Akiyama, K. (1991). Function Analysis: Systematic Improvement of Quality and Performance. Cambridge: Productivity Press.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1957/2000). Intention. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell/Harvard University Press.
Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. IDETC/CIE 2005: ASME 2005 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2005-85017, Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16(3–4), 162–177.
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311–344.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72(20), 741–765.
Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artefacts. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 42–57.
Gaver, W.W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proc. CHI'91 (Robertson, S.P., Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S., Eds.), pp. 79–84. New York: ACM.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology 22(5), 315–338.
Houkes, W.N. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 102–113.
Houkes, W.N., & Vermaas, P.E. (2004). Actions versus functions: a plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. Monist 87(1), 52–71.
Houkes, W.N., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.
Houkes, W.N., Vermaas, P.E., Dorst, K., & De Vries, M.J. (2002). Design and use as plans: an action–theoretical account. Design Studies 23(3), 303–320.
Kroes, P.A., & Meijers, A.W.M. (Eds.) (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts [special issue]. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2).
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009 a). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20(1), 13–27.
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009 b). Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering. Research in Engineering Design 20(4), 225–239.
Meijers, A.W.M. (2000). The relational ontology of technical artefacts. In The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology (Kroes, P.A., & Meijers, A.W.M., Eds.), pp. 81–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Millikan, R.G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Neander, K. (1991). The teleological notion of “function.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69(4), 454–468.
Norman, D.A. (1988/2002). The Psychology of Everyday Things/The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Otto, K.N., & Wood, K.L. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.
Pols, A.J.K. (2010). Transferring responsibility through use plans. In Philosophy and Engineering: An Emerging Agenda (Van de Poel, I., & Goldberg, D.E., Eds.), pp. 189–203. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pols, A.J.K. (2012). Characterising affordances: The descriptions-of-affordances model. Design Studies 33(2), 113–125.
Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. Journal of Philosophy 95(5), 215–254.
Scheele, M. (2006). Function and use of technical artefacts: social conditions of function ascription. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 23–36.
Schyfter, P. (2009). The bootstrapped artifact. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40, 102–111.
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359–370.
Ullman, D.G. (2002). The Mechanical Design Process (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
Vaesen, K. (2011). The functional bias of the dual nature of technical artefacts program. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42, 190–197.
Vaesen, K., & Van Amerongen, M. (2008). Optimality vs. intent: limitations of Dennett's artifact hermeneutics. Philosophical Psychology 21(6), 779–797.
Van Eck, D. (2011). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design 22(11–12), 839–858.
Vermaas, P.E. (2013). On the formal impossibility of analysing subfunctions as parts of functions in design methodology. Research in Engineering Design 24(1), 19–32.
Vermaas, P.E., & Houkes, W.N. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: a challenge to etiological accounts of functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54(2), 261–289.
Vermaas, P.E., & Houkes, W.N. (2006). Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 5–18.
Warren, W.H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance in stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(5), 683–703.