Extending the situated function–behaviour–structure framework to human–machine interaction

Original Paper


Despite the increasing importance of human–machine interaction (HMI) in design, there are not reference models defining and describing design activities where users are directly involved in the team. Some years ago, the situated function–behaviour–structure (FBS) framework was developed to model traditional engineering design processes but these mainly focus on technological matters and users are not directly addressed. The goal of this research is to extend this framework to cover several aspects of the HMI field. To achieve this goal, an existing design aid named interaction design integrated method is exploited. The design activities based on this aid are mapped onto the situated FBS framework to highlight possible lacks or misalignment. The outcomes are used to find where and how to intervene to extend the framework. The mapping highlighted six criticalities and their analysis allowed for adding the users as a new agent in the design process, as well as for introducing new variables and design activities referred to this new actor.


Human–machine interaction Descriptive models of design processes Situated function–behaviour–structure framework User–centered design 


  1. 1.
    Imai, T., Takeo, H., Yoshimura, M., Sakata, A., Sakakibarai, N., Sekine, C.: Improving the usability and learnability of a home electric appliance with a long-term usability study. J. Eng. Des. 21(2–3), 173–187 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., Beale, R.: Human–Computer Interaction. 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Europe (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Redstrom, J.: Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Des. Stud. 27, 123–139 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hertzum, M., Clemmensen, T.: How do usability professionals construe usability? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70, 26–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTS)—part 11: guidance on usability (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heimgärtner, R.: Cultural Differences in Human–Computer Interaction: Towards Culturally Adaptive Human–Machine Interaction. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nam, T.J., Park, S., Verlinden, J.: A model to conceptualize interactivity. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 3(3), 147–156 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, G., Eastman, C.M., Taunk, T., Ho, C.H.: Usability principles and best practices for the user interface design of complex 3D architectural design and engineering tools. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 68, 90–104 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dupe, V., Briand, R.: Interactive method for autonomous microsystem design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 4, 35–50 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human–Computer Interaction, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Howarth, J., Smith-Jackson, T., Hartson, R.: Supporting novice usability practitioners with usability engineering tools. Hum. Comput. Stud. 67, 533–549 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montabert, C., McCrickard, D., Winchester, W.W.: An integrative approach to requirements analysis: how task models support requirements reuse in a user-centric design framework. Interact. Comput. 21, 304–315 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koca, A., Funk, M., Karapanos, E., Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Corporaal, H., Martens, J.B.O.S., van der Putten, P.H.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M., Brombacher, A.C.: Soft reliability: an interdisciplinary approach with a user-system focus. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 25(1), 3–20 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton, N.A.: The design with Intent Method: a design tool for influencing user behaviour. Appl. Ergon. 41, 382–392 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rich, C., Sidner, C., Lesh, N., Garland, A., Booth, S., Chimani, M.: DiamondHelp: a new interaction design for networked home appliances. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 10, 187–190 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Systematic innovation, interaction design, usability evaluation and trends of evolution. In: CIRP Design 2012, pp. 301–310. Springer, London (2013a)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Des. Stud. 25(4), 373–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, Z., He, W.P., Zhang, D.H., Cai, H.M., Yu, S.H.: Creative design research of product appearance based on human–machine interaction and interface. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 129, 545–550 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helms, B., Shea, K., Hoisl, F.: A framework for computational design synthesis based on graph-grammars and function–behaviour–structure. In: Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), San Diego (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chase, S.C., Liew, P.: A framework for redesign using FBS models and grammar adaptation. In: Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, pp. 467–477 (2001). doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0868-6_35
  23. 23.
    Gero, J.S.: Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag. 11(4), 26–36 (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cascini, G., Fantoni, G., Montagna, F.: Situating needs and requirements in the FBS framework. Des. Stud. 34(5), 363–662 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nam, T.J., Park, S., Verlinden, J.: A model to conceptualize interactivity. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 3, 147–156 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: IDGL, an interaction design framework based on systematic innovation and quality function deployment. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (2014). doi: 10.1007/s12008-014-0231-6 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Generation, adoption, and tuning of usability evaluation multimethods. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28(6), 406–422 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Definition and exploitation of trends of evolution about interaction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 86, 216–236 (2013b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    LabelMaster, Sei Laser Converting. http://www.seiconverting.com/products.htm (2015). Accessed 13 May 2015
  30. 30.
    Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K., White, C.C.: Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 17, 286–308 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Altshuller, G.S.: Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Worcester (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cong, H., Tong, L.H.: Grouping of TRIZ inventive principles to facilitate automatic patent classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 788–795 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chang, H.T., Chen, J.L.: The conflict-problem-solving CAD software integrating TRIZ into eco-innovation. Adv. Eng. Softw. 35, 553–566 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dubberly, H., Pangaro, P., Haque, U.: What is interaction? Are there different types? Interactions 16(1), 69–75 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L.: Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PIRG, Product Innovation Research Group, DIEGM DepartmentUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations