Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results

  • Claudia Eckert (a1), Anne Ruckpaul (a2), Thomas Alink (a2) and Albert Albers (a2)

Abstract

This paper describes the findings of an experiment on how different engineers understand notions of function and functional breakdown in the context of design by modification. The experiment was conducted with a homogenous group of 20 design engineers, who had all received the same education. The subjects were asked to analyze how a hydraulic pump works and summarize their understanding in a function tree. The subjects were given either the hydraulic pump itself (with part of its casing removed) or a maintenance drawing that showed a section cut of the pump. This paper shows typical outputs of the designers. It discusses the different notions of function that the subjects had and the differences in the function trees they generated. The paper focuses an eight detailed analyses to show the range of approaches the subjects took.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Reprint requests to: Claudia Eckert, Design Group, Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, Room N2056, Venables Building, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: c.m.eckert@open.ac.uk

References

Hide All
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. Int. Design Conf. 2008, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Albers, A., Alink, T., Thau, S., & Matthiesen, S. (2008). Support of system analyses and improvement in industrial design trough the contact & channel model. Proc. TMCE 2008, Izmir, Turkey.
Alink, T. (2010). Meaning and Notation of Function for Solving Design Problems With the C&C-Approach (IPEK Research Report 48). Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
Alink, T., Eckert, C.M., Ruckpaul, A., & Albers, A. (2010). Different function breakdowns for one existing product: experimental results. In Proc. Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'10) (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 405424. Berlin: Springer.
Andreasen, M.M., & Hein, L. (1987). Integrated Product Development. London: IFS Publications Ltd/Springer–Verlag.
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind-creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(1).
Asimov, M. (1962). Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1996). Designing Engineers. Boston: MIT Press.
Buur, J. (1990). A theoretical approach to mechatronics design. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Institute for Engineering Design.
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311344.
Eckert, C.M., 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 22(11–12), 811837.
Frigg, R. (2003). Re-representing scientific representation. PhD Thesis. London School of Economics, Department of Philosophy Logic and Scientific Method.
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2002). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework, Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design '02 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 89104. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goldschmidt, G., & Porter, W. (2004). Design Representation. Berlin: Springer.
Hacker, W. (1997). Improving engineering design contributions of cognitive. Ergonomics 40(10), 10881096.
Hill, A., Song, S., Dong, A., & Agogino, A.M. (2001). Identifying shared understanding in design using document analysis. Proc. 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2001/DTM-21713, Pittsburgh, PA, September 9–12, 2001.
Hinds, P., & Weisband, S. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding. Virtual Teams That Work Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness (Gibson, C., & Cohen, S., Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Hubka, V. (1973). Theorie der Maschinensysteme. Berlin: Springer.
Kirschman, C.F., & Fadel, G.M. (1998). Classifying functions for mechanical design. Journal of Mechanical Design 120(3), 475482.
Otto, K., & Wood, K.L. (1998). Reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Research in Engineering Design 10(4), 226–224.
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: a systematic approach (Wallace, K., Blessing, L., & Bauert, F., Trans.), 2nd ed.. London: Springer.
Umeda, Y., Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Function, behaviour, and structure. In Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, V (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 177193. Southhampton/Berlin: Computational Mechanics Publications/Springer–Verlag.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. (2004). VDI Richtlinie 2223. In Methodisches Entwerfen technischer Produkte. Berlin: Beuth.
Vermaas, P.E., & Houkes, W. (2006). Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(1), 518.
Wood, K., Jensen, J., Bezdek, J., & Otto, K.N. (2001). Reverse engineering and redesign: courses to incrementally and systematically teach design. Journal of Engineering Education 90(3), 363–337.

Keywords

Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results

  • Claudia Eckert (a1), Anne Ruckpaul (a2), Thomas Alink (a2) and Albert Albers (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed