Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-rcs6z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T07:36:29.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: Four responses and their methodological implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Pieter E. Vermaas
Pieter E. Vermaas*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
*
Reprint requests to: Pieter E. Vermaas, Department of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, Delft 2628 BX, The Netherlands. E-mail: p.e.vermaas@tudelft.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this position paper, the ambiguity of functional descriptions in engineering is considered from a methodological point of view. Four responses to this ambiguity are discussed, ranging from defining a single meaning of function and rejecting the different meanings that are currently used in engineering to accepting these meanings as coexisting in engineering and taking function as a family resemblance concept. Rejecting the different meanings is described as the straightforward response to resolving the ambiguity of functional descriptions, yet in engineering research and design methodology it rather seems to be accepted that engineers do use the coexisting meanings side by side. In this paper, explanations are given of why this practice is beneficial to engineering. Then it is explored how the particular meaning that engineers attach to function depends on the tasks for which functional descriptions are used. Finally, the methodological implications of the four responses to the ambiguity of functional descriptions are discussed.

Keywords

Ambiguity of Functional DescriptionsConceptual AnalysisEngineering Design MethodsFunctions

Information

Type
Position Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 191 - 202
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Albers, A., Matthiesen, S., Thau, S., & Alink, T. (2008). Support of design engineering activity through C&CM: temporal decomposition of design problems. Proc. TMCE Symp. (Horváth, I., & Ruzák, Z., Eds.), pp. 295–305. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Arp, R., & Smith, B. (2008). Function, role, and disposition in basic formal ontology. Nature Precedings, 1941.1. Accessed at http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1941/version/1/htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2009). A formal ontological perspective on behaviors and functions of technical artifacts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Formalizations of functions within the DOLCE ontology. Proc. TMCE Symp. (Horváth, I., Mandorli, F., & Ruzák, Z., Eds.), pp. 113–126. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1996). Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation: Schemebuilder. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. IDETC/CIE, Paper No. DECT2005-8501, Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burek, P., Herre, H., & Loebe, F. (2009). Ontological analysis of functional decomposition. Proc. Conf. New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools, and Techniques, pp. 428–439. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2011). If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: assessing three formalization strategies. Applied Ontology 6, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (1998). Supporting two views of function in mechanical design. Proc. Workshop on Functional Modelling and Teleological Reasoning, 15th AAAI National Conf. Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, July 26–30.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. (1996). Special issue: representing functionality in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 251–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies 22, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B. (2005). Representing function: relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16, 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chittaro, L., & Kumar, A.N. (1998). Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12, 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31, 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kleer, J., & Brown, J.S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence 24, 7–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Y.M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 16, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle 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
Erden, M.S., Komoto, H., Van Beek, T.J., D'Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Far, B.H., & Elamy, A.H. (2005). Functional reasoning theories: problems and perspectives. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, E.S. (1992). Engineering and the Mind's Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies 25, 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., Tham, K.W., & Lee, H.S. (1992). Behaviour: a link between function and structure in design. In Intelligent Computer-Aided Design (Brown, D.C., Waldron, M.B., & Yoshikawa, H., Eds.), pp. 193–225. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K. (2013). One 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
Goel, A.K., & Bhatta, S.R. (2004). Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle 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
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuneke, A.M. (1991). Device representation: the significance of functional knowledge. IEEE Expert 6(2), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology 1, 237–262.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15, 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2010). Characterizing functions based on ontological models from an engineering point of view. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Galton, A., & Mizoguchi, R., Eds.), pp. 301–314. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Takafuji, S., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards a reference ontology for functional knowledge interoperability. Proc. IDETC/CIE, Paper No. DETC2007-35373, Las Vegas, NV, September 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence 8, 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modarres, M., & Cheon, S.W. (1999). Function-centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree–success tree technique and functional primitives. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 64, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okubo, M., Koji, Y., Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards interoperability between functional taxonomies using an ontology-based mapping. Proc. ICED, pp. 154.1–154.12, Paris, August 28–31.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd ed.). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planck, M. (1970). The unity of the physical world-picture. In Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics (Toulmin, S., Ed.), pp. 1–27. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). SAPPhIRE: an approach to analysis and synthesis. eProc ICED, pp. 2.417–2.428, Palo Alto, CA, August 24–27.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 Principle of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeller. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1995). FBS modeling: modeling scheme of function for conceptual design. Proc. Working Papers of the 9th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, pp. 271–278, Amsterdam, May 16–19, 1995.Google Scholar
Van Eck, D. (2009). On relating functional modeling approaches: abstracting functional models from behavioral models. eProc ICED, pp. 2.89–2.100, Palo Alto, CA, August 24–27, 2009.Google Scholar
Van Eck, D. (2011). Incommensurability and rationality in engineering design: the case of functional decomposition. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 15(2), 118–136.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2009). The flexible meaning of function in engineering. eProc ICED, pp. 2.113–2.124, Palo Alto, CA, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical functions: towards accepting different engineering meanings with one overall account. Proc. TMCE Symp. (Horváth, I., Mandorli, F., & Ruzák, Z., Eds.), pp. 183–194. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar