Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:51:06.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The function analysis diagram: Intended benefits and coexistence with other functional models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Marco Aurisicchio ,
Rob Bracewell  and
Gareth Armstrong
Marco Aurisicchio*
Affiliation:
Design Engineering Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Rob Bracewell
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Gareth Armstrong
Affiliation:
Design Systems Engineering, Rolls-Royce plc, Derby, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Marco Aurisicchio, Design Engineering Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. E-mail: m.aurisicchio@imperial.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding product functions is a key aspect of the work undertaken by engineers involved in complex system design. The support offered to these engineers by existing modeling tools such as the function tree and the function structure is limited because they are not intuitive and do not scale well to deal with real-world engineering problems. A research collaboration between two universities and a major power system company in the aerospace domain has allowed the authors to further develop a method for function analysis known as function analysis diagram that was already in use by line engineers. The capability to generate and edit these diagrams was implemented in the Decision Rationale editor, a software tool for capturing design rationale. This article presents the intended benefits of the method and justifies them using an engineering case study. The results of the research have shown that the function analysis diagram method has a simple notation, permits the modeling of product functions together with structure, allows the generation of rich and accurate descriptions of product functionality, is useful to work with variant and adaptive design tasks, and can coexist with other functional modeling methods.

Keywords

Design RationaleFunctional AnalysisFunctional ModelingTRIZ
Type
Response Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 249 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adunka, R. (2010). Function analysis for electronic products. Proc. TRIZ Future Conf., pp. 165–171, Bergamo, Italy, November 3–5.Google Scholar
Araujo, C.S., Benedetto-Neto, H., Campello, A.C., Segre, F.M., & Wright, I.C. (1996). The utilization of product development methods: a survey of UK industry. Journal of Engineering Design 7(3), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R., & Armstrong, G. (2012). Functional modeling through the function analysis diagram, DETC2012-70944. Proc. ASME 2012 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, August 12–15.Google Scholar
Aurisicchio, M., Eng, N.L., Ortiz Nicolas, J.C., Childs, P.R.N., & Bracewell, R.H. (2011). On the functions of products. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED 11), pp. 443–455. Lyngby/Copenhagen: Design Society.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1969). General System Theory: Foundations, Developments, Applications (rev. ed.) New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Bhatta, S., Goel, A., & Prabhakar, S. (1996) Innovation in analogical design: a model-based approach. Proc. AI in Design. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A., Apreda, R., & Fantoni, G. (2009). A theory of the constituent elements of functions. ICED 09, pp. 179–190, Stanford, CA, August 24–27, 2009.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R., Gourtovaia, M., Moss, M., Knott, D., & Wallace, K. (2009). DRed 2.0: a method and tool for capture and communication of design knowledge deliberated in the creation of technical products. ICED 09, pp. 223–234, Stanford, CA, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1996). Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation—Schemebuilder. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracewell, R., Wallace, K., Moss, M., & Knott, D. (2009). Capturing design rationale. Computer-Aided Design 41(3), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. ASME 2005 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. IDETC/CIE 2005, pp. 155–160. Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, C.R., McAdams, D.A., Stone, R.B., Kurtoglu, T., & Campbell, M.I. (2005). Automation of a computational technique for concept generation. ASME IDETC/CIE 2005, pp. 267–276, Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.Google Scholar
Cascini, G., & Rissone, P. (2004). Plastic design: integrating TRIZ creativity and semantic knowledge portals. Journal of Engineering Design 15(4), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J., Hagan, B., & Bratt, H. (1976). The failure–experience matrix—a useful design tool. Transactions of the ASME, Series B, Journal of Engineering in Industry 98, 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Court, A.W. (1995). Modelling and classification of information for engineering designers. PhD Thesis. University of Bath.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devoino, I.G., Koshevoy, O.E., Litvin, S.S., & Tsourikov, V. (1997). Computer-based system for imagining and analysing an engineering object system and indicating values of specific design changes. US Patent 6056428.Google Scholar
Dori, D. (2002). Object–Process Methodology—A Holistic Systems Paradigm. New York: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. (2013). That which is not form: the practical challenges of using functional concepts in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 217–232 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Alink, T., Ruckpaul, A., & Albers, A. (2011). Different notions of function: results from an experiment on the analysis of an existing product. Journal of Engineering Design 22(11–12), 811–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantoni, G., Apreda, R., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2009). Functional vector space. Proc. ICED 09, pp. 311–322, Stanford, CA, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Gadd, K. (2011). TRIZ for Engineers—Enabling Inventive Problem Solving. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A.K. (2013). A 30-year case study and 15 principles: implications of an artificial intelligence methodology for functional modeling. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 203–215 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1984). Theory of Technical Systems. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundal, M. (1990). A systematic method for developing function structures, solutions and concept variants. Mechanism and Machine Theory 25(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Y., Fikes, R., Vescovi, M., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1993). How things are intended to work: capturing functional knowledge in device design. Proc. Int. Joint Conf. AI, pp. 1516–1522. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Sano, T., Namba, K., & Mizoguchi, R. (2002). A functional concept ontology and its application to automatic identification of functional structures. Advanced Engineering Informatics 16(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (1997). Design rationale systems: understanding the issues. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 12(3), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefever, D., & Wood, K. (1996). Design for assembly techniques in reverse engineering and redesign. Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DTM-1507, Irvine, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, A., Wood, K., & McAdams, D. (1997). Functional analysis: a fundamental empirical study for reverse engineering, benchmarking and redesign. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DTM-3879, Sacramento, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Mesa, B., & Bylund, N. (2011). A study of the use of concept selection methods from inside a company. Research in Engineering Design 22(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, L. (1972). Techniques for Value Analysis and Engineering. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinyayev, A. (2006, December). Functional clues. TRIZ Journal.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stone, R. (2012). Design Repository. Oregon State University, Design Engineering Lab. Accessed February 19, 2012, at http://designengineeringlab.org/delabsite/repository.htmlGoogle Scholar
Stone, R., & Wood, K. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2001). Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szykman, S., Racz, J.W., & Sriram, R.D. (1999). The representation of function in computer-based design. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DTM-8742, Las Vegas, NV, September 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, D. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S. (1995). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1997). Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Intelligent Systems 12(2), 42–48.Google Scholar
Value Analysis Incorporated. (1993). Value Analysis, Value Engineering, and Value Management. Clifton Park, NY: Value Analysis Incorporated.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 191–202 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whybrew, K., Shaw, A.I., Aitchison, D.R., & Raine, J. K. (2001). Use of design tools and methodologies for rapid product development in the New Zealand manufacturing industry. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Design Applications, pp. 27–34, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Yourdon, E. (1989), Modern Structured Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar