![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
While function modeling has been around in engineering design research since the 1960s, there have been no systematic, comparative studies devoted to assessing the adequacy of function modeling frameworks in light of engineering design objectives. This systematic assessment and comparison – called benchmarking – is now recognized as a central research issue in current function modeling research, but insight into how this benchmarking can be done is at present limited. In this paper, we attempt to improve our insight into how benchmarking can be done for a specific but important engineering context: function optimization of reverse-engineered systems. We argue that the capacity to produce technical advantage predictions, viz. predictions concerning the improved functional performance of a redesigned technical system, is an important benchmark criterion in this context. We subsequently illustrate the utility of the criterion by assessing two prominent function modeling frameworks in terms of it. Throughout the paper, we use a case study of the design of an electric wok to clarify and illustrate our ideas.
Acknowledgements
We thank Kristian Gonzalez Barman, our reviewers, and the editors of this journal for useful feedback.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Erden et al., “A Review of Function Modeling.”
2 Gero, “Design Prototypes;” Gero and Kannengiesser, “The Situated FBS Framework.”
3 Stone and Wood, “Functional Basis for Design.”
4 Bohm et al., “Benchmarking Function Modeling;” Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models;” [2013]. Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models.” [2017].
5 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models,” [2013] 1.
6 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models;” [2013] Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models.” [2017].
7 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models.” [2013].
8 Reydon, “Philosophy of Technology”.
9 Franssen, Lokhorst, and van de Poel, “Philosophy of Technology.”
10 Bohm et al., “Benchmarking Function Modeling.”
11 Bohm et al., “Benchmarking Function Modeling,” 393; Vermaas and Eckert,“My Functional Description is Better!”
12 Bohm et al., “Benchmarking Function Modeling;” van Eck and Weber, “In Defense of Coexisting Engineering Meanings of Function.”
13 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models” [2013]..
14 Vermaas, “Engineering Meanings of Function;” van Eck and Weber, “In Defense of Coexistence.”
15 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models;” [2013] Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models.” [2017].
16 See the works cited in Bohm et al., “Benchmarking Function Modeling.”
17 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models” [2013]. These dimensions are not meant to be exhaustive; they are a starting point, not a final set.
18 Summers, Eckert, and Goel, “Benchmarking Representations and Models,” [2013], 5.
19 Ibid
20 Ibid.
21 van Eck and Weber, “In Defense of Coexisting Engineering Meanings of Function.”
22 Otto and Wood, “Product Evolution;” Otto and Wood, “Product Design;” Chakrabarti and Bligh, “Scheme for Functional Reasoning;” Sen and Summers, “Reasoning on Function Structure Graphs.”
23 Weber, van Eck, and Mennes, “Value of Function Ascriptions.”
24 Otto and Wood, “Product Evolution.”
25 Ibid., 232 (fig. 6) and 235.
26 Ibid.; Otto and Wood, Product Design.
27 Houkes and Vermaas, ‘Technical Functions.”
28 Chandrasekaran and Josephson, “Function in Device Representation.”
29 Otto and Wood, “Product Evolution,” 232
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., 235.
32 Ibid., 236.
33 Ibid., 234, 236, 240.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.; Otto and Wood, Product Design.
36 Otto and Wood, “Product Evolution,” 232.
37 Such TA predictions are common in redesigning. We give other examples in Weber, van Eck, and Mennes, “Value of Function Ascriptions.”
38 The proposed change regarding property e versus e’ is a sufficient condition for the realization of g. It is conceivable that the realization of g could be realized with a different change (e.g., in the wok case, a change of materials of the wok bowl). The proposed change hence is not a necessary condition.
39 Otto and Wood, “Product Evolution.”
40 Arlitt et al., “Sustainability Method.”
41 Ibid.
42 Gero, “Design Prototypes;” Gero and Kannengiesser, “The Situated FBS Framework.”
43 E.g., Gero, “Design Prototypes;” Gero and Kannengiesser, “The Situated FBS Framework.”
44 Vermaas and Dorst, “Prescriptive Aims of Design Methodology;” Galle, “Ontology of Gero’s FBS Model.”
45 Stone and Wood, “Functional Basis for Design.”
46 Strawbridge, McAdams, and Stone, “A Computational Approach to Conceptual Design.”
47 Van Eck, “On the Conversion of Functional Models.”