Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-mgq6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-07T16:08:14.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making function modeling practically usable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Tetsuo Tomiyama ,
Thom J. van Beek ,
Andrés Alberto Alvarez Cabrera ,
Hitoshi Komoto  and
Valentina D'Amelio
Tetsuo Tomiyama*
Affiliation:
Manufacturing and Materials Department, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Thom J. van Beek
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Andrés Alberto Alvarez Cabrera
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Hitoshi Komoto
Affiliation:
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan
Valentina D'Amelio
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
*
Reprint requests to: Tetsuo Tomiyama, Cranfield University, Building 50, Manufacturing and Materials Department, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Function modeling is considered potentially useful in various fields of engineering, including engineering design. However, a close look at practices reveals that practitioners do not use formal function modeling so much, while the concept of “function” frequently appears in many practical methods without a vigorous definition. This paper tries to understand why formal function modeling is not practically utilized in industry by analyzing usage cases of function. By observing product development activities in industry, the paper identifies three problems that prevent formal function modeling from wider applications in practices, namely, practitioners' neglect of function modeling, the lack of practically useful function reasoning, and the complexity of the methods and tools of formal function modeling that make them impractical. Finally, the paper proposes strategies to tackle these problems and illustrates some research efforts in this regard.

Keywords

FunctionFunction ModelingFunction ReasoningProduct DevelopmentSystems Architecting
Type
Response Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 301 - 309
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Altshuller, G.S. (1984). Creativity as an Exact Science. New York: Gordon & Breach Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez Cabrera, A.A., Foeken, M.J., Tekin, O.A., Woestenenk, K., Erden, M.S., De Schutter, B., van Tooren, M.J.L., Babuška, R., van Houten, F.J.A.M., & Tomiyama, T. (2010). Towards automation of control software: a review of challenges in mechatronic design. Mechatronics 20(8), 876–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez Cabrera, A.A., Woestenenk, K., & Tomiyama, T. (2011). An architecture model to support cooperative design for mechatronic products: a control design case. Mechatronics 21(3), 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borches Juzgado, P.D. (2010). A3 Architecture Overviews. PhD Thesis. Twente University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2009). A formal ontological perspective on the behaviors and functions of technical artifacts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, T.R. (2001). Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(3), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2011). If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: assessing three formalization strategies. Applied Ontology 6(2), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1996). An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: theory, applications, and emerging research issues. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies 22(6), 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Amelio, V., Chmarra, M.K., & Tomiyama, T. (2011). Early design interference detection based on qualitative physics. Research in Engineering Design 22(4), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Y.M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(5), 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., Echavarría, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 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(2), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbus, K.D. (1984). Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence 24(3), 85–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., Tham, K., & Lee, H. (1992). Behaviour: a link between function and structure in design. IFIP Transactions B: Applications in Technology, Intelligent Computer-Aided Design B-4, 193–225.Google Scholar
Goel, A. (1992). Representation of design functions in experience-based design. IFIP Transactions B: Applications in Technology, Intelligent Computer-Aided Design B-4, 283–308.Google Scholar
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].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A.K., & Stroulia, E. (1996). Functional device models and model-based diagnosis in adaptive design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1982). Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworths Scientific.Google Scholar
INCOSE. (2010). INCOSE Requirements Management Tools Survey. Accessed November 25, 2012, at http://www.incose.org/productspubs/products/rmsurvey.aspxGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Standardization. (2008).Quality Management Systems—Requirements. ISO/TC76, ISO 9001:2008. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Kashiwase, M.Fuse, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Deployment of an ontological framework of functional design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15(4), 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Sano, T., Namba, K., & Mizoguchi, R. (2002). A functional concept ontology and its application to automatic identification of functional structures. Advanced Engineering Informatics 16(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komoto, H., & Tomiyama, T. (2010). A system architecting tool for mechatronic systems design. CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology 59(1), 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komoto, H., & Tomiyama, T. (2011). Multi-disciplinary system decomposition of complex mechatronics systems. CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology 60(1), 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, R.E., Mikulak, R.J., & Beauregard, M.R. (1996). The Basics of FMEA. New York: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
Mizuno, S., & Akao, Y. (1993). QFD: The Customer-Driven Approach to Quality Planning & Deployment. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.Google Scholar
Object Management Group. (2010). OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysMLTM) Version 1.2, OMG Document Number: formal/2010-06-02. Accessed April 13, 2012, at http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.2/Google Scholar
Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach (3rd ed., Wallace, K., & Blessing, L. Trans. and Eds.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Price, C.J., Travé-Massuyès, L., Milne, R., Ironi, L., Forbus, K., Bredeweg, B., Lee, M.H., Struss, P., Snooke, N., Lucas, P., Cavazza, M., & Coghill, G.M. (2006). Qualitative futures. Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobek, D.K. (2006). System-level design: a missing link? International Journal of Engineering Education 22(3), 533–539.Google Scholar
Sobek, D.K. II, & Smalley, A. (2008). Understanding A3 Thinking: A Critical Component of Toyota's PDCA Management System. New York: Productivity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, D.V. (1981). The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 28(3), 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L., & Crawford, R.H. (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990). The Principles of Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T., Umeda, Y., & Yoshikawa, H. (1993). A CAD for functional design. CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology 42(1), 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2011). Product Design and Development (5th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Function, behaviour, and structure. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: V. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. (Gero, J.S., Ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 177–194. Boston: Computational Mechanics Publications.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1997). Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Expert 12(2), 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, Y., Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawa, H., & Shimomura, Y. (1994). Using functional maintenance to improve fault-tolerance. IEEE Expert 9(3), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Beek, T.J. & Tomiyama, T. (2011). Workflow modelling of intended system use. In Views on Evolvability of Embedded Systems (van de Laar, P., & Punter, T. Eds.), pp. 153–170. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. (1993). Systematic Approach for the Design of Technical Systems and Products. VDI 2221. Düsseldorf: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure.Google Scholar
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].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Younker, D.L. (2003). Value Engineering: Analysis and Methodology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar