Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T17:18:45.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mind-sets of functional reasoning in engineering design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Thomas J. Howard  and
Mogens Myrup Andreasen
Thomas J. Howard*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
Mogens Myrup Andreasen
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
*
Reprint requests to: Thomas J. Howard, Technical University of Denmark, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Produktionstorvet Building 426, Room 142, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. E-mail: thow@mek.dtu.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of a function is of great importance in design. This paper describes from theory how designers should reason about functions when designing. This paper introduces the link model, showing how functions and properties link the product and its use, to the perceived value of the product. The important and useful distinction between functions and properties is made along with the distinction between “wirk functions,” which is what the product does when operating, and “use functions,” which is what the product is used for. The paper makes a novel contribution beyond previous literature, showing that not only is a product's behavior or mode of action designed but also the use activity of the end user. Based on the theoretical perspective unfolded, the authors offer nine mind-sets for both design practitioners and researchers to consider when reasoning about functions.

Keywords

Design MethodologyDesign TheoryEngineering DesignFunctional ReasoningProperty Reasoning
Type
Response Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 233 - 240
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., Matthiesen, S., & Ohmer, M. (2003). An innovative new basic model in design methodology for analysis and synthesis of technical systems. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Engineering Design ICED03, pp. 147–148, Stockholm, August 19–21.Google Scholar
Alink, T. (2010). Bedeutung, Darstellung und Formulierung von Funktion für das Lösen von Gestaltungsproblemen mit dem C&C-Ansatz [Meaning and notation of function for solving design problems with the C&C-approach]. PhD Thesis. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, IPEK-Institut für Produktentwicklung.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M. (1980). Machine design methods based on a systemic approach [in Danish]. PhD Thesis. Lund University.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., & Howard, T.J. (2011). Is engineering design disappearing from design research? In The Future of Design Methodology (Birkhofer, H., Ed.). London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Aurisicchio, M., Eng, N.L., Ortíz, Nicolás, J.C., Childs, P.R.N., & Bracewell, R.H. (2011). On the functions of products. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED11): Vol. 10. Design Methods and Tools, Part 2 (Culley, S., Hicks, B., McAloone, T., & Howard, T.J., Eds.). Copenhagen: Design Society.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B.W., Chiradeep, S., Mocko, G.M., & Summers, J. (2011). An empirical study of the expressiveness of the functional basis. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 25, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiradeep, S., Summers, J., & Mocko, G.M. (2011). Exploring potentials for conservational reasoning using topologic rules of function structure graphs. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED11): Vol. 9. Design Methods and Tools, Part 1 (Culley, S., Hicks, B., McAloone, T., & Howard, T.J., Eds.). Copenhagen: Design Society.Google Scholar
Dorst, K., & Vermaas, P. E. (2005). John Gero's function–behaviour–structure model of designing: A critical analysis. Research in Engineering Design 16, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C.L., & Little, P. (2000). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ebro, M., Howard, T.J., & Rasmussen, J.J. (2012). The foundation for robust design: enabling robustness through kinematic design and design clarity. DESIGN2012, pp. 817–826. Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.Google Scholar
Eckert, C. (2013). That which is not form: the practical challenges in using functional concepts in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 217–232 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google 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
Harlou, U. (2006). Developing product families based on architectures. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, T.J., Culley, S., & Dekoninck, E.A. (2011). Reuse of ideas and concepts for creative stimuli in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design 22(8), 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvam, L., & Mortensen, N.H. (2007). A multi-perspective approach for the design of product configuration systems in journal. International Journal of Industrial Engineering 14(2), 129–140.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S. (2011). Seven years of product development in industry—experiences and requirements for supporting engineering design with “thinking tools.”Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED11): Vol. 9. Design Methods and Tools, Part 1 (Culley, S., Hicks, B., McAloone, T., & Howard, T.J., Eds.). Copenhagen: Design Society.Google Scholar
Matzen, D. (2009). A systematic approach to service oriented product development. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
McAloone, T.C. (2007). A competence-based approach to sustainable innovation teaching. Journal of Mechanical Design 129(7), 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, N.H., Hvam, L., Harlou, U., & Haug, A. (2011). Improving decision making in the early phases of configuration projects. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory Applications and Practice 18(9), 452–461.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering Design (Vol. 984, Wallace, K., Ed.). London: Design Council.Google Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990). The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, A.R., Matzen, D., McAloone, T.C., & Evans, S. (2010). Strategies for designing and developing services for manufacturing firms. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 3(2), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P. (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
Weber, C., Steinbach, M., Botta, C., & Deubel, T. (2004). Modelling of product–service systems (PSS) based on the PDD approach. DESIGN2004, pp. 547–554, Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.Google Scholar