Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:59:13.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

That which is not form: The practical challenges in using functional concepts in design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Claudia Eckert
Claudia Eckert*
Affiliation:
Design Group, Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Claudia Eckert, Design Group, Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: c.m.eckert@open.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Functional modeling is a very significant part of many different well-known design methodologies. This paper investigates the questions of what functional modeling approaches people use in industry and how they conceptualize functions. Using interviews and the findings from an experiment where 20 individual designers were asked to generate a functional model of a product, the paper highlights the different notions designers associate with the word function. Difficulties associated with functional modeling arise from varied and inconsistent notions of functions as well as wider challenges associated with modeling and the introduction of methods in industry.

Keywords

BehaviorDesign ExperimentDesign MethodologyFunction
Type
Position Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 217 - 231
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

Albers, A., Alink, T., & Deigendesch, T. (2008). Support of design engineering activity—the contact and channel model (C&CM) in the context of problem solving and the role of modeling. Proc. DESIGN 2008, 10th Int. Design Conf., pp. 97–102. Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.Google Scholar
Albers, A., Alink, T., Thau, S., & Matthiesen, S. (2008). Support of system analyses and improvement in industrial design through the contact & channel model. Proc. DESIGN 2008, 10th Int. Design Conf., pp. 245–252. Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.Google Scholar
Alink, T. (2010). Meaning and notation of function for solving design problems with the C&C-approach. PhD Thesis. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Alonso-Rasgado, T., Thompson, G., & Elfström, B.-O. (2004). The design of a functional (total care) product. Journal of Engineering Design 15(6), 515–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuller, G. (1999). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation, and Technical Creativity (Shulyak, L., & Rodman, S., Trans.). Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.Google Scholar
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R., & Armstrong, G. (2013). The functional analysis diagram: intended benefits and coexistence with other functional models. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 249–257 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., Gourtovaia, M., Moss, M., Knott, D.S., Wallace, K.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2009). DRed 2.0: a method and tool for capture and communication of design knowledge deliberated in the creation of technical products, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED'09), Vol. 6, pp. 223–234. Stanford, CA: Design Society.Google Scholar
Clark, K., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311–344.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
Eckert, C.M., & Stacey, M.K. (2010). What is a process model? Reflections on the epistemology of design process model. In Modeling and Management of Engineering Processes (Heisig, P., Clarkson, P.J., & Vajna, S., Eds.), pp. 3–14. New York: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Stacey, M.K., Wyatt, D., & Garthwaite, P. (2012). Change as little as possible: creativity in design by modification. Journal of Engineering Design 23(4), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K. (1995). Integrierte Produktentwicklung. Munich: Hanser.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, T., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2007). Externalising tacit overview knowledge: a model-based approach to supporting design teams. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, R. (2003). Re-representing scientific representation. PhD Thesis. London School of Economics, Department of Philosophy Logic and Scientific Method.Google Scholar
Geis, C., Bierhals, R., Schuster, I., Badke-Schaub, P., & Birkhofer, H. (2008). Methods in practice—a study on requirements for development and transfer of design methods. Proc. DESIGN 2008, 10th Int. Design Conf., pp. 369–376. Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2002). The situated function–behavior–structure framework. Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design '02 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 89–104. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science 71(5), 742–752.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
Goldschmidt, G., & Porter, W. (2004) Design Representations. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, J.R., & Clausing, D.P. (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review 66(3), 63–73.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1996) Mental Leaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hua, Z., Yang, J., Coulibaly, S., & Zhang, B. (2006). Integration TRIZ with problem-solving tools: a literature review from 1995 to 2006. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research 1(1–2), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, D.S. (2001). The place of TRIZ in a holistic design methodology. Creativity and Innovation Management 10(2), 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, J.W. (1995). Logistics: Principles and Applications. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence 8, 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. (2011). Models and the locus of their truth. Synthese 180, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiesen, S. (2011). Seven years of product development in industry—experiences and requirements for supporting engineering design with “Thinking Tools.” Proc. ICED 2011, pp. 236–245, Copenhagen, August 15–19.Google Scholar
Mont, O., & Tukker, A. (2006) Product-service system. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1451–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1977). Konstruktionslehre (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd ed., Wallace, K., & Blessing, L., Trans.). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez, M. (2003). Scientific representation: against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis 55, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. (1993). Systematic approach to the development and design of technical systems and products, VDI 2221. Düsseldorf: Author.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical functions: towards accepting different engineering meanings with one overall account. Proc. TMCE 2010 Symp., pp. 183–194, Ancona, Italy, April 12–16.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
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Wyatt, D. (2011). Developing a computational approach to support product architecture design. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar