Design for User Experience: An Affective-Cognitive Modeling Perspective
Q.L. Xu1, F. Zhou1, J. Jiao2
1
School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
2
The G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
(qlxu@ntu.edu.sg)
Abstract - This research proposes a new formalism to
embody the human-product interactions in the product
ecosystem context for enhancing user experience. A
comprehensive formulation of the product ecosystem is
presented with emphasis on the event-driven user
experience. Next, a colored dynamic fuzzy Petri net
(CDFPN) model is proposed to capture the causal relations
embedded in users’ affective and cognitive processes. In a
case example of designing a subway station ecosystem, it is
demonstrated that the concept of ecosystem is an innovative
step toward affective-cognitive engineering and the CDFPN
approach is appropriate to include the user experience in
system development toward high added-value.
Keywords - Product Design, Product Ecosystem, User
Experience, Affective- Cognitive Modeling, Fuzzy Petri Nets.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recent years have witnessed the emerging trend of
engineering design going toward high value-added
products and service innovation. Notable progress is the
dual consideration of users’ cognitive and affective
aspects in product design. While the cognitive aspect
focuses on users’ information processing and decision-
making that are rational in nature [1], the affective aspect
focuses on the users’ emotional responses that are
typically intangible and transient. Both aspects may have
an impact on each other, and importantly influence users’
satisfaction and purchasing decisions [2]. Therefore,
product design must accommodate users’ affective and
cognitive needs so that the manufacturers can differentiate
the product offerings and gain a competitive edge.
To better understand product differentiation and value
profiles, an ecosystem view of product design for user
experience would provide useful insights. An ecosystem
is a networked set of entities in a product or service
system that works together to create value for end-users
[3]. Accordingly, users’ affective states and cognitive
processes are manifested through users’ interactions with
multiple products, operating collectively in a consistent
business process.
To design the product ecosystem, it is crucial for the
designers to uncover user mindsets and need states.
However, current practices in product ecosystem
development rely heavily on designer’s intuition and trial-
and-error processes. Little work has been reported in
developing the theoretical framework for designing user
experience, and providing decision support at the design
stage. This can be attributed to the lack of a proper
problem formulation of product ecosystems, and effective
modeling mechanisms of the affective and cognitive
aspects of users.
Towards this end, this research proposes a framework
of product ecosystem design for user experience, with
emphasis on the affective-cognitive aspects. In particular,
the user experience is modeled as interplay of user
affective-cognitive aspects and the product ecosystem
qualities. To tackle the immense complexities related to
the causal relationships between these elements, a colored
dynamic fuzzy Petri nets (CDFPN) approach is proposed
and its operational characteristics are manifested.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Product Ecosystems and User Experience
In this research, a product ecosystem refers to a
dynamic unit consisting of all products and users, as well
as their interactive relations in the business process. It is
formally represented as a tuple: P e  E ,  , where E
represents the entities involved in the ecosystem,
and  denote the relationships between entities. The
entities belong to one of two types: E  E U , E P , where
E U  u1 , u2 ,..., u M  is a set of M users, and
E P   p1 , p2 ,..., p N  is a set of N products. Three types of
relationships exist between entity-pairs and are defined
as:   1 , 2 , 3 . The interaction between users is
denoted as a function 1 : EU  EU 0,1 , which is a
mapping from EU  EU to a binary set, where ‘1’ indicates
that two users interact with each other; and ‘0’, otherwise.
Similarly, the relationship between products is
represented as 2 : EP  EP 0,1 , which is a mapping
from E P  E P to a binary set. Finally, the correspondence
between users and products is represented
as 3 : EU  EP 0,1 , which is a mapping from EU  E P to
a binary set. The entity and relationship of a product
ecosystem is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Furthermore, the ambience is defined according to a
user’s interaction with his/her surroundings. It is context-
sensitive, i.e. depending on specific perspectives of users.
The ambience for user i ( u  i   E U ) is defined
as Am  u  i    EU  i  , E P  i  ,   i  , where
 Product
1
Product
3 Product
User 2
User 1
User M ' Product
N U-U
Product Product
2 N'
User M
Product ecosystem
Fig. 1. Entities and relations in a product ecosystem
E U
 i   u j | 1  ui , u j   1, u j  E U

,i  j  E
E  i    p j |  3  ui , p j   1, p j  E   E
P P
  i     u , p  (for u  u  i   E U  i  ;
Basically, the ambience consists of all the users and
products that directly interact with u  i  , plus the
relationships among these entities.
Typically, user experience is formed as the evolution
of the users’ internal states along the chain of events,
where the internal state includes two essential aspects,
namely the affect and the cognition as a result of human-
ambience interactions. In view of these considerations, the
product ecosystem is re-formulated as in Fig. 2 (a). The
focal user (e.g. User i) interacts with relevant products in
the ambience, which results in a sequence of events
(denoted as hexagons). The series of events that constitute
the user experience is defined as A  a1 , a2 ,..., aL  , where
L is the number of events involved in the sequence. The
input to the event includes the focal user’s affect,
cognition, general attributes, and the status of the ambient
factors. The event is an information processing unit that
deals with an activity/task of the user. Accordingly, the
output of the event is the new status of the focal user’s
affect, cognition, and general attributes, and the new
status of the ambience. The functional model of an event
is shown in Fig. 2 (b).
B. Product Ecosystem Design Problem
In order to design and evaluate the product
ecosystem, there should be a reasoning engine to predict
users’ affects and cognitions that involve immense
uncertainties and dynamics. The classical way to tackle
this issue is to use fuzzy production rules. According to
fuzzy logic theories, fuzzy production rules are used to
represent the knowledge and reasoning process [4, 5]. A
general form of fuzzy production rule is given as:
Rule j: IF d i THEN dk (CF=  j ) (1)
where antecedent d i and consequent d k are propositions
which may contain one or a few fuzzy concepts; and the
Legend User i Ambience
Entity:
Product
User (U) 1 N'
(affect & Cognition)
Internal states
Product (P)
a3
Experience
Relation:
a1 a2 ax aL
U-P
a4
P-P
User1 User M '
Ambience
(a) User experience in a product ecosystem
User i (GA, AF, CG) User i (GA′, AF′, CG′)
U , State of user set EU(i)
ax
New state of EU(i)
State of product set EP(i) New state of EP(i)
P , and
(GA: general attribute; AF: affect; CG: cognition)
p  E P  i  ). (b) Functional model of an event
Fig. 2. Product ecosystem architecture
certainty factor (CF) is a value  j   0,1 representing the
degree of belief in the truth of the rule.
In the context of affective and cognitive modeling,
the fuzzy production rules are developed with respect to
the events along the chain of user experience. For a
specific event ax, let  denote a set of propositions, which
are fuzzy concepts consisting of fuzzy variables and their
fuzzy values. These propositions are assertions about the
status and attributes of users, be it affect or cognition, and
those of the ambience. Next, knowledge about the system
can be codified as the fuzzy rule set, denoted as  , where
a fuzzy rule is a mapping from a set of antecedents to a set
of consequences.
In view of the above context, the design of the
product ecosystem involves determining the product
attributes and the service processes that contribute to
positive of user affect and cognition. Among the entities
that constitute the product ecosystem, the user set EU is
considered to be predefined, i.e. the users’ characteristics
can be predicated but not controlled. On the other hand,
the product set E P is controllable and is considered as the
design elements. Moreover, the chain of events
A  a1 , a2 ,..., aL  in accordance with the user experience
is partially controllable, i.e. some events are fixed while
others are flexible to form the business process.
Additional constraints are exerted in view of the diverse
relationships among users, the ambience  , and the cause
and effect relation existing between the ecosystem
configuration and the user affect and cognition. With all
these considerations, the objectives of ecosystem design
are to (1) improve the customer service level by
optimizing the affective and cognitive responses of users,
and (2) reduce the operational cost of the system by
maximizing the utilization of the ecosystem capacities.
Therefore, the product ecosystem design problem is
reduced to an optimization problem of configuration
design, as shown in Fig. 3.
 Given: Entities belonging to a product ecosystem: User set EU , and
product set  E .P
Find: Optimal configuration of the product set E P * and the business
process A* .
Maximize: (1) Service level,
(2) System capacity utilization.
Subject to: (1) Ecosystem relations  |ai , for ai  A ,
Fig. 3. Formulation of the product ecosystem design problem
C. Colored Dynamic Fuzzy Petri Nets
In this research, a CDFPN model is developed with
respect to the functional model of events in the user
experience. A colored CDFPN is defined as:
CDFPN   P, T , C, I , O, , ,  , ,  , 
where the notations are specified as follows.
 P   p1, p2 ,..., pn  is a finite set of places.
 T  t1, t2 ,..., tm  is a finite set of transitions.
 C  c1, c2 ,..., cr  is a finite set of colors, which are
linguistic variables [6] for describing the status of
the ecosystem, including affect, cognition and
general attributes of users, and the characteristics
of the ambience. Each color ci may assume a few
values, i.e. ci  ci*1 , ci*2 ,..., ci* x  with ci*x   ci  . ci is
called a color or color name, while ci*x is called a
color value.
 I :  P T    0,1 is the input function that maps
directed arcs connecting places and transitions to
values between zero and one. The value is
considered as a time-dependent, normalized
distance function, denoted as
d iI    I  pi , t j      0,1 . It indicates the
relative contribution of a place to the transition -
the larger the distance, the smaller the contribution.
The complete set of input places of a transition ( t j )
is called its preset, denoted as t j  P . The preset
of a transition contribute to the transition in either
an AND-wise format, indicating a conjunctive
relation, or an OR-wise format, indicating a
disjunctive relation.
 O :  P  T   0,1 is the output function that maps
directed arcs connecting places and transitions to
values between zero and one. The value is
considered as a time-dependent, normalized
distance function, denoted as
d iO    O  pi , t j      0,1 . It simulates how the
output of the system changes due to the continuous
effect of the input. The complete set of output
places of a transition ( t j ) is called its postset,
denoted as t j  P .
  is a set of triangular norms (t-norms) and co-
norms (s-norms).
  : P   0,1 is an association function that maps
from places to fuzzy numbers.  i is the truth
value of the proposition associated with the place,
and is called the token.
  : P  C is a generic color assignment function
which defines a mapping from places to color
names. Specifically, define  * : P   C  as a color
assignment function which is a mapping from
places to a specific value of the color.
  : T   0,1 is a threshold function that maps
transitions to fuzzy numbers, indicating the
threshold value for firing the transition.
(2)
  : I | O   is an association function that maps
from input /output arcs to  .
  : T    is an association function that maps a
transition to an internal time stamp, which is a
non-negative integer.
The CDFPN provides a concise, graphical
interpretation of fuzzy production rules. In CDFPN, the
token/marking   pi   0,1 (For simplicity, let i    pi  )
in a place pi (for pi  P ) is a fuzzy number. Assuming
that  *  pi   ci* , the degree of truth of the fuzzy statement
c i* is  i . Provided that the preset of transition t j
contributes to it in an AND-wise manner, at any time τ,
t j is enabled to a degree of firing (DOF) z, which is
computed as [7]:
  (3)
n
z     s   ji   i , d iI 
i 1
where s(,) is an s-norm and “  ”denotes a fuzzy

implication such that     sup b   0,1 t   , b    .
According to the above formalism, if the threshold
 ji  1, then  ji   i   i , which implies a linear type of
impact that the colored token  i has on the DOF. If a
smaller value of  ji is adopted,  i has a more significant
contribution to the overall DOF; once  ji   i ,
 ji  i  1 . The distance function diI is used to reflect
the influence of the input on the DOF. Owning to the
aggregation property of (3) the smaller the value diI , the
more profound effect of this input place.
Firing of a transition leads to the update of tokens in
both the input places and output places. For each input
place belonging to the preset of transition tj, the marking
i   is updated by
 i   1  t  i   , z    (4)
 Apparently, this marking is dependent on the C language. Similarly, all the other are represented as the
complement of the DOF, z . At the same time, the respective CDFPN modules, and are coded as DLL files.
marking of the output place is updated according to the s-
norm. Let yk denote the marking of the output place. The p1
firing results in c1 t1 p5
 
0.5
yk   1  s yk   , s  z   , d iO    (5) p2 0.2 c1
c2 0.2 p6
Colored tokens are used in the CDFPN formalism to
allow multiple rules to be handled by a single PN p3 0.1 0.1 c2
c3
structure. In this research, the color is associated with the
users’ affective and cognitive aspects and the ecosystem Element Description Element Description
attributes. In view of the fuzzy rules, a color is denoted as p1 ux affect t1 read information
a fuzzy variable, which is associated with a set of fuzzy p2 ux cognition c1 valance
values. For example, a user’s “valence” is considered as a p3 IB status c2 familiarity
color, and it can assume three values: pleased, neutral, p4 ux affect c3 visibility
and displeased. A single place is used to host “valence”, p5 ux cognition
while it may take any value from the three.   R1  R1    R 2  R 2    R3  R3    R 4  R4 
The dynamic properties of the CDFPN are coded in  p1 , t1 , c1   neutral 0.5  displeased 0.5   neutral 0.5  pleased 0.5 
the time-dependent input/output distance functions. In  p2 , t1 , c2   unfamiliar 0.75  unfamiliar 0.75 unfamiliar 0.75 unfamiliar 0.75
fact, the CDFPN can be considered as a dynamic system,  p3 , t1 , c3   high 
0.8   high

0.8  low

0.8  low

0.8 
with the aggregated input and output distance functions  p4 , t1 , c1   pleased    neutral   displeased   neutral  
constitute the state variables. Let i   denote the input of  p5 , t1 , c2  familiar 0.7  familiar   familiar   familiar  
the CDFPN, and yk   , the output. The dynamic nature of Fig. 4. CDFPN representation of the “read information” event

fuzzy inference is specified as the input-output relation

with respect to the state variables. However, due to the
existence of thresholds and fuzzy operations (t-norms and
s-norms), the CDFPN is inherently a non-linear system.
Thus, it is unfeasible to study the dynamics of the system
analytically, e.g. by developing the transfer function in the
state space and solving state differential equations. As an
alternative, simulation methods can be adopted to
approximate the system behavior [8].
III. CASE STUDY
This case study involves the design and evaluation of
the subway station ecosystem, which involves a indefinite
number of users (passengers) and nine products, namely
general ticketing machine (GTM), information board (IB),
narrow gate (GN), wide gate (GW), service person (SP),
lift (LT), escalator (ES), staircase (ST), and train (TR),
each with a unique set of configurable attributes. The
CDFPN is used for knowledge representation and a
simulation model is built for analysis.
A simulation model is developed in the commercial
software Flexsim (www.flexsim.com). The configuration
of the subway ecosystem is designed according to the
specifications of the system parameters. Digital users are
created with their initial status following certain
distribution functions. The users’ actions are instructed by
the respective CDFPN models in the form of DLL files.
The performance of an ecosystem is evaluated
according to two criteria, i.e. service level (V) and system
capacity utilization (U). In this case study, the service
level is evaluated using two measures: commuter valence
and commuter stay-time in the ecosystem. System
capacity utilization is computed from the average
utilization of the subway facilitates that require relatively
large capital investment or operational cost. These
facilities include GTM, GN, GW, SP, ES, LT, and TR. In
the simulation environment, all these performance factors
can be computed automatically by the software.
B. Results and Analysis

A. CDFPN Modules and Simulation
The knowledge of how the ecosystem affects
commuters’ affect and cognition is coded as a set of
CDFPN modules. For example, the CDFPN module for
representing the “read information event” is shown in Fig.
4. The module dictates that the user’s valence state
changes due to the visibility of the information board (IB)
– high visibility leads to pleasurable feeling and low
visibility causes displeasure. At the same time, the IB
usually improves users’ familiarity with the subway
station. Next, the reasoning logic of the CDFPN is
translated into a dynamic-link library (DLL) file coded in
The simulation is first carried out with respect to a
legacy system, whose configuration is specified in Table
I. The performance of the legacy system is evaluated
against the service level and system capacity utilization.
These results bring about useful implications of system
design in the following aspects.
 Service level evaluation
The effectiveness of the system on the commuter
valence is reflected by the average valence of all
commuters, as shown by the solid curve in Fig. 5. Overall,
the system produces an average valence of 0.31. Because
the initial average valence of all commuters is set as zero,
this result indicates a possible effect of the ecosystem on
the commuter valence. From the commuter stay-time (the 0.9
dashed curve), it is shown that the commuters stay in the 0.8

system for an average period of 6.35 minutes, which is 0.7

Capacity utiliation
GTM
shorter than the expected stay-time of 6.5 minutes. This is 0.6
GN
0.5
an indication of acceptable operational efficiency of the 0.4 GW
service process. 0.3 SP
 Cost evaluation 0.2 LT
The system capacity utilization is computed to find 0.1 ES
out the cost-effectiveness of the ecosystem. Fig. 6 shows 0
TR
the utilization of the products with relatively high capital

8
0.5

5.5

13

18

23

28

33

38

43

48
10.5

15.5

20.5

25.5

30.5

35.5

40.5

45.5
investment or operational cost. As can be seen from the Time(×103 )
results, the lift (LT), the service person (SP) and the train
Fig. 6. Capacity utilization of individual products
(TR) are characterized by high utilization rates. While a
higher average utilization rate of a product indicates lower
0.5
unit cost per service process, it suggests a possible
bottleneck of the service process, if the users’ valence 0.4

level is significantly reduced by the respective product. 0.3

Valence Change
 Design improvement 0.2

Combing the results of the service level and the 0.1

system capacity utilization with respect to the products, a 0

designer can find useful guidelines for improving the ‐0.1 GTM IB GN GW SP LT ES ST TR

ecosystem configuration. In essence, a product related to ‐0.2

low service level and high capacity utilization indicates a ‐0.3
Product

TABLE I Benchmark Optimal

PRODUCT ECOSYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS
Fig. 7. Change of valence level due to individual products
Product Parameter Benchmark Pseudo-optimal
General Number 4 3
Ticketing (5,3) (15,-3) (5,3) (5,4) (5,- possible bottleneck product; whereas high service level
Position with low capacity utilization suggests excessive capacity
Machine (GTM) (5,4) (15, -4) 3)
Information
Number 1 2 of the product. For example, Fig. 7 shows the shift of
Visibility high high valence level with respect to individual products.
Board (IB)
Position (3, 0) (5, 2) (5, -2)
Obviously, SP and TR lead to significant valence decline.
Narrow Gate
(GN)
Number 8 8 Considering the high utilization rates of the two products
Wide Gate (Fig. 6), they seem to be designed with insufficient
Number 2 1
(GW) capacities in the benchmark system, and hence have to be
Service Person enhanced. Similarly, the result indicates that the wide gate
Number 2 3
(SP)
Speed moderate moderate
(GW) is designed with excessive capacity. Based on the
Lift (LT) above analysis, a designer is advised to allocate more
Position (25,0) (18,0)
Speed slow moderate service persons and increase train frequencies to remove
Escalator (ES)
Position (25,0) (25,0) the bottlenecks, and reduce the number of wide gates to
Staircase (ST) Position (25,1) (30,1) reduce investment and operational cost.
Train (TR) Interval 6 5
 Optimal solutions
This legacy system serves as a benchmark of newly
0.34 6.55
designed systems. New ecosystem configurations can be
6.5
0.33
designed to improve various aspects of the legacy system.
Average valence  state

6.45
0.32
As shown in Fig. 8, a Pareto-frontier can be found,
Average Stay‐time

6.4
0.31
6.35
suggesting the optimal trade-offs between capacity
0.3
6.3 utilization and service level. It should be noted that the
0.29
6.25 optima in the Pareto-frontier may not be found in reality
0.28 6.2 because it is impractical to explore the design space
0.27 6.15 thoroughly. The data points in the figure are computed
manually, and are called pseudo-optima.
13

18

23

28

33

38

43

48
10.5

15.5

20.5

25.5

30.5

35.5

40.5

45.5
3

8
0.5

5.5

Time (×10 3 ) Obviously, the relation between the two performance

Average Valence State Average Stay‐time
measures is inherently non-linear. The extremely high
service levels are associated with low capacity utilization.
Fig. 5. Service level w.r.t. average valence state and average commuter This means the system have excessive capacities, such
stay-time that adding more capacities does not engender significant

0.5
0.4
Aggregated Service Level
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Benchmark
‐0.1
‐0.2
‐0.3
‐0.4
0.2 0.3 0.4
Aggregated Capacity  Utilization
Fig. 8. Aggregated service level vs. aggregated capacity utilization
improvements of the service level. The other extreme can
be found at points with high capacity utilizations together
with the plummet of the service levels. This means that
the cost saved from lower system investment is eroded by
the worsening service level, causing it to be unacceptable
to the users. Highlighted in the chart are two points
indicating the performances of the benchmark system and
a newly designed pseudo-optimal system. As can be seen
from the data, the new system outperforms the benchmark
system by providing higher service level at lower system
cost (indicated by the higher system capacity utilization).
IV. DISCUSSION
The case study shows that the roadmap towards
designing complex, high-value added systems is viable
through the design for user experience accommodating
users’ affective and cognitive needs. The CDFPN model
is capable of describing the fuzzy causal relations
between the products and the user experience.
(1) Formulation of product ecosystems: The product
ecosystem formulation introduces a few important
concepts such as the ecosystem architecture, the
ambience, and the event-driven user experience. By
integrating products, users, and the business process into a
coherent model, the product ecosystem expands the scope
of traditional product and service process design, which
facilitates consistent design decisions.
(2) Affective-cognitive modeling: With emphasis on
the affective and cognitive states of the users, the system
is expected to elicit pleasurable, consistent user
experience, and ultimately high customer satisfaction. At
the same time, the systematic viewpoint allows the
designer to inspect the system development cost along
with performance requirements of the system. As
evidenced by the subway station case, the designed
system can achieve high performance on the one hand,
and low cost on the other.
(3) CDFPN formalism: CDFPN suggests itself to be a
powerful tool to model the complex, dynamic process of
the user experience. First, the CDFPN is flexible in the
sense that the color scheme allows multiple rules to be
handled in a single structure. Second, the CDFPN
accommodates the dynamic, temporal properties of the
affect and cognition by using varying arc distance
Optimal functions. Third, the CDFPN provides various
mechanisms, such as the color, fuzzy thresholds, and
degree of firing, to deal with the uncertainties involved in
the user-ambience interaction.
V. CONCLUSION
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Design of product ecosystems suggests a new
perspective of product design with expanded scopes and
objectives. On the one hand, it signifies more added-value
to the products or service processes owing to the
differentiation enabled by the inclusion of user’s affect
and cognition. On the other hand, it fosters the
development of new methodologies and technologies to
tackle the unprecedented complexities related to the
ecosystem design problem. In this regard, a few
constructive observations are made based on the outcome
of the study. First, the ambience is a useful and promising
concept in design for user experience, with its rich
implications, such as the multiple entities, multivariate
relations and event-driven processes. Second, the CDFPN
is suitable to capture the uncertainties of the ecosystem
and enable consistent reasoning with respect to user’s
affect and cognition. Third, the proposed modeling
framework provides decision support to product design
owing to its capacity to construct and simulate user
experience in relation with product ecosystem
configurations. In practice, the concept of affective-
cognitive modeling sheds light on industrial applications,
such as cabins of airplanes, trains, yachts, subways,
exhibition halls, shopping malls, and the like.
REFERENCES
[1] R.E. Clark, and F.Estes, “Cognitive task analysis”, Int. J.
Edu. Res., vol. 25, no. 5, 1996, pp. 403–417.
[2] H.M. Khalid, and M.G. Helander, “Customer emotional
needs in product design”, Concur. Eng. Res. App., vol.14,
no.3, 2006, pp. 197–206.
[3] J. Jiao, Q. Xu, J. Du, Y. Zhang, M. Helander, M. Khalid, P.
Helo, and C. Ni, “Analytical affective design with ambient
intelligence for mass customization and personalization”,
Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Sys., vol. 19, 2007, pp. 570–595.
[4] C.V. Negoita, Expert Systems and Fuzzy Systems,
Benjamin/Cummings, Massachusetts, 1985.
[5] S. M. Chen, “A new approach to handling fuzzy decision-
making problems”, IEEE Trans.Sys. Man. Cyber., Vol.
SMC-18, no. 6, 1988, pp. 1012–1016.
[6] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications,
Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, 1985.
[7] W. Pedrycz, Fuzzy Control and Fuzzy Systems (2nd ed.),
Research Studies Press Ltd., Somerset, England, 1989.
[8] A.B. Raposo, A.L.V. Coelho, L.P. Magalhaes, and I.L.M.
Ricarte, “Using fuzzy petri nets to coordinate collaborative
activities”, in Proc. Joint 9th Int. Fuzzy Syst. Assoc. World
Congress & 20th North American Fuzzy Information
Processing Society Inte. Conf., Vancouver, Canada, IEEE
Press, 2001, pp. 1494–1499.