Evaluating the Bottom-Up Method for Functional Decomposition in Product Dissection Tasks

The purpose of this study is to continue to explore which function identification methods work best for specific design tasks. Prior literature describes the top-down and bottom-up approaches as equivalent methods for functional decomposition. Building on our prior work, this study tests the bottom-up method against the top-down and enumeration methods. We used a 3factor within-subject study (n=136). While most of our diagramoriented metrics were not statistically different, we found statistical support that: 1.) students reported that the dissection activity was more useful when using bottom-up, and 2.) that student engineers committed many more syntax errors when using the bottom-up method (by listing parts instead of functions). We believe that both these results are due to the increased focus on individual parts. We do not know if an increased attention to the parts would increase novelty or fixation, and recommend future studies to find out.

[1]  B. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , 1966 .

[2]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development , 2000 .

[3]  Amaresh Chakrabarti.  Engineering Design Synthesis , 2002 .

[4]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[5]  Edward B. Magrab,et al.  Integrated product and process design and development : the product realization process , 2009 .

[6]  Michael J. French.  Insight, design principles and systematic invention , 2002 .

[7]  James Britton,et al.  Language and Learning , 1970 .

[8]  Albert Albers,et al.  Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results , 2011, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[9]  Patrick Little,et al.  Engineering Design: A Project Based Introduction , 1999 .

[10]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Characterizing Design Learning through the Use of Language: A Mixed-Methods Study of Engineering Designers. Research Brief. , 2009 .

[11]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  D. Budescu,et al.  A Psychometric Analysis of the "Divide and Conquer" Principle in Multicriteria Decision Making. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[13]  Tom Ritchey,et al.  General Morphological Analysis * A general method for non-quantified modelling , 2014 .

[14]  Gül E. Okudan Kremer,et al.  Mitigating Design Fixation Effects in Engineering Design Through Product Dissection Activities , 2014 .

[15]  Gül E. Okudan Kremer,et al.  The Impact of Product Dissection Activities on the Novelty of Design Outcomes , 2012 .

[16]  Yingxu Wang,et al.  On the cognitive process of human problem solving , 2010, Cognitive Systems Research.

[17]  Hans Schmekel,et al.  Functional Models and Design Solutions , 1989 .

[18]  Ann F. McKenna,et al.  Characterizing Design Learning: A Mixed‐Methods Study of Engineering Designers' Use of Language , 2008 .

[19]  E. Gillett.  Relativism and the Social-constructivist Paradigm , 1998 .

[20]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  Characterizing the Effects of Learning When Reverse Engineering Multiple Samples of the Same Product , 2013 .

[21]  Robert L. Nagel,et al.  An Investigation Into the Effectiveness of an Algorithmic Approach to Teaching Functional Modeling , 2013 .

[22]  John S. Gero,et al.  EXPLORING THE EFFECT OF DESIGN EDUCATION ON THE DESIGN COGNITION OF TWO ENGINEERING MAJORS , 2012 .

[23]  Karthik Ramani,et al.  Understanding Abstraction in Design: A Comparison of Three Functional Analysis Methods for Product Dissection , 2013 .

[24]  Vinod Goel,et al.  The Structure of Design Problem Spaces , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Richard Honeck,et al.  Experimental Design and Analysis , 2006 .

[26]  Gregory M. Mocko,et al.  Assessing the Use of Function Models and Interaction Models Through Concept Sketching , 2012 .

[27]  Joshua D. Summers,et al.  The Effects of Language and Pruning on Function Structure Interpretability , 2012 .

[28]  Anik De Ribaupierre,et al.  Transition mechanisms in child development : the longitudinal perspective , 1991 .

[29]  Carl J. Huberty,et al.  Statistical Practices of Educational Researchers: An Analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA Analyses , 1998 .

[30]  B. Bloom.  Taxonomy of educational objectives , 1956 .

[31]  Albert Albers,et al.  Different notions of function: results from an experiment on the analysis of an existing product , 2011 .

[32]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Toward a design theory of problem solving , 2000 .

[33]  Chun-Heng Ho,et al.  Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts , 2001 .

[34]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Human factors in simple and complex systems , 1993 .

[35]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Planning , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[36]  Wayne Lee.  EXperimental design and analysis , 1975 .

[37]  H. Gardner,et al.  Language and Learning , 2012 .