Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:50:15.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The proliferation of functions: Multiple systems playing multiple roles in multiple supersystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2014

Nathan Crilly
Nathan Crilly*
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
Reprint requests to: Nathan Crilly, Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK. E-mail: nc266@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When considering a system that performs a role, it is often stated that performing that role is a function of the system. The general form of such statements is that “the function of S is R,” where S is the functioning system and R is the functional role it plays. However, such statements do not represent how that single function was selected from many possible alternatives. This article renders those alternatives explicit by revealing the other possible function statements that might be made when either S or R is being considered. In particular, two forms of selection are emphasized. First, when we say “the function of S is R,” there are typically many systems other than S that are required to be in operation for that role to be fulfilled. The functioning system, S, does not perform the role, R, all by itself, and those systems that support S in performing that role might also have been considered as functioning. Second, when we say, “the function of S is R,” there are typically many other roles that S plays apart from R, and those other roles might also have been considered functional. When we make function assignments, we select both the functioning system, S, and the functional role, R, from a range of alternatives. To emphasize these alternatives, this article develops a diagrammatic representation of multiple systems playing multiple roles in multiple supersystems.

Keywords

CausationFunctionProliferationPropagationSystems
Type
Regular Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 83 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R., & Armstrong, G. (2013). The function analysis diagram: Intended benefits and coexistence with other functional models. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 249–257.Google Scholar
Bell, J., Snooke, N., & Price, C. (2007). A language for functional interpretation of model based simulation. Advanced Engineering Informatics 21(4), 398–409.Google Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. IDETC/CIE 2005: ASME 2005 Int. Design Engineering Technical Confs. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
Buchli, J., & Santini, C.C. (2005). Complexity engineering, harnessing emergent phenomena as opportunities for engineering. Reports of the Santa Fe Institute's Complex Systems Summer School.Google Scholar
Buede, D.M. (2000). The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (1998). Supporting two views of function in mechanical design. Proc. Workshop on Functional Modelling and Teleological Reasoning: 15th National Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'98), Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies 22(6), 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Shea, K., Stone, R., Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Hernandez, N.V., & Wood, K.L. (2011). Computer-based design synthesis research: an overview. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 11(2), 021003-1–021003-9.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Srinivasan, V., Ranjan, B.S.C., & Lindemann, U. (2013). A case for multiple views of function in design based on a common definition. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 271–279.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B. (2005). Representing function: relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design 19(2), 65–74.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16(3/4), 162–177.Google Scholar
Craver, C.F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science 68(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311–344.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2013). Function propagation through nested systems. Design Studies 34(2), 216–242.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72(20), 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Y.-M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(5), 343–362.Google 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
de Weck, O.L., Roos, D., & Magee, C.L. (2011). Engineering Systems: Meeting Human Needs in a Complex Technological World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dym, C.L., & Brown, D.C. (2012). Engineering Design: Representation and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erden, M.S., Komoto, H., van Beek, T.J., D'Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 147–169.Google Scholar
Franssen, M., & Jespersen, B. (2009). From nutcracking to assisted driving: stratified instrumental systems and the modeling of complexity. Proc. 2nd. Int. Engineering Systems Symp. Engineering Systems: Achievements and Challenges. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, P., & Newell, A. (1971). A model for functional reasoning in design. Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 621–640, London.Google Scholar
Frei, R., & Serugendo, G.D.M. (2011 a). Concepts in complexity engineering. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation 3(2), 123–139.Google Scholar
Frei, R., & Serugendo, G.D.M. (2011 b). Advances in complexity engineering. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation 3(4), 199–212.Google Scholar
Galle, P. (2009). The ontology of Gero's FBS model of designing. Design Studies 30(4), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behavior–structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
Goel, A., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. Proc. 11th Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), pp. 1388–1394. Detroit, MI: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(1), 23–35.Google Scholar
Gzara, L., Rieu, D., & Tollenaere, M. (2003). Product information systems engineering: an approach for building product models by reuse of patterns. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 19(3), 239–261.Google Scholar
Hansson, S.O. (2006). Defining technical function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(1), 19–22.Google Scholar
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. (2004). Actions versus functions: a plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. Monist 87(1), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P.E. (2009). Contemporary engineering and the metaphysics of artefacts: beyond the artisan model. Monist 92(3), 403–419.Google Scholar
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Hubka, V., Andreasen, M.M., & Eder, W.E. (1988). Practical Studies in Systematic Design. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1982). Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, K. (1990). Introduction to Quality Control. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993). Function and design. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18, 379–397.Google Scholar
Kroes, P., Franssen, M., van de Poel, I., & Ottens, M. (2006). Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23(6), 803–814.Google Scholar
Lewens, T. (2005). Organisms and Artifacts: Design in Nature and Elsewhere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20(1), 13–27.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., Fadel, G.M., & Battisto, D.G. (2009). An affordance based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies 30(4), 393–414.Google Scholar
Maier, M.W., & Rechtin, E. (2009). The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd ed.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, P. (2001). What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Neander, K. (1991). The teleological notion of “function.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69(4), 454–468.Google Scholar
Neander, K. (1995). Misrepresenting and malfunctioning. Philosophical Studies 79(2), 109–141.Google Scholar
Otto, K.N., & Wood, K.L. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (Wallace, K., Ed.). London: Design Council.Google Scholar
Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. Journal of Philosophy 95(5), 215–254.Google Scholar
Preston, B. (2009). Philosophical theories of artifact function. In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Meijers, A., Ed.), pp. 213–234. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Design Studies 19(2), 161–186.Google Scholar
Roush, M.L., & Webb, W.M. (2006). Applied Reliability Engineering. Belcamp, MD: Reliability Information Analysis Center.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Function, behavior, and structure. In AIENG'90: Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering (Gero, J.S., Ed.), Vol. 5, pp. 177–19). New York: Computational Mechanics Publications and Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1997). Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Expert 12(2), 42–48.Google Scholar
Van Wie, M., Bryant, C.R., Bohm, M.R., McAdams, D.A., & Stone, R.B. (2005). A model of function-based representations. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 89–111.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2009). The flexible meaning of function in engineering. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED '09, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Dorst, K. (2007). On the conceptual framework of John Gero's FBS-model and the prescriptive aims of design methodology. Design Studies 28(2), 133–157.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Eckert, C. (2013). My functional description is better! Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warell, A. (1999). Introducing a use-perspective in product design theory and methodology. Proc. 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Confs., Paper No. DETC99/DTM-8782, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
Winsor, J., & MacCallum, K. (1994). A review of functionality modelling in design. Knowledge Engineering Review 9(2), 163–199.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review 82(2), 139–168.Google Scholar