.e. The designer then attempt to discover a form that will support the desired function.. This paradigm is based on inductiÕe reasoning. The notion of performance is derived from the argument that the relationship between form and function is context-based. replete with uncertainty and discovery Žoften referred to as the intuitiÕe leap .. practice has shown that current design tools Žwhich are predominantly based on one of the two paradigms. the desired behavior of the system. that one form is more suitable to fulfilling that function than other. which is often represented as a set of goals and constraints. properties have some function. Ž2. rather than causalitybased.. called puzzle-making. Thus. and that different functions can often be afforded by similar forms. That is. which considers the form Žand other physical attributes. Hence. followed by iterative refinement of both form and function until some harmonious coexistence emerges w1x. most architects would not agree that their own design process resemble either one of the two paradigms w22x. especially architectural design. the limited success of prefabricated building systems. forms. This paper proposes an alternative approach to the understanding of the process of architectural design. force architects into a methodological ‘straight jacket’ which they use only when forced to Žwitness. and has been modeled with the aid of analogical inferencing methods Žmetaphors. symbols. or better yet—when examined ethnographically under actual conditions w13x. Over the past four decades. performance-based design recognizes that different forms can successfully achieve similar functions. of the proposed solution. If the prevailing paradigms cannot explain how architects work. using deductiÕe search strategies.. destroying any hope of developing a coherent method that is based on any monotonous theory. It postulated that the designer start with the sought function Ži.. An account of what architects do would stand a better chance to be accepted by architects. judgmental evaluation. representing two fundamentally different approaches to explaining the causal relationship between form and function. w21x. In addition.

1969. Such goal-driven approaches have been computationally represented as deductive. we develop the argument for performance-based design. surface finish. and implemented in a computer program called GPS ŽGeneral Problem Solver. preferences. Newell and Shaw in the late 1950s. for developing theories and methods intended to assist architects in performing their increasingly more demanding task of finding the ‘right’ form–function combination. can be separated from the process of finding a solution that meets them. until one is found that meets them.’ ‘context. introduce a specific representation of performance. The goals. alternative forms. and that one form is more suitable for fulfilling that function than other. Initially. backward-reasoning search strategies. Problem-solÕing Problem-solving is a general theory that attempts to explain the cognitive process of creative thinking. We will define these terms more precisely in the second part of the paper. For example. 1 properties have some functional utility. the desirability of a particular combination of form–function-context. according to the problem-solving paradigm. as well as trade-offs and other subjective measures of satisfaction. pp. and the ability to draw operational conclusions from this comparison. those that follow what Archea w6x called Puzzle-making. thus.Y. To find the solution. This notion and its inverse Žfunction is derived from form. ‘guide’ the search for a solution right from the beginning of the problemsolving process. and therefore. It was first formalized by Simon. the term FORM will be used to refer to all the physical attributes of objects. and Ž2. its proponents hold that the search for a ‘satisficing’ 2 solution is goal-directed. Among its other achievements. we will use the terms ‘form.1. 2. so that the differences can be reduced.. using this approach. Such representation differs from common evaluation and simulation procedures. that means–ends analysis can be employed to guide the search towards finding the desired solution. and that such knowledge can be acquired through an independent inquiry Žanalysis. cost.’ and ‘performance’ loosely. In the following. has guided architects and engineers for millennia. Problem-solving assumes that the desired effects of some intellectual effort can be stated in the form of constraints and goals at the outset of the quest for a solution to achieve them. An experimental framework that implements both the paradigm and the performance representation measures serves to illustrate the theoretical concepts. in that it must account for judgment. 2. 35–36. relying on the reader’s intuitive understanding of their meaning. the two pillars of architectural design. the problem solver uses a variety of search strategies to generate successive candidate solutions and test them against the stated goals. 1 In the following. etc. those that follow Simon’s w24x Problem-solÕing paradigm. They can be classified into two general groups w2x: Ž1. are known prior to commencing the search for the solution itself. the skills that are employed when following the problem-solving paradigm are mainly analytical: the ability to compare the current ‘state’ of the designed artifact to its desired ‘state’ Žin terms of its expected utility and behavior. where such rigor is needed. hence. this notion has provided a convenient causal relationship between form and function.. where operators are applied 2 Meaning ‘good enough. then reason about.. knowing what should be accomplished..E. Problem-solving assumes that setting goals Ži. Causality-based design paradigms The notion that Form follows Function is derived from the assumption that a system’s significant geometrical Žand material. Many formal theories that were forwarded over the years to explain what architects do have been based on this logical foundation. . including their material composition. and other characteristics of the structure have been determined.’ The term was coined by Herbert Simon in his book Sciences of the Artificial.. Thus. then. selecting a structural system to span some opening will generally follow after an analysis of forces. which should be completed before the search for a solution has been initiated w1x.e.’ ‘function. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 397 our ability to represent explicitly. Since the characteristics of the problem. MIT Press.

as well as the precedents. architects can only use them as a starting point and a catalyst for the design process. same function The over-simplicity of the notion ‘Form Follows Function’ is evidenced by the multitude of different . Puzzle-making The assumption that. to form a complete goal statement. in architecture. The main skills employed when following this paradigm are synthetic: the ability to compose given parts into a new.’ either from the architect’s own experience or from the experience of the profession at large. following a given set of combinatorial rules. a particular form often affords many different functions. since the sought solution is unique. the puzzle-making paradigm relies on adaptation of precedents. which generates new insights into the problem. architectural styles. celebrated buildings. we argue that the relationship between Form and Function is much more complicated than implied by the causality-based notion of ‘Form Follows Function. Kim w17x and others have argued that the brief architects are given by their clients. and a similar function is often afforded by many different forms. that architects must gradually develop the statement of goals as they proceed with the design process itself.1.26x. Example of tools based on this approach include generative expert systems. and other relevant past experiences Žso-called ‘design cases’. is a process of discoÕery. They suggest.’ and its inverse. symbols. Since the relationship between the newly invented information. is much too vague. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 to the goal statement in order to convert it into a set of sub-goals that are easier to solve. whole. They argued that such knowledge cannot exist prior to the search itself.14. shape grammars.. be compared to puzzle-making—the search for the most appropriate effects that can be attained in unique spatio-temporal situations through the manipulation of a given set of components. Other kinds of relationships between form and function In this paper. in most cases. instead. 3.25x. established metaphorical relationships. they rely on design ‘cases. and case-base design systems w10.20x.2. Since architects cannot invent information from scratch in every case. and recognized symbolisms w29x. something that provides a sense of direction and a sounding board for potential resolutions.E. rather than rely on a goal-driven strategy. 2. The additional information needed to complete the goal statement must either be inÕented as part of the search process. or adapted from generalized precedents. Such data-driÕen approaches have been computationally represented as forwardreasoning search strategies: operators are applied to the current state of the problem with the aim of transforming it according to pre-set rules. to provide them with a rich pool of empirically validated information which has been refined through many years of practice and has gained society’s or the profession’s approval. and a large number of evaluation programs. and the process of finding it is characterized by discoÕery and has to contend with uncertainty. the characteristics of the desired solution can be formulated prior to and independently of the search for the solution that satisfies them was rejected by critics like Archea w6x and Bijl w8x. Indeed. to the particular needs of the problem can be discovered only as the problem becomes clearer. This information comes in the form of proven solutions w4x. Design. Examples of tools based on this paradigm include space allocation programs w7.398 Y. unique. such as way-finding and energy w15. and metaphors. according to this view. How architects adapt this body of knowledge to the particular problem at hand is not known—it is the essence of architecture’s celebrated ‘intuitive leap’ and creativity. the adaptation itself is problem-specific and cannot be accomplished prior to engaging in the search process itself. 3. prototypes. therefore. which often constitutes the basis for the design goals. Many forms. The following examples will serve to illustrate this argument. Therefore. Rather than use the client’s definition of the desired effects of the sought building as a complete problem definition. The design search process may. This method is applied recursively until a set of sub-goals that can be solved without further reduction is found w19x.

In the eighteenth century. shops. for example. Herbert Simon. and playing with friends. during. Design competitions. In addition to providing a place for sleeping..2. and for socializing with close friends and family members. such playing games like ‘house. The ability of the same form to afford different functions is further demonstrated by what we now call adaptiÕe re-use. especially as far as children’s bedrooms are concerned. doing homework. just as any other criteria can. says Simon. gyms. reading. however.’ ‘cops and robbers. and as places for entertaining guests. Furthermore. such functions include sleeping. produce a very different form for exactly the same function. This trend is characterized by corporations.. through the seventeenth century. Today. Since design problems generally do not have unique or optimal solutions. Each and every competitor will. Chairs provide one of the best examples of different forms that were developed to support exactly the same function Žsitting. also functioned as parlors. The term designates the conversion of older buildings to meet modern needs.’ which include full bathrooms. We may feel free. which appeal more to boys than to girls. Moreover. something to be contemplated only when all the other ‘important’ aspects of the design have been dealt with. He attributes this performance to the creative imagination of the children. and entertainment centers. provide additional evidence that in architecture. a playground that consists mostly of a sandbox. It is rooted in the economic realities of the late 20th century. to exercise some choice of path. and is equally accessible to both boys and girls. Some scholars have tried to explain this apparent lack of causality by arguing that. and walk-in closets. the definition of their function was broadened again. and the growing need for urban renewal and rehabilitation.e. dressing rooms. bedrooms became a place to occupy only at night. placing an old fire engine in a playground Ža form. He offers the following analogy: ‘‘Mushrooms can be found in many places in the forest.’ chosen from a number of alternative ways w23x. and civic plazas. and influences its development. has defined style as ‘one way of doing things. functional. some rocks. Many functions.Y. Another example of architectural multi-purpose Ži. and even residential units moving into older buildings in the core of cities. the functional requirements of a building do not tightly constrain its form. same form The notion that a given form can support many different functions is demonstrated well by designs of playgrounds.. and after the development of solutions satisfying the functional needs. an afterthought. They often serve as home-offices. the function of bedrooms became more focused. Most architects. dining rooms. . and the time it takes us to fill a sack with them may not depend much on the direction we wonder.’ or the landing of an alien spaceship.E. and a few trees or bushes affords less restricted play patterns. Bedrooms for the adults Žthe so-called ‘Master Bedroom’. generic forms into particular needs. bedrooms. typically. since each one informs the other. that it is something a competent architect will consider before. 3. Rather than tear . where competitors must respond to the same set of functional requirements within the same context. and even to introduce additional choice criteria . spaces has been described by Elizabeth Cromley in her paper on the history and evolution of modern bedrooms w11x. will direct the children’s activities towards particular play patterns. parks. who can adapt the existing. For instance. . for quiet retirement. they would argue. Rather. van Andel observed that this particular form tends to create gender-biased play patterns. Joost van Andel w5x observed that playgrounds for children between the ages three and seven perform best if the activities they afford are less structured. as a place for sleeping and dressing. On the other hand. thus. have turned into ‘suites. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 399 forms that essentially were designed to support similar functions. the two issues cannot be separated. over and above the pragmatic one of bringing back a full sack Žof mushrooms. would reject this notion that form is the result of less ‘practical’ functional considerations than other aspects of the building. In the nineteenth century. in terms of the equipment they contain.’’. form does not necessarily follow function. then. leaving the architect with much room to entertain ‘styles’ and other ‘nonpractical’ considerations. In the 20th century. style can be used to select a solution from among several functionally equiÕalent alternatives. and therefore. invariably.

as much as from its function Ža symphony hall. Other kinds of form–function relationships Peter Eisneman’s structuralist approach to buildings. NY. that a particular form is capable of supporting a certain functional need in a particular context. which derives from his own interpretation of Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories Žas well as Jacques Derrida and other philosophers. this landmark building served as a poorhouse and a lunatic asylum until 1893. which is based on a series of geometrical transformations on a cube. Performance. as depicted in his design of House X. 3. By ob- We suggest that this description of design leads to a different paradigm than either problem-solving or puzzle-making.3. to assess the desirability of the behavior of the confluence of the form.1. it was acquired by the University of Buffalo. The process terminates when the designer finds a form that fulfills the function. social. and Gerrit Rietveld’s colorful Schroder ¨ House in Utrecht. The Netherlands Ž1931. The notion of performance 4. when it became a county hospital. where desired functional traits are defined. It may reveal. as much as from its functional and physical site considerations. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 down a building which may have some historical or cultural significance..4. 1. as much as by functional requirements. Designing.. Fig. therefore.E. 4. it will be deemed ‘successful. serving. and served as the office of the president until the new campus was built in 1968.400 Y. when it became the School of Architecture and Planning of the State University of New York at Buffalo. as a measure of the confluence of Form. demonstrates well the complexity of the relationships between form and function. has been shaped as much by the neoclassicist cultural ideas of the De Stijl movement to which he belonged. new tenants may rehabilitate it while preserving its character. We call this condition functional adequacy: the instance when form and function come together to achieve acceptable performance within a given context w9x. As stated earlier. 2.. and a process of evaluation is used to determine the desirability of the confluence of forms and functions within the given context ŽFig. for example. The form of the Sydney opera house is an example of a form derived from the physical context of the building Žthe Sydney harbor. Likewise. forms are proposed. in Buffalo. we consider performance to be a measure of the desirability of the confluence .. in which case.’ On the other hand. or is satisfied by the functionalities afforded by the chosen form. or to modify the desired function to meet the ones afforded by that form in that particular context. Function and Context. measuring. and interpreting this behavior. 1. Performance evaluation is intended. Performance-based design The position taken in this paper is that Form. and other contexts in which it is embedded. within the given context. In 1909. The importance of context The form of a building also depends upon the physical. at least as much as it depends on the function it must serve. Built circa 1865. can be considered as an iterative process of exploration. function and context. 3. cultural... it may reveal a need to modify the form to meet the desired function in the particular context. the shape of Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp Chapel has been derived from its spiritual context. together with painters like Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian. we can assess the performance of the solution. We call it performance-based design. A typical case in point is Hayes Hall. accordingly. Function and Context combine to determine the behaÕior of the proposed solution ŽFig.

they measure the behavior of some aspects of the designed system.g. Fig. Some typical satisfaction curves. Fig.. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 401 Fig. . form and function within a given context Žwhich. we offer the concept of satisfaction functions. These are mappings that express the specific relationship between the behavior of a system and the subjective measure of its desirability under specific circumstances. The curves demonstrate several phenomena commonly associated with satisfaction. Each point on every curve denotes the performance of the form– function-context combination with regard to some measure Že.. for example. and used by Mahdavi in his SEMPER programme ŽAutomation in Construction 6Ž2.Y. Satisfaction curves were first introduced by Kunz and Rittel in the 1970s. Design as a bi-directional exploration of a Form–Function-Context composition. 3 depicts several typical satisfaction curves: on one axis. ‘Desirability. they measure the degree of satisfaction each behavior value elicits in the client. 2. until its behavior in some area reaches a certain threshold. demonstrates that the client may generally be satisfied with the behavior of the system. 3b. Fig. such as cost... To deal with this fuzziness. or noise level.: 353–373. On the other. is a fuzzy and subjective measure. 3. we call ‘behaÕior’. in turn. cost.’ however.E.

Typically. a shallow slope indicates a wider latitude in satisfying the client. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 Then. and those that are over-satisfied. the client may state that his budget for building a single family house is US$300. . an algorithm can be developed that provides hints to the designer. while achieving less-well the over-satisfied needs. by expressing the tolerance for satisfying the expressed need. it is possible to identify needs that are not being satisfied. to seek a design solution that better achieves the under-satisfied needs. The composite result of the summation of weighted.000.000.000. we can add them up. in the sense that each curve pertains to satisfaction derived from one behavior only. as a percentage between full and zero satisfaction.’ or ‘barely satisfied.’ ‘more or less satisfied.. The curves allow for such notions as ‘quite satisfied. But since different behaviors weigh differently in the overall performance measure. The curve also shows that in the vicinity of US$300. which allows more room for trade-offs with other satisfaction curves that may need to be modified. to 0% Žnot satisfied. Trade-offs Trade-offs are the hallmark of every design activity. in terms of the weight assigned to it. Hence. in terms of the steepness of the curve. we must first assign to each of them a relative weight.402 Y. a small change in the system’s behavior will result in satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This method is well-established. and 3. satisfaction diminishes. The different slopes of the rising and diminishing parts of the curve show that there is more latitude in satisfying the client’s budgetary needs under US$300. be set by the client. It shows that the client will be most satisfied if the building costs US$300.E. On the other hand. of course. by prioritizing the relative importance of each need. all the functional needs of a building cannot be satisfied by any one design solution. For instance. For example. 2. In fact. The mappings they afford are expressed as numerical values.2.000. It first identifies the under-satisfied needs. it would suggest that those of Fig. It is possible. He will not be satisfied at all if the building costs over US$315. The achievement of certain needs often must come at the expense of other needs. so that others are also satisfied. by explicitly showing how well any one need is being satisfied. Similar satisfaction functions can be developed for each aspect of the building.000. 4. Using these three measures.000 than there is over US$300. say "US$3. then the over-satisfied ones. in three ways: 1.000. indicating possible trade-offs. therefore. his satisfaction is virtually unchanged. Using the satisfaction curve depicted in Fig. normalized satisfactions is presented to the client as the overall performance of a given design solution. or less than US$270. 3c. and has been used by other researchers to develop aggregates of multi-criteria evaluations w30x. is gradual. A satisfaction curve expressing building cost behavior. 4. he may develop a function of the kind shown in Fig. the more abrupt the change. 4. or by the designer. They are unary functions. The satisfaction curves must. Among the over-satisfied needs.’ to be expressed. eliminating windows on the west side of a building to save energy might also deprive the inhabitants of a fabulous view. but the change from 100% Žcompletely satisfied. each of which expresses the client’s satisfaction with respect to one specific behavior.000. This makes it possible to set them individually. But how much should any one need to be compromised? The satisfaction functions also facilitate this often difficult decision-making process. the degree of satisfying some needs may have to be compromised. The slopes of the curves allow us to express the rate of change: the steeper the slope. To aggregate the separate satisfaction curves into one composite measure of performance. which means that once the threshold has been reached.

collaborative design environment. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 403 Fig. It might also store specific suggestions for improving under-satisfied needs. 6. for the most part.Y. Such advise could be added through a knowledge base. would be candidates for reduced-satisfaction. which stores rules about the relationships between the various needs. It will also indicate how much latitude exists in reducing their satisfaction levels. The general multidisciplinary.E. Nonetheless.. . Given that the inter-relationships between the different needs are not obvious. 5. The structure of an Intelligent Design Assistant ŽIDeA. only a Fig. the algorithm cannot tell which specific need ought to be compromised to achieve another need. lower importance Žas expressed by their associated weights.

ventilation. views. we have implemented it in a test program that operates in the domain of windows. The IDeAs may also call upon external evaluation tools. as part of a larger research project. Intelligent Design Assistants ŽIDeAs. and budget. 5.E. make all the necessary adjustments. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 complete new design solution can. 7. in general. including a Project Database ŽPDB. Ž2. collaborative design environment w16x.. environment for developing a set of functional requirements Žneeds.. it provides a Žsimple. that store object-specific. are the means used to interact with these databases. A case study To test the validity of the proposed paradigm. which aims to develop a multidisciplinary. it evaluates the performance of proposed solutions Žin terms of fenestration only. is a design agent capable of three actions: Ž1. . and design solutions that attempt to meet the stated needs. Setting desired satisfaction levels. in case it has identified under-satisfied needs. The program. using five criteria Ždaylighting. project-specific design information. called The Fenestration IDeA.. but project-independent data ŽFig. sound transmission. This environment comprises several components. The Fenestration IDeA has been developed by Gustavo Llavaneras. and several Objects Database ŽODBs. while using their expertise in different fields to actively assist the designers. for storing the evolving. and may be composed of other. 5. it provides advise for making design changes to achieve the sought degree of satisfaction.404 Y. more specialized Fig. and Ž3.

as well as other aspects Že. and represent.. if the designer has indicated that a wall is not an external wall. for daylighting and ventilation... residences. the IDeA first asks the designer to choose the domain of his work Žschools. 8. as well as on the locality in which they are being built. etc. Hence. Fig. 7.. Each IDeA is a goal-based agent...E. These inputs are used to select the pertinent knowledge bases. Designing the room and its windows. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 405 IDeAs. as well as the context of the particular design project. The designer can set the desired satisfaction levels for each function. It represents explicitly function and form. Once the Context and the Function have been specified. in turn.g. the context of the project. offices. in their own right. Function is limited to the five criteria listed earlier. ‘Acceptable limits’ are.g. a task-specific database. . the IDeA will not let him put a window in that wall... dependent upon the overall function of the design: they differ for classrooms. and a group of performance predictors and evaluators ŽFig. assistance is provided in terms of verifying code compliance for minimal dimensions. the Fenestration IDeA provides the designer with the means to design a room with its windows ŽFig. using sliders ŽFig. 8.. and the location of the project. The Fenestration IDeA implements the proposed paradigm. comprising an ActionrDecision system which stores its taskspecific rules. and private residences.Y. 6. in a simplified manner. office buildings. Again. The IDeA verifies that the satisfaction levels set by the designer are within acceptable building code limits. if such codes exist Že.

that such advise will be provided using the method outlined earlier: the system will identify the leastsatisfied functions. and the ones that are well-satisfied yet have some latitude in lowering their level of satisfaction. as depicted in Fig. the Fenestration IDeA may suggest using a more expensive . thus. y MinL Ž MLS y 100 . For example.MinL MinL F x F DesL . Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 Fig. and assess its performance. / q ž MLS y 100 MinLy DesL / x The overall performance is calculated and presented in numerical and visual forms. For the sake of simplicity. Once the Form has. DesL y MaxL / x. Linear piece-wise approximated noise-reduction satisfaction function. been specified. y1 s ž Ž MinL y DesL. the noise reduction satisfaction curve is approximated using the functions depicted in Fig. the Fenestration IDeA performs the necessary tests to predict the behavior of the form–function-context combination. as expressed by the following equations: and y2 s ž MLS Ž DesL y MaxL . / q ž Ž 100 y MLS. 9. For instance.406 Y. the Fenestration IDeA approximates the satisfaction curves in a piece-wise linear form. 9. Then. 10. the system could identify strategies for satisfying the under-satisfied functions. °0 y1 f Ž x.x F MaxL x ) MaxL ¶ ß • with MLS Ž MinLy DesL .E. It is envisioned. y DesL Ž 100 y MLS. if the noise-reduction function is not satisfied. DesL . The Fenestration IDeA has not yet progressed to the advise-giving level. using the task-specific knowledge-bases available to it. Ž DesL y MaxL. but there is some room for reducing the satisfaction of the budget requirement. however. s y2 0 ~ ¢ if if if if x .

. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 407 Fig. 10.Y.E. Several different ways for presenting the overall performance.

Conclusion The development of computational tools that can truly assist humans in performing complex activities such as architectural design relies upon developing a deep understanding of the process that is to be assisted. the search for formal theories that can explain the process of design tended to converge on causality-based paradigms. North-Holland. w2x Y. References w1x O. hence. whose dissertation work helped developed the paradigm. along with the proposed paradigm. the attractivity of statements such as ‘Form follows Function. University of California.E. 1982. Many architects found this logically-convenient statement inadequate to describe what their experiences taught them. It does not attempt to formalize the intuitive leap itself. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 triple-glazed window. Alexander. Two different systematic approaches to design. w5x J. van Andel. instead of the selected twopane window. M. Delft. and on casting this understanding into a model that can be represented explicitly Žand thus can be translated into a computer program.408 Y. only to accommodate it in the model. Thanks are also due to Professor Carlo Sequin from the Department of Computer Science at ´ Berkeley. Press.. CA. have been tested through the development of an experimental system intended to support the design of windows in a building. Berkeley.’ This leap occurs when architects. which architects call ‘the intuitive leap. it develops the notion of performance. Aksoylu. Harvard Univ. 1978.0. Alexander. I. Silverstein. Cambridge. for his insight and assistance in developing the Satisfaction Curves. engaged in the search for a form that will facilitate some desired function. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. for it failed to account for the discontinuity in the relationship between form and function. Fiksdahl-King. and who has been implementing it through the Fenestration IDeA that was presented in the paper. This accommodation takes the form of contextuality: the convergence of form and function in a particular context. specifying functions. Ishikawa. . Angel. The proposed design paradigm fits well within our view that computers ought to be partners in the design process. w3x C. The paradigm strives to eliminate the precedence of either form or function and. JAPS 10 conference. of the causal relationship between the two. NY. New York. a PhD student in the Department of Architecture at UC Berkeley. in: Latombe ŽEd. Press. M. much like other causalities have formed the foundation of many engineering and practically all scientific paradigms. Likewise. While it is not yet complete. we believe it already demonstrates well the issues underlying the Performance-based design paradigm. Expert systems in environmental psychology. How do architects design?. and use it as a basis for an alternative formal model of design. Technical report. The so-called Fenestration IDeA has been implemented in Visual Basic 4. Jacobson. Hence. 1964. and interpreting their confluence w28x. which can be implemented by computational means. Akin. Performance is a measure of the desirability of the predicted behavior of a design solution. The paradigm presented in this paper attempts to recognize this experience. tools the designer can draw upon when developing forms. IFIP.. Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in ComputerAided Design. Having identified the two main characteristics of architecture as Form and Function. it would recommend trying a cheaper two-pane glazing instead of the selected three-pane.’ This statement provided a convenient logical foundation for design theories. This approach. but the budget has been exceeded. if the noise reduction function is satisfied. These functions allow for mapping a given behavior onto measures of satisfaction. The Netherlands. Oxford Univ. A Pattern Language. S. w4x C. 6. They also facilitate trade-offs.. as a means for interpreting and determining the confluence of the two entities. 1988. To compensate. a necessary means to improve the overall performance of a system by sacrificing the degree of satisfaction from some parts of the system in favor of others. MA. S. To facilitate the computation of performance. actually find the ‘right’ form. 1977. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Gustavo Llavaneras. satisfaction functions were introduced.

Cambridge. Intuitive design and computation. w15x M. w14x U. Amsterdam.E.C. Wiley-Interscience. Venturi.E.K. w25x E. 1992. Kalay ŽEd.H. Oxman. J... Balachandran. in: Y. Kalay ŽEd. Novembri. Journal of Design History 3 Ž1. Simon. Jones.E. 1992. in: Y. Wiley-Interscience.. Wiley. Y. Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance. Yale Univ. Rittel. MA. Cuff. Automation in Construction 3 Ž2–3. Scott-Brown. Gali. Amsterdam... North-Holland.. Kalay.F. 1–17. Kalay ŽEd.M.B... A model for space allocation in complex buildings. An approach to design theory. G. Cromley. C. J. 1991.E.D. Bragdon ŽEd. MIT Press. w16x Y. Wiley. An integrated model to support collaborative multi-disciplinary design of buildings. MIT Press. 493–518. Ž1994. w20x R. Sleeping around: a history of American beds and bedrooms. A. New York. Swerdloff. NY. 1972.E. 1992. Y.. 1934. Akin ŽEd. Ž1968. M. Computability of Design.. w19x J. New York. Armour. Carrara. 1980. Kalay. D. Ž1990. w21x R. Build International 7 Ž6.. L. New York. Bijl.A. in: G. Computability of Design.. MA. 1994. Wiley-Interscience. 1990. w7x G. Simon. in: C. CT. Webber.. Wiley. Khemlani. Cross. w13x D..S. w28x L. Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance. Y.. New York. A partnership approach to computer-aided design. New York.E.A.D. in: Cross ŽEd.. Knowledge-based computational support for architectural design. Cambridge. P. Kalay ŽEd. A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach to relative location of facilities. Radford. Computability of Design. Archea. Rosenman. Architecture: The Story of Practice. New York. Kluwer Academic Publ. London. Knowledge-based Design Systems. Norman. Multiple operative and interactive modes in knowledge-based design systems. 1987. MA. D.E. w23x H..E. Laird. 1977. 1987. Kalay. 123–142. NY. Developments in Design Methodology. in: Y. in: Y. in: Y. The Automated Architect. New York.. Zimring. Knowledge-based ComputerAided Architectural Design. w10x R. Choi. Rosenbloom. Kalay ŽEd. Pion Press. Kalay ŽEds. Gero. Style in design. Scarab Fraternity Press.. Istanbul. in: Y. Wiley-Interscience. Sullivan. . w9x G.. New York. in: Y. w24x H.. Education and Democracy. Wiley-Interscience. 1987.C. M. 1975.. Ž1974.. Proceedings of the Descriptive Models of Design. Buffa. Gross. Wiley-Interscience. Carrara. in: O. Kalay. Design Theory in CAD. 1987. Shaviv. in: Y. Flemming. w8x A.D. Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance. Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance. Izenour. Computability of Design. Reading. w11x E. E. in: Eastman ŽEd. Development of machine intelligence for inference of design intent implicit in design specifications. Wizel.. Becker.E. w30x A. Addison-Wesley.. Learning from Las Vegas..E.Y. w17x M. 1984. 1987. Design Methods. Predicting way-finding behavior in buildings: a schema-based approach. Y. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 w6x J. 1979. w29x R. Kindergarten chats on architecture. Wiley.M. Elsevier.C. Combined procedural and heuristic method to energy-conscious building design and evaluation. Boston.E. M.W. Shaviv. 1996. Integration of performance evaluation in computer-aided design. R. w26x E.S. w22x H. London.. Warman ŽEds.. Kim. Kalay ŽEd. New Haven. Models of Thought. w12x N. Kalay ŽEd. Kalay ŽEd. in: Yoshikawa. Puzzle-making: what architects do when no one is looking. Coyne. 1992.. Planning problems are wicked problems.E.W. Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Design. A. Turkey. Management Science 9 Ž2. Newell. Universal Subgoaling and Chunking.E. 294–309. 409 w18x J.E.A. Case-based design in the SEED system. S. Wiley-Interscience. w27x L. 1986. New York. Press.