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

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 217-231

  Eckert, Claudia ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behavior; Design experiment; Design methodology; Function

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; DESIGN EXPERIMENTS; DESIGN METHODOLOGY; FUNCTIONAL MODEL; FUNCTIONAL MODELING; INTRODUCTION OF METHODS IN INDUSTRIES;

EXPERIMENTS; FUNCTIONS;

DESIGN;

EID: 84880847722     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: 14691760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S089006041300022X     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Altshuller, G. (1999). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation, and Technical Creativity (Shulyak, L., & Rodman, S., Trans.). Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.
6. 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].
7. 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.
8. Clark, K., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9. Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311-344.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Ehrlenspiel, K. (1995). Integrierte Produktentwicklung. Munich: Hanser.
14. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
15. 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.
16. Frigg, R. (2003). Re-representing scientific representation. PhD Thesis. London School of Economics, Department of Philosophy Logic and Scientific Method.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Giere, R. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science 71(5), 742-752.
20. 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].
21. Goldschmidt, G., & Porter, W. (2004) Design Representations. London: Springer.
22. Hauser, J.R., & Clausing, D.P. (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review 66(3), 63-73.
23. Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1996) Mental Leaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. 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.
25. Knott, D.S. (2001). The place of TRIZ in a holistic design methodology. Creativity and Innovation Management 10(2), 126-133.
26. Langford, J.W. (1995). Logistics: Principles and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence 8, 259-283.
28. Mäki, U. (2011). Models and the locus of their truth. Synthese 180, 47-63.
29. 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.
30. Mont, O., & Tukker, A. (2006) Product-service system. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1451-1454.
31. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1977). Konstruktionslehre (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.
32. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd ed., Wallace, K., & Blessing, L., Trans.). London: Springer.
33. Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 359-370.
34. Suárez, M. (2003). Scientific representation: against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, 225-244.
35. Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis 55, 393-415.
36. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. (1993). Systematic approach to the development and design of technical systems and products, VDI 2221. Düsseldorf: Author.
37. 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.
38. 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].
39. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. New York: Harper Collins.
40. Wyatt, D. (2011). Developing a computational approach to support product architecture design. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.