Automation in Construction 8 Ž1999.

395–409

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

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

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

2. Design. whole. established metaphorical relationships. which generates new insights into the problem. is much too vague. and a large number of evaluation programs. something that provides a sense of direction and a sounding board for potential resolutions.26x.20x. instead. in architecture. and metaphors.’ and its inverse. we argue that the relationship between Form and Function is much more complicated than implied by the causality-based notion of ‘Form Follows Function.14. they rely on design ‘cases. Examples of tools based on this paradigm include space allocation programs w7. in most cases.1. architects can only use them as a starting point and a catalyst for the design process. Many forms.25x.’ either from the architect’s own experience or from the experience of the profession at large. Kim w17x and others have argued that the brief architects are given by their clients. Since architects cannot invent information from scratch in every case. Other kinds of relationships between form and function In this paper. The main skills employed when following this paradigm are synthetic: the ability to compose given parts into a new. symbols. Puzzle-making The assumption that. the adaptation itself is problem-specific and cannot be accomplished prior to engaging in the search process itself. Example of tools based on this approach include generative expert systems. celebrated buildings. rather than rely on a goal-driven strategy. following a given set of combinatorial rules. Therefore. architectural styles. 3. and a similar function is often afforded by many different forms. Since the relationship between the newly invented information. prototypes. a particular form often affords many different functions. to the particular needs of the problem can be discovered only as the problem becomes clearer. or adapted from generalized precedents. 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. and other relevant past experiences Žso-called ‘design cases’. since the sought solution is unique. shape grammars. Rather than use the client’s definition of the desired effects of the sought building as a complete problem definition. 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. to form a complete goal statement. 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. the puzzle-making paradigm relies on adaptation of precedents. such as way-finding and energy w15.. This information comes in the form of proven solutions w4x. 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. which often constitutes the basis for the design goals. same function The over-simplicity of the notion ‘Form Follows Function’ is evidenced by the multitude of different . unique. 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. 3. 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. This method is applied recursively until a set of sub-goals that can be solved without further reduction is found w19x. that architects must gradually develop the statement of goals as they proceed with the design process itself. and the process of finding it is characterized by discoÕery and has to contend with uncertainty. as well as the precedents. They argued that such knowledge cannot exist prior to the search itself. The following examples will serve to illustrate this argument. is a process of discoÕery. Indeed. and recognized symbolisms w29x. and case-base design systems w10. The design search process may. according to this view. The additional information needed to complete the goal statement must either be inÕented as part of the search process. They suggest. therefore.398 Y.E. 2.

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

and served as the office of the president until the new campus was built in 1968. as much as by functional requirements. in Buffalo. Performance. Performance evaluation is intended. The form of the Sydney opera house is an example of a form derived from the physical context of the building Žthe Sydney harbor. and interpreting this behavior. can be considered as an iterative process of exploration. when it became a county hospital. we can assess the performance of the solution. 1. within the given context.3. Likewise. as depicted in his design of House X. to assess the desirability of the behavior of the confluence of the form. serving.1. function and context.. therefore. NY. The notion of performance 4. The Netherlands Ž1931. By ob- We suggest that this description of design leads to a different paradigm than either problem-solving or puzzle-making. or is satisfied by the functionalities afforded by the chosen form. It may reveal. the shape of Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp Chapel has been derived from its spiritual context. and other contexts in which it is embedded. Built circa 1865. at least as much as it depends on the function it must serve. which is based on a series of geometrical transformations on a cube. it will be deemed ‘successful. where desired functional traits are defined. demonstrates well the complexity of the relationships between form and function. it may reveal a need to modify the form to meet the desired function in the particular context. measuring.4.E. 1. or to modify the desired function to meet the ones afforded by that form in that particular context.. A typical case in point is Hayes Hall. 3. In 1909. Fig.400 Y. it was acquired by the University of Buffalo. that a particular form is capable of supporting a certain functional need in a particular context. cultural. The importance of context The form of a building also depends upon the physical. when it became the School of Architecture and Planning of the State University of New York at Buffalo. 3. together with painters like Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian. we consider performance to be a measure of the desirability of the confluence ... social. and a process of evaluation is used to determine the desirability of the confluence of forms and functions within the given context ŽFig. Other kinds of form–function relationships Peter Eisneman’s structuralist approach to buildings. Function and Context.. and Gerrit Rietveld’s colorful Schroder ¨ House in Utrecht. 2. which derives from his own interpretation of Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories Žas well as Jacques Derrida and other philosophers. The process terminates when the designer finds a form that fulfills the function. new tenants may rehabilitate it while preserving its character. Designing. 4. Function and Context combine to determine the behaÕior of the proposed solution ŽFig. for example. accordingly. this landmark building served as a poorhouse and a lunatic asylum until 1893. as much as from its functional and physical site considerations.’ On the other hand. has been shaped as much by the neoclassicist cultural ideas of the De Stijl movement to which he belonged. We call this condition functional adequacy: the instance when form and function come together to achieve acceptable performance within a given context w9x. as much as from its function Ža symphony hall. as a measure of the confluence of Form.. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 down a building which may have some historical or cultural significance. forms are proposed. in which case. As stated earlier. Performance-based design The position taken in this paper is that Form. We call it performance-based design.

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

. 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. it would suggest that those of Fig. It shows that the client will be most satisfied if the building costs US$300.2. In fact. normalized satisfactions is presented to the client as the overall performance of a given design solution. each of which expresses the client’s satisfaction with respect to one specific behavior. by explicitly showing how well any one need is being satisfied. But since different behaviors weigh differently in the overall performance measure.000. The composite result of the summation of weighted. The satisfaction curves must. On the other hand. 4. but the change from 100% Žcompletely satisfied. . The mappings they afford are expressed as numerical values. it is possible to identify needs that are not being satisfied. in terms of the steepness of the curve. The curve also shows that in the vicinity of US$300. or less than US$270.000. 4.000. all the functional needs of a building cannot be satisfied by any one design solution. a shallow slope indicates a wider latitude in satisfying the client. then the over-satisfied ones. which allows more room for trade-offs with other satisfaction curves that may need to be modified. Similar satisfaction functions can be developed for each aspect of the building. Trade-offs Trade-offs are the hallmark of every design activity. to seek a design solution that better achieves the under-satisfied needs. by expressing the tolerance for satisfying the expressed need.’ to be expressed. so that others are also satisfied. Typically.000. the more abrupt the change. It first identifies the under-satisfied needs.E. as a percentage between full and zero satisfaction. be set by the client. by prioritizing the relative importance of each need. satisfaction diminishes. therefore. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 Then. and has been used by other researchers to develop aggregates of multi-criteria evaluations w30x. to 0% Žnot satisfied. we can add them up. the degree of satisfying some needs may have to be compromised.000 than there is over US$300. is gradual. 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. They are unary functions. in three ways: 1. his satisfaction is virtually unchanged. in terms of the weight assigned to it. say "US$3. we must first assign to each of them a relative weight. For example. The achievement of certain needs often must come at the expense of other needs. It is possible. For instance. in the sense that each curve pertains to satisfaction derived from one behavior only. 4. a small change in the system’s behavior will result in satisfaction or dissatisfaction. an algorithm can be developed that provides hints to the designer. of course. 3c. eliminating windows on the west side of a building to save energy might also deprive the inhabitants of a fabulous view. This method is well-established.’ or ‘barely satisfied. Using the satisfaction curve depicted in Fig. the client may state that his budget for building a single family house is US$300. which means that once the threshold has been reached. He will not be satisfied at all if the building costs over US$315. The slopes of the curves allow us to express the rate of change: the steeper the slope. Among the over-satisfied needs. he may develop a function of the kind shown in Fig. Hence. Using these three measures. 2.000.000. To aggregate the separate satisfaction curves into one composite measure of performance. indicating possible trade-offs. and 3. and those that are over-satisfied. A satisfaction curve expressing building cost behavior.000.’ ‘more or less satisfied. or by the designer. The curves allow for such notions as ‘quite satisfied.402 Y. while achieving less-well the over-satisfied needs.

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

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

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

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

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

The paradigm strives to eliminate the precedence of either form or function and. and on casting this understanding into a model that can be represented explicitly Žand thus can be translated into a computer program. van Andel. we believe it already demonstrates well the issues underlying the Performance-based design paradigm. M. 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. for his insight and assistance in developing the Satisfaction Curves. They also facilitate trade-offs. The proposed design paradigm fits well within our view that computers ought to be partners in the design process. To facilitate the computation of performance. w3x C.’ This statement provided a convenient logical foundation for design theories. have been tested through the development of an experimental system intended to support the design of windows in a building. North-Holland. Delft. and who has been implementing it through the Fenestration IDeA that was presented in the paper. CA. This accommodation takes the form of contextuality: the convergence of form and function in a particular context. The so-called Fenestration IDeA has been implemented in Visual Basic 4. 1982. Performance is a measure of the desirability of the predicted behavior of a design solution. the attractivity of statements such as ‘Form follows Function. 1964.. . Fiksdahl-King. JAPS 10 conference. These functions allow for mapping a given behavior onto measures of satisfaction. whose dissertation work helped developed the paradigm. S. if the noise reduction function is satisfied. of the causal relationship between the two. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. 1988. w2x Y. Technical report. which architects call ‘the intuitive leap. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 triple-glazed window. Having identified the two main characteristics of architecture as Form and Function. 1977. It does not attempt to formalize the intuitive leap itself. a PhD student in the Department of Architecture at UC Berkeley. w4x C. it would recommend trying a cheaper two-pane glazing instead of the selected three-pane. Aksoylu. Thanks are also due to Professor Carlo Sequin from the Department of Computer Science at ´ Berkeley. Oxford Univ. hence.0. IFIP. M. for it failed to account for the discontinuity in the relationship between form and function. I. Cambridge. To compensate. 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. Akin. Many architects found this logically-convenient statement inadequate to describe what their experiences taught them. The Netherlands. Press. but the budget has been exceeded. Alexander. w5x J. Ishikawa. engaged in the search for a form that will facilitate some desired function. much like other causalities have formed the foundation of many engineering and practically all scientific paradigms. References w1x O. it develops the notion of performance. Hence. The paradigm presented in this paper attempts to recognize this experience. and interpreting their confluence w28x. instead of the selected twopane window. S. Press. This approach. Alexander. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Gustavo Llavaneras. actually find the ‘right’ form. Harvard Univ. Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in ComputerAided Design. MA. Expert systems in environmental psychology. Jacobson. and use it as a basis for an alternative formal model of design. While it is not yet complete. in: Latombe ŽEd. Angel. 6.408 Y.. which can be implemented by computational means. NY. Berkeley. How do architects design?. Silverstein. tools the designer can draw upon when developing forms. 1978. A Pattern Language.E. New York. University of California.’ This leap occurs when architects. only to accommodate it in the model. along with the proposed paradigm.. Likewise. specifying functions. Two different systematic approaches to design. as a means for interpreting and determining the confluence of the two entities. the search for formal theories that can explain the process of design tended to converge on causality-based paradigms. satisfaction functions were introduced.

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