Introduction and Overview

  • Dan Braha
  • Oded Maimon
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 17)


This book presents Formal Design Theory (FDT), a mathematical theory of design. The main goal of FDT is to develop a domain independent core model of the design process. FDT explores issues such as: the algebraic representation of design artifacts, idealized design process cycle, and computational analysis and measurement of design process complexity and quality. FDT can be used as a framework for the future development of automated design systems (adding another dimension to the current CAD systems).


Design Process Attribute Space Design Theory Case Base Reasoning Functional Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Antonsson. E.K., “Development and Testing of Hypotheses in Engineering Design Research,” Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 109, pp. 153–154, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bezier, P.E., “CAD/CAM: Past, Requirements, Trends,” In Proc. CAD, Brighton, pp. 1–11, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braha, D. and Maimon, O., “A Mathematical Theory of Design: Modeling the Design Process (Part 11),” International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 26 (4), 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coyne, R.D., Rosenman, M.A., Radford, A.D., Balachandran, M. and Gero, J.S., Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross, N. (ed.)., Development in Design Methodology. New York: John Wiley, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dasgupta, S., “The Structure of Design Processes,” In Advances in Computers, Vol. 28, M.C. Yovits (ed.). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–67, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dixon, J.R., AI EDAM, Vol. 1 (3), pp. 145–157, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman, P. and Newell, A., “A Model for Functional Reasoning in Design,” In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 621–633, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gero, J.S., “Prototypes: A New Schema for Knowledge Based Design,” Technical Report, Architectural Computing Unit, Department of Architectural Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giloi, W.K. and Shriver, B.D. (eds.), Methodologies for Computer Systems Design.“ Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glegg, G.L., The Science of Design. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hubka, V., Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E., Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory For EngineeringDesign. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishida, T., Minowa, H. and Nakajima, N., “Detection of Unanticipated Functions of Machines,” In Proc. of the Int. Symp. of Design and SynthesisTokyo, pp. 21–26, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaques, R. and Powell, J.A. (eds.), Design: Science: Method. Guildford, England: Westbury House, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, J.C.,Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures (2nd Edition). New York: John Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhn, T.S., Postscript–1969. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Enlarged 2nd Edition, pp. 174–210, 1970.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maher, M.L., “A Knowledge-Based Approach to Preliminary Design Synthesis,” Report EDRC-1214–87Carnegie Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maimon, O. and Braha, D., “A Mathematical Theory of Design: Representation of Design Knowledge (Part I),” International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 26 (4), 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maimon O. and D. Braha, “On the Complexity of the Design Synthesis Problem,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and CyberneticsVol. 26 (1), 1996 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murthy, S.S. and Addanki, A. “PROMPT: An Innovative Design Tool,” In Proc. of the 6th Nat. Conf. on Artificial IntelligenceSeattle, WA, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paynter, H.M., Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Penberthy, J.S., Incremental Analysis and the Graph of Models: A First Step Towards Analysis in the Plumber’s World, S.M. Thesis, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ressler, A.L., “A Circuit Grammar for Operational Amplifier Design,” Technical Report 807MITArtificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rieger, C. and Grinberg, M., “The Declarative Representation and Procedural Simulation of Causality in Physical Mechanisms,” In Proc. of the 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 250, 1977.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rinderle, J.R., “Function and Form Relationships: A basis for Preliminary Design,” Report EDRC24–05–87Carnegie Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center, Pittsburgh. PA, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roylance, G., “A simple Model of Circuit Design,” Technical Report 703, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1983.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rychener, M. (ed.),Expert Systems for engineering design. New York: Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shina G.S.,Concurrent Engineering and Design for Manufacture of Electronics Products. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simon, H.A., The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spillers, W.R. (ed.).,Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suh, N.P., The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tong, C. and Sriram, D. (eds.), Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Engineering Design1991.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ulrich, K.T., “Computation and Pre-Parametric Design,” Technical Report 1043, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Winston, P.H., et. al., “Learning Physical Descriptions From Functional Definitions, Examples and Precedents,” Memo 679, MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 1983.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arciszewski, T., “Design theory and methodology in Eastern Europe,” In Design Theory and Methodology-DTM’90 (Chicago, Il), pp. 209–218, New-York, NY, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Braha, D. and Maimon, O. “The Measurement of A Design Structural and Functional Complexity,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and CyberneticsVol. 28 (3), 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dijkstra, E.W. Notes on Structural Programming. in O.J. Dahl, E.W. Dijkstra, and C.A.R. Hoare,Structural Programming. Academic Press, New York. 1972.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eder, W.E., “Engineering Design–a perspective on U.K. and Swiss development,” In Design Theory and Methodology-DTM’90 (Chicago, II), pages 225–234, New-York, NY, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Finger, S. and Dixon, J. R., “A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part 1: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes,” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 51–67, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hundal, M.S., “Research in design theory and methodology in West Germany,” In Design Theory and Methodology-DTM’90 (Chicago, 10, pages 235–238, New-York, NY, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klir, J.G. Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Plenum Press. New York. 1985.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Maimon, O. and Braha, D. “A Proof of the Complexity of Design,” Kyberneres: An International Journal of Cybernetics and General Systems, Vol. 21 (7), pp. 59–63, 1992.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maimon, O. and Braha, D., “An Exploration of the Design Process,” Technical Report, Boston University, 1994.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Suh, N. P. “Development of the science base for the manufacturing field through the axiomatic approach.” Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 1 (3/4), pp. 397–415, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tomiyama, T., “Engineering design research in Japan,” In Design Theory and MethodologyDTM’90 (Chicago, 11), pages 219–224, New-York, NY, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Warfield, J.N. A Science of Generic Design. Intersystems Publications, Salinas, CA. 1990.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Barkan, P. and Hinckley, C. M., “Limitations and Benefits of Structured Methodologies,” Manufacturing Review, Vol. 6 (3), 1993.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reich, Y., “The Development of Bridger: A Methodological Study of Research on the Use of Machine Learning in Design,” Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Vol. 8, 1993.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nadler, G. The Planning and Design Approach. John Wiley. New York.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Braha D. and Maimon O., “The Design Process: Properties, Paradigms and Structure” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetic (Part A), Vol. 27 (3), 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Braha
    • 1
  • Oded Maimon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations