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 understand how designers do what they do when

The quest for understanding how humans perform
complex cognitive activities, such as architectural
ˆ of
and engineering design has been the raison d’etre
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 eco-
nomic 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 improve-
ments, design method researchers have sought to
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 con-
straints. 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
396 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
terial. properties have some function, or utility; Ž2.
that one form is more suitable to fulfilling that
function than other, alternative, forms; and Ž3. that
finding a causal relationship between form and func-
tion will lead to the development of a method, 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 func-
tional needs.
Over the past four decades, two different
paradigms of design have emerged, representing two
fundamentally different approaches to explaining the
causal relationship between form and function. The
first, attributed to Simon w24x, attempted to explain
the process of design as a unique instance of general
problem-solÕing. It postulated that the designer start
with the sought function Ži.e., the desired behavior
of the system., which is often represented as a set of
goals and constraints. The designer then attempt to
discover a form that will support the desired func-
tion, using deductiÕe search strategies.
The other paradigm, called puzzle-making, has
emerged from the work of researchers like Alexan-
der w4x and Archea w6x. 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. This paradigm is based
on inductiÕe reasoning, and has been modeled with
the aid of analogical inferencing methods Žmeta-
phors, symbols, and case studies..
While logically consistent and computationally
convenient, neither of these two paradigms, nor their
many derivatives and permutations, has gained much
favor with architects themselves. When presented
with these theoretical paradigms, or better yet—when
examined ethnographically under actual conditions
w13x, most architects would not agree that their own
design process resemble either one of the two
paradigms w22x. They would argue that design, espe-
cially architectural design, is a serendipitous,
‘wicked’ process, replete with uncertainty and dis-
covery Žoften referred to as the intuitiÕe leap . w21x.
Instead of the well-behaved theoretical process,
which begins with a statement of forms or functions,
architectural design often begins with an incubation,
introspective phase, followed by iterative refinement
of both form and function until some harmonious
coexistence emerges w1x. Thus, while some forms
and functions do exist at the outset of the design
process, neither can be considered the basis for
seeking the other. Moreover, the existence of intu-
itive leaps introduces discontinuity in the causality-
based search process, destroying any hope of devel-
oping a coherent method that is based on any
monotonous theory.
If the prevailing paradigms cannot explain how
architects work, then how can they form a basis for
the development of design tools that purport to assist
them? Indeed, practice has shown that current design
tools Žwhich are predominantly based on one of the
two paradigms. force architects into a methodologi-
cal ‘straight jacket’ which they use only when forced
to Žwitness, for instance, the limited success of pre-
fabricated building systems..
This paper proposes an alternative approach to the
understanding of the process of architectural design.
It suggests that the quest for design tools must begin
not by exploring how architects design, but rather by
asking what they do when they design. An account
of what architects do would stand a better chance to
be accepted by architects, because it will not purport
to describe how each individual pursues the design
process. On the other hand, 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.
The notion of performance is derived from the
argument that the relationship between form and
function is context-based, rather than causality-
based. That is, the performance of a proposed design
solution can only be determined by an interpretive,
judgmental evaluation, which considers the form
Žand other physical attributes. of the proposed solu-
tion, the functional objectives Žgoals. it attempts to
achieve, and the circumstances under which the two
come together. Hence, performance-based design
recognizes that different forms can successfully
achieve similar functions, and that different functions
can often be afforded by similar forms. In addition, it
accounts for performance variances of the same
formrfunction combinations within different con-
texts.
The viability of the proposed paradigm, from a
practical implementation point of view, depends on
 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
our ability to represent explicitly, then reason about,
the desirability of a particular combination of
form–function-context. Such representation differs
from common evaluation and simulation procedures,
in that it must account for judgment, preferences, as
well as trade-offs and other subjective measures of
satisfaction.
In the following, we develop the argument for
performance-based design, then, introduce a specific
representation of performance. An experimental
framework that implements both the paradigm and
the performance representation measures serves to
illustrate the theoretical concepts. Initially, we will
use the terms ‘form,’ ‘function,’ ‘context,’ and ‘per-
formance’ loosely, relying on the reader’s intuitive
understanding of their meaning. We will define these
terms more precisely in the second part of the paper,
where such rigor is needed.
2. Causality-based design paradigms
The notion that Form follows Function is derived
from the assumption that a system’s significant geo-
metrical Žand material. 1 properties have some func-
tional utility, and that one form is more suitable for
fulfilling that function than other, alternative forms.
This notion and its inverse Žfunction is derived from
form., has guided architects and engineers for mil-
lennia. Among its other achievements, this notion
has provided a convenient causal relationship be-
tween form and function, the two pillars of architec-
tural design, hence, for developing theories and
methods intended to assist architects in performing
their increasingly more demanding task of finding
the ‘right’ form–function combination.
Many formal theories that were forwarded over
the years to explain what architects do have been
based on this logical foundation. They can be classi-
fied into two general groups w2x: Ž1. those that follow
Simon’s w24x Problem-solÕing paradigm, and Ž2.
those that follow what Archea w6x called Puzzle-mak-
ing.
1 2
In the following, the term FORM will be used to refer to all
the physical attributes of objects, including their material composi-
tion, surface finish, etc.
397
2.1. Problem-solÕing
Problem-solving is a general theory that attempts
to explain the cognitive process of creative thinking.
It was first formalized by Simon, Newell and Shaw
in the late 1950s, and implemented in a computer
program called GPS ŽGeneral Problem Solver.. Prob-
lem-solving assumes that the desired effects of some
intellectual effort can be stated in the form of con-
straints and goals at the outset of the quest for a
solution to achieve them. To find the solution, the
problem solver uses a variety of search strategies to
generate successive candidate solutions and test them
against the stated goals, until one is found that meets
them. The goals, thus, ‘guide’ the search for a
solution right from the beginning of the problem-
solving process. Problem-solving assumes that set-
ting goals Ži.e., knowing what should be accom-
plished. can be separated from the process of finding
a solution that meets them, and that such knowledge
can be acquired through an independent inquiry
Žanalysis., which should be completed before the
search for a solution has been initiated w1x. For
example, using this approach, selecting a structural
system to span some opening will generally follow
after an analysis of forces, cost, and other character-
istics of the structure have been determined.
Since the characteristics of the problem, accord-
ing to the problem-solving paradigm, are known
prior to commencing the search for the solution
itself, its proponents hold that the search for a
‘satisficing’ 2 solution is goal-directed, and there-
fore, that means–ends analysis can be employed to
guide the search towards finding the desired solution.
Thus, 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., and the ability to
draw operational conclusions from this comparison,
so that the differences can be reduced.
Such goal-driven approaches have been computa-
tionally represented as deductive, backward-rea-
soning search strategies, where operators are applied
Meaning ‘good enough.’ The term was coined by Herbert
Simon in his book Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, 1969, pp.
35–36.
398 Y.E. 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. This method is
applied recursively until a set of sub-goals that can
be solved without further reduction is found w19x.
Examples of tools based on this paradigm include
space allocation programs w7,25x, and a large number
of evaluation programs, such as way-finding and
energy w15,26x.
2.2. Puzzle-making
The assumption that, in architecture, the charac-
teristics 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. They argued that such
knowledge cannot exist prior to the search itself,
since the sought solution is unique, and the process
of finding it is characterized by discoÕery and has to
contend with uncertainty. Kim w17x and others have
argued that the brief architects are given by their
clients, which often constitutes the basis for the
design goals, is much too vague, in most cases, to
form a complete goal statement. Rather than use the
client’s definition of the desired effects of the sought
building as a complete problem definition, architects
can only use them as a starting point and a catalyst
for the design process, something that provides a
sense of direction and a sounding board for potential
resolutions. They suggest, instead, that architects
must gradually develop the statement of goals as
they proceed with the design process itself. The
additional information needed to complete the goal
statement must either be inÕented as part of the
search process, or adapted from generalized prece-
dents, prototypes, and other relevant past experiences
Žso-called ‘design cases’.. Since the relationship be-
tween the newly invented information, as well as the
precedents, to the particular needs of the problem
can be discovered only as the problem becomes
clearer, the adaptation itself is problem-specific and
cannot be accomplished prior to engaging in the
search process itself.
Design, according to this view, is a process of
discoÕery, which generates new insights into the
problem. The design search process may, therefore,
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, following a given set
of combinatorial rules. Since architects cannot in-
vent information from scratch in every case, they
rely on design ‘cases,’ either from the architect’s
own experience or from the experience of the profes-
sion at large, 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. This
information comes in the form of proven solutions
w4x, architectural styles, celebrated buildings, estab-
lished metaphorical relationships, and recognized
symbolisms w29x. 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.
Therefore, rather than rely on a goal-driven strat-
egy, the puzzle-making paradigm relies on adapta-
tion of precedents, symbols, and metaphors. The
main skills employed when following this paradigm
are synthetic: the ability to compose given parts into
a new, unique, whole. Such data-driÕen approaches
have been computationally represented as forward-
reasoning search strategies: operators are applied to
the current state of the problem with the aim of
transforming it according to pre-set rules. Example
of tools based on this approach include generative
expert systems, shape grammars, and case-base de-
sign systems w10,14,20x.
3. Other kinds of relationships between form and
function
In this paper, we argue that the relationship be-
tween Form and Function is much more complicated
than implied by the causality-based notion of ‘Form
Follows Function,’ and its inverse. Indeed, a particu-
lar form often affords many different functions, and
a similar function is often afforded by many differ-
ent forms. The following examples will serve to
illustrate this argument.
3.1. Many forms, same function
The over-simplicity of the notion ‘Form Follows
Function’ is evidenced by the multitude of different
 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
forms that essentially were designed to support simi-
lar functions. Chairs provide one of the best exam-
ples of different forms that were developed to sup-
port exactly the same function Žsitting.. Design com-
petitions, where competitors must respond to the
same set of functional requirements within the same
context, provide additional evidence that in architec-
ture, form does not necessarily follow function. Each
and every competitor will, invariably, produce a very
different form for exactly the same function.
Some scholars have tried to explain this apparent
lack of causality by arguing that, typically, the func-
tional requirements of a building do not tightly con-
strain its form, thus, leaving the architect with much
room to entertain ‘styles’ and other ‘nonpractical’
considerations. Herbert Simon, for example, has de-
fined style as ‘one way of doing things,’ chosen
from a number of alternative ways w23x. Since design
problems generally do not have unique or optimal
solutions, says Simon, style can be used to select a
solution from among several functionally equiÕalent
alternatives, just as any other criteria can. He offers
the following analogy:
‘‘Mushrooms can be found in many places in the
forest, and the time it takes us to fill a sack with
them may not depend much on the direction we
wonder. We may feel free, then, to exercise some
choice of path, and even to introduce additional
choice criteria . . . over and above the pragmatic one
of bringing back a full sack Žof mushrooms.’’.
Most architects, however, would reject this notion
that form is the result of less ‘practical’ functional
considerations than other aspects of the building, and
therefore, an afterthought, something to be contem-
plated only when all the other ‘important’ aspects of
the design have been dealt with. Rather, they would
argue, that it is something a competent architect will
consider before, during, and after the development
of solutions satisfying the functional needs. More-
over, the two issues cannot be separated, since each
one informs the other, and influences its develop-
ment.
3.2. Many functions, same form
The notion that a given form can support many
different functions is demonstrated well by designs
of playgrounds, parks, and civic plazas. Joost van
399
Andel w5x observed that playgrounds for children
between the ages three and seven perform best if the
activities they afford are less structured, in terms of
the equipment they contain. For instance, placing an
old fire engine in a playground Ža form. will direct
the children’s activities towards particular play pat-
terns. Furthermore, van Andel observed that this
particular form tends to create gender-biased play
patterns, which appeal more to boys than to girls. On
the other hand, a playground that consists mostly of
a sandbox, some rocks, and a few trees or bushes
affords less restricted play patterns, and is equally
accessible to both boys and girls. He attributes this
performance to the creative imagination of the chil-
dren, who can adapt the existing, generic forms into
particular needs, such playing games like ‘house,’
‘cops and robbers,’ or the landing of an alien space-
ship.
Another example of architectural multi-purpose
Ži.e., functional. spaces has been described by Eliza-
beth Cromley in her paper on the history and evolu-
tion of modern bedrooms w11x. In addition to provid-
ing a place for sleeping, bedrooms, through the
seventeenth century, also functioned as parlors, din-
ing rooms, and as places for entertaining guests. In
the eighteenth century, the function of bedrooms
became more focused, as a place for sleeping and
dressing, for quiet retirement, and for socializing
with close friends and family members. In the nine-
teenth century, bedrooms became a place to occupy
only at night. In the 20th century, the definition of
their function was broadened again, especially as far
as children’s bedrooms are concerned. Today, such
functions include sleeping, doing homework, read-
ing, and playing with friends. Bedrooms for the
adults Žthe so-called ‘Master Bedroom’., have turned
into ‘suites,’ which include full bathrooms, dressing
rooms, and walk-in closets. They often serve as
home-offices, gyms, and entertainment centers.
The ability of the same form to afford different
functions is further demonstrated by what we now
call adaptiÕe re-use. The term designates the conver-
sion of older buildings to meet modern needs. It is
rooted in the economic realities of the late 20th
century, and the growing need for urban renewal and
rehabilitation. This trend is characterized by corpora-
tions, shops, and even residential units moving into
older buildings in the core of cities. Rather than tear
400 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
down a building which may have some historical or
cultural significance, new tenants may rehabilitate it
while preserving its character. A typical case in point
is Hayes Hall, in Buffalo, NY. Built circa 1865, this
landmark building served as a poorhouse and a
lunatic asylum until 1893, when it became a county
hospital. In 1909, it was acquired by the University
of Buffalo, and served as the office of the president
until the new campus was built in 1968, when it
became the School of Architecture and Planning of
the State University of New York at Buffalo.
3.3. Other kinds of form–function relationships
Peter Eisneman’s structuralist approach to build-
ings, which derives from his own interpretation of
Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories Žas well as
Jacques Derrida and other philosophers., demon-
strates well the complexity of the relationships be-
tween form and function, as depicted in his design of
House X, which is based on a series of geometrical
transformations on a cube.
3.4. The importance of context
The form of a building also depends upon the
physical, cultural, social, and other contexts in which
it is embedded, at least as much as it depends on the
function it must serve. The form of the Sydney opera
house is an example of a form derived from the
physical context of the building Žthe Sydney harbor.,
as much as from its function Ža symphony hall..
Likewise, the shape of Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp
Chapel has been derived from its spiritual context, as
much as from its functional and physical site consid-
erations; and Gerrit Rietveld’s colorful Schroder ¨
House in Utrecht, The Netherlands Ž1931., has been
shaped as much by the neoclassicist cultural ideas of
the De Stijl movement to which he belonged, to-
gether with painters like Theo van Doesburg and Piet
Mondrian, as much as by functional requirements.
4. Performance-based design
The position taken in this paper is that Form,
Function and Context combine to determine the
behaÕior of the proposed solution ŽFig. 1.. By ob-
Fig. 1. Performance, as a measure of the confluence of Form,
Function and Context.
serving, measuring, and interpreting this behavior,
we can assess the performance of the solution.
Performance evaluation is intended, therefore, to as-
sess the desirability of the behavior of the confluence
of the form, function and context. It may reveal, for
example, that a particular form is capable of support-
ing a certain functional need in a particular context,
in which case, it will be deemed ‘successful.’ On the
other hand, it may reveal a need to modify the form
to meet the desired function in the particular context,
or to modify the desired function to meet the ones
afforded by that form in that particular context.
Designing, accordingly, can be considered as an
iterative process of exploration, where desired func-
tional traits are defined, forms are proposed, and a
process of evaluation is used to determine the desir-
ability of the confluence of forms and functions
within the given context ŽFig. 2.. The process termi-
nates when the designer finds a form that fulfills the
function, or is satisfied by the functionalities af-
forded by the chosen form, within the given context.
We call this condition functional adequacy: the
instance when form and function come together to
achieve acceptable performance within a given con-
text w9x.
4.1. The notion of performance
We suggest that this description of design leads to
a different paradigm than either problem-solving or
puzzle-making. We call it performance-based de-
sign. As stated earlier, we consider performance to
be a measure of the desirability of the confluence
 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 401

Fig. 2. Design as a bi-directional exploration of a Form–Function-Context composition.

form and function within a given context Žwhich, in
turn, we call ‘behaÕior’.. ‘Desirability,’ however, is
a fuzzy and subjective measure. To deal with this
fuzziness, we offer the concept of satisfaction func-
tions. Satisfaction curves were first introduced by
Kunz and Rittel in the 1970s, and used by Mahdavi
in his SEMPER programme ŽAutomation in Con-
struction 6Ž2.: 353–373.. These are mappings that
express the specific relationship between the behav-
ior of a system and the subjective measure of its
desirability under specific circumstances. Fig. 3 de-
picts several typical satisfaction curves: on one axis,
they measure the behavior of some aspects of the
designed system, such as cost, or noise level. On the
other, they measure the degree of satisfaction each
behavior value elicits in the client. Each point on
every curve denotes the performance of the form–
function-context combination with regard to some
measure Že.g., cost..
The curves demonstrate several phenomena com-
monly associated with satisfaction. Fig. 3b, for ex-
ample, demonstrates that the client may generally be
satisfied with the behavior of the system, until its
behavior in some area reaches a certain threshold.

Fig. 3. Some typical satisfaction curves.

402 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
Then, satisfaction diminishes, but the change from
100% Žcompletely satisfied. to 0% Žnot satisfied., is
gradual. The curves allow for such notions as ‘quite
satisfied,’ ‘more or less satisfied,’ or ‘barely satis-
fied,’ to be expressed. The slopes of the curves allow
us to express the rate of change: the steeper the
slope, the more abrupt the change, which means that
once the threshold has been reached, a small change
in the system’s behavior will result in satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. On the other hand, a shallow slope
indicates a wider latitude in satisfying the client,
which allows more room for trade-offs with other
satisfaction curves that may need to be modified.
The satisfaction curves must, of course, be set by
the client, or by the designer. They are unary func-
tions, in the sense that each curve pertains to satis-
faction derived from one behavior only. This makes
it possible to set them individually. For example, the
client may state that his budget for building a single
family house is US$300,000. Using the satisfaction
curve depicted in Fig. 3c, he may develop a function
of the kind shown in Fig. 4. It shows that the client
will be most satisfied if the building costs
US$300,000. He will not be satisfied at all if the
building costs over US$315,000, or less than
US$270,000. The curve also shows that in the vicin-
ity of US$300,000, say "US$3,000, his satisfaction
is virtually unchanged. The different slopes of the
rising and diminishing parts of the curve show that
there is more latitude in satisfying the client’s bud-
getary needs under US$300,000 than there is over
US$300,000.
Similar satisfaction functions can be developed
for each aspect of the building. The mappings they
Fig. 4. A satisfaction curve expressing building cost behavior.
afford are expressed as numerical values, each of
which expresses the client’s satisfaction with respect
to one specific behavior. To aggregate the separate
satisfaction curves into one composite measure of
performance, we can add them up. But since differ-
ent behaviors weigh differently in the overall perfor-
mance measure, we must first assign to each of them
a relative weight. This method is well-established,
and has been used by other researchers to develop
aggregates of multi-criteria evaluations w30x. The
composite result of the summation of weighted, nor-
malized satisfactions is presented to the client as the
overall performance of a given design solution.
4.2. Trade-offs
Trade-offs are the hallmark of every design activ-
ity. Typically, all the functional needs of a building
cannot be satisfied by any one design solution. The
achievement of certain needs often must come at the
expense of other needs. For instance, eliminating
windows on the west side of a building to save
energy might also deprive the inhabitants of a fabu-
lous view. Hence, the degree of satisfying some
needs may have to be compromised, so that others
are also satisfied. But how much should any one
need to be compromised? The satisfaction functions
also facilitate this often difficult decision-making
process, in three ways:
1. by explicitly showing how well any one need is
being satisfied, as a percentage between full and
zero satisfaction;
2. by expressing the tolerance for satisfying the
expressed need, in terms of the steepness of the
curve; and
3. by prioritizing the relative importance of each
need, in terms of the weight assigned to it.
Using these three measures, it is possible to iden-
tify needs that are not being satisfied, and those that
are over-satisfied. It is possible, therefore, to seek a
design solution that better achieves the under-satis-
fied needs, while achieving less-well the over-satis-
fied needs. In fact, an algorithm can be developed
that provides hints to the designer, indicating possi-
ble trade-offs. It first identifies the under-satisfied
needs, then the over-satisfied ones. Among the
over-satisfied needs, it would suggest that those of
 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 403

Fig. 5. The general multidisciplinary, collaborative design environment.

lower importance Žas expressed by their associated
weights. would be candidates for reduced-satisfac-
tion. It will also indicate how much latitude exists in
reducing their satisfaction levels.
Given that the inter-relationships between the dif-
ferent needs are not obvious, for the most part, the
algorithm cannot tell which specific need ought to be
compromised to achieve another need. Such advise
could be added through a knowledge base, which
stores rules about the relationships between the vari-
ous needs. It might also store specific suggestions for
improving under-satisfied needs. Nonetheless, only a

Fig. 6. The structure of an Intelligent Design Assistant ŽIDeA..

404 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409

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

Fig. 7. Setting desired satisfaction levels.

 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 405

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

Fig. 8. Designing the room and its windows.

406 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409

Fig. 9. Linear piece-wise approximated noise-reduction satisfaction function.

Once the Form has, thus, been specified, the and

Fenestration IDeA performs the necessary tests to
y2
predict the behavior of the form–function-context
combination, and assess its performance. For the MLS Ž DesL y MaxL . y DesL Ž 100 y MLS.
sake of simplicity, the Fenestration IDeA approxi-
mates the satisfaction curves in a piece-wise linear
s
ž Ž DesL y MaxL. /
form. For instance, the noise reduction satisfaction Ž 100 y MLS.
curve is approximated using the functions depicted
in Fig. 9, as expressed by the following equations:
q
ž DesL y MaxL / x.

The overall performance is calculated and pre-

sented in numerical and visual forms, as depicted in
°0 if x - MinL ¶ Fig. 10.
y1~ if MinL F x F DesL • The Fenestration IDeA has not yet progressed to
f Ž x. s ,
y2 if DesL - x F MaxL the advise-giving level. It is envisioned, however,
0
¢ if x ) MaxL
ß that such advise will be provided using the method
outlined earlier: the system will identify the least-
satisfied functions, and the ones that are well-satis-
with fied yet have some latitude in lowering their level of
satisfaction. Then, using the task-specific knowl-
MLS Ž MinLy DesL . y MinL Ž MLS y 100 . edge-bases available to it, the system could identify
y1 s
ž Ž MinL y DesL. / strategies for satisfying the under-satisfied functions.
For example, if the noise-reduction function is not
satisfied, but there is some room for reducing the
MLS y 100
satisfaction of the budget requirement, the Fenestra-
q ž MinLy DesL / x
tion IDeA may suggest using a more expensive
 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409 407

Fig. 10. Several different ways for presenting the overall performance.
408 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
triple-glazed window, instead of the selected two-
pane window. Likewise, if the noise reduction func-
tion is satisfied, but the budget has been exceeded, it
would recommend trying a cheaper two-pane glazing
instead of the selected three-pane.
6. 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, and on casting this understanding into a
model that can be represented explicitly Žand thus
can be translated into a computer program.. Having
identified the two main characteristics of architecture
as Form and Function, the search for formal theories
that can explain the process of design tended to
converge on causality-based paradigms. Hence, the
attractivity of statements such as ‘Form follows
Function.’ This statement provided a convenient log-
ical foundation for design theories, much like other
causalities have formed the foundation of many engi-
neering and practically all scientific paradigms.
Many architects found this logically-convenient
statement inadequate to describe what their experi-
ences taught them, for it failed to account for the
discontinuity in the relationship between form and
function, which architects call ‘the intuitive leap.’
This leap occurs when architects, engaged in the
search for a form that will facilitate some desired
function, actually find the ‘right’ form. The paradigm
presented in this paper attempts to recognize this
experience, and use it as a basis for an alternative
formal model of design, which can be implemented
by computational means. It does not attempt to
formalize the intuitive leap itself, only to accommo-
date it in the model. This accommodation takes the
form of contextuality: the convergence of form and
function in a particular context. The paradigm strives
to eliminate the precedence of either form or func-
tion and, hence, of the causal relationship between
the two. To compensate, it develops the notion of
performance, as a means for interpreting and deter-
mining the confluence of the two entities.
Performance is a measure of the desirability of the
predicted behavior of a design solution. To facilitate
the computation of performance, satisfaction func-
tions were introduced. These functions allow for
mapping a given behavior onto measures of satisfac-
tion. They also facilitate trade-offs, a necessary
means to improve the overall performance of a sys-
tem by sacrificing the degree of satisfaction from
some parts of the system in favor of others.
The proposed design paradigm fits well within
our view that computers ought to be partners in the
design process, tools the designer can draw upon
when developing forms, specifying functions, and
interpreting their confluence w28x. This approach,
along with the proposed paradigm, have been tested
through the development of an experimental system
intended to support the design of windows in a
building. The so-called Fenestration IDeA has been
implemented in Visual Basic 4.0. While it is not yet
complete, we believe it already demonstrates well
the issues underlying the Performance-based design
paradigm.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Gustavo Llavaneras, a
PhD student in the Department of Architecture at UC
Berkeley, whose dissertation work helped developed
the paradigm, and who has been implementing it
through the Fenestration IDeA that was presented in
the paper. Thanks are also due to Professor Carlo
´
Sequin from the Department of Computer Science at
Berkeley, for his insight and assistance in developing
the Satisfaction Curves.
References
w1x O. Akin, How do architects design?, in: Latombe ŽEd..,
Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in Computer-
Aided Design, IFIP, North-Holland, New York, NY, 1978.
w2x Y. Aksoylu, Two different systematic approaches to design,
Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
1982.
w3x C. Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard
Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1964.
w4x C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I.
Fiksdahl-King, S. Angel, A Pattern Language, Oxford Univ.
Press, 1977.
w5x J. van Andel, Expert systems in environmental psychology,
JAPS 10 conference, Delft, The Netherlands, 1988.
 Y.E. Kalayr Automation in Construction 8 (1999) 395–409
w6x J. Archea, Puzzle-making: what architects do when no one is
looking, in: Y.E. Kalay ŽEd.., Computability of Design,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1987.
w7x G.C. Armour, E.S. Buffa, A heuristic algorithm and simula-
tion approach to relative location of facilities, Management
Science 9 Ž2. Ž1968. 294–309.
w8x A. Bijl, An approach to design theory, in: Yoshikawa, War-
man ŽEds.., Design Theory in CAD, North-Holland, Amster-
dam, 1987.
w9x G. Carrara, Y.E. Kalay, G. Novembri, Knowledge-based
computational support for architectural design, Automation
in Construction 3 Ž2–3. Ž1994. 123–142.
w10x R.D. Coyne, M.A. Rosenman, A.D. Radford, M. Balachan-
dran, J.S. Gero, Knowledge-based Design Systems,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990.
w11x E.C. Cromley, Sleeping around: a history of American beds
and bedrooms, Journal of Design History 3 Ž1. Ž1990. 1–17.
w12x N. Cross, The Automated Architect, Pion Press, London,
1977.
w13x D. Cuff, Architecture: The Story of Practice, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1991.
w14x U. Flemming, Case-based design in the SEED system, in: G.
Carrara, Y.E. Kalay ŽEds.., Knowledge-based Computer-
Aided Architectural Design, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994.
w15x M.D. Gross, C. Zimring, Predicting way-finding behavior in
buildings: a schema-based approach, in: Y.E. Kalay ŽEd..,
Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance, Wiley-Inter-
science, New York, 1992.
w16x Y.E. Kalay, L. Khemlani, J.W. Choi, An integrated model to
support collaborative multi-disciplinary design of buildings,
in: O. Akin ŽEd.., Proceedings of the Descriptive Models of
Design, Istanbul, Turkey, 1996.
w17x M.K. Kim, Development of machine intelligence for infer-
ence of design intent implicit in design specifications, in:
Y.E. Kalay ŽEd.., Computability of Design, Wiley-Intersci-
ence, New York, 1987.
409
w18x J.C. Jones, Design Methods, Wiley, London, 1980.
w19x J. Laird, P. Rosenbloom, A. Newell, Universal Subgoaling
and Chunking, Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston, 1986.
w20x R. Oxman, Multiple operative and interactive modes in
knowledge-based design systems, in: Y.E. Kalay ŽEd.., Eval-
uating and Predicting Design Performance, Wiley-Intersci-
ence, New York, 1992.
w21x R.B. Norman, Intuitive design and computation, in: Y.E.
Kalay ŽEd.., Computability of Design, Wiley-Interscience,
New York, 1987.
w22x H.W. Rittel, M.M. Webber, Planning problems are wicked
problems, in: Cross ŽEd.., Developments in Design Method-
ology, Wiley, New York, NY, 1984.
w23x H.A. Simon, Style in design, in: Eastman ŽEd.., Spatial
Synthesis in Computer-Aided Design, Wiley, NY, 1975.
w24x H.A. Simon, Models of Thought, Yale Univ. Press, New
Haven, CT, 1979.
w25x E. Shaviv, D. Gali, A model for space allocation in complex
buildings, Build International 7 Ž6. Ž1974. 493–518.
w26x E. Shaviv, Y.E. Kalay, Combined procedural and heuristic
method to energy-conscious building design and evaluation,
in: Y.E. Kalay ŽEd.., Evaluating and Predicting Design Per-
formance, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1992.
w27x L.H. Sullivan, Kindergarten chats on architecture, in: C.F.
Bragdon ŽEd.., Education and Democracy, Scarab Fraternity
Press, 1934.
w28x L.M. Swerdloff, Y.E. Kalay, A partnership approach to
computer-aided design, in: Y.E. Kalay ŽEd.., Computability
of Design, Wiley, New York, 1987.
w29x R. Venturi, D. Scott-Brown, S. Izenour, Learning from Las
Vegas, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1972.
w30x A. Wizel, R. Becker, Integration of performance evaluation
in computer-aided design, in: Y.E. Kalay ŽEd.., Evaluating
and Predicting Design Performance, Wiley-Interscience, New
York, 1992.