Understanding Abstraction in Design: A Comparison of Three Functional Analysis Methods for Product Dissection

In design classes, functional analysis is a process that is typically used to assist students with identifying essential functions to aid in the development of their concepts. However, it has been observed that students sometimes struggle with this part of the design process. In this study, a group of 26 students were studied in a 3-level within-subject study (n = 78) to determine which of three common functional analysis approaches (i.e. top-down, energy-flow, and unstructured) was most effective. Participants were asked to dissect a hair dryer, power drill, and NERF pistol and generate function trees describing how these work. Measures of effectiveness include the number of functions generated, the number of errors, the number of levels of abstraction represented in the tree, and the number of unique subsystems and functions identified. No statistical difference between the approaches was found, and there was also no practical difference between the approaches. These results suggest that for novice engineers, there is no difference between methods used. This possibly indicates that for novice engineers, formal methods may not be any more effective than an unstructured approach.Copyright © 2013 by ASME

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

[2]  Philip M. Sadler,et al.  Engineering Competitions in the Middle School Classroom: Key Elements in Developing Effective Design Challenges , 2000 .

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

[4]  Nancy J. Stone,et al.  Windows and Environmental Cues on Performance and Mood , 1998 .

[5]  S. Sheppard.  MECHANICAL DISSECTION: AN EXPERIENCE IN HOW THINGS WORK , 1996 .

[6]  David R. Wallace,et al.  The play pyramid: a play classification and ideation tool for toy design , 2010, Int. J. Arts Technol..

[7]  Hugh Dubberly,et al.  On modelingThe analysis-systhesis bridge model , 2008, Interactions.

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

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

[10]  Nigel Cross,et al.  The problem of design problems , 2003 .

[11]  W. P. Lewis,et al.  Fundamentals of Engineering Design , 1989 .

[12]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  The Structure of Creative Design: What Problem Maps Can Tell Us About Problem Formulation and Creative Designers , 2012 .

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

[14]  James R. Rinderle,et al.  Models and abstractions in design , 1991 .

[15]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

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

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

[18]  J. Mauchly.  Significance Test for Sphericity of a Normal $n$-Variate Distribution , 1940 .

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

[20]  George Ellwood Dieter,et al.  Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach , 1983 .

[21]  T. R. Davis,et al.  The influence of the physical environment in offices. , 1985, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[22]  Anthony Mark Phillips.  Functional decomposition in a vehicle control system , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 American Control Conference (IEEE Cat. No.CH37301).

[23]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

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

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

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

[27]  John S. Gero,et al.  Drawings and the design process , 1998 .

[28]  Mark N. Horenstein.  Design Concepts For Engineers , 1999 .

[29]  Hao Jiang,et al.  DOES USING DIFFERENT CONCEPT GENERATION TECHNIQUES CHANGE THE DESIGN COGNITION OF DESIGN STUDENTS , 2012 .

[30]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering design methods , 1989 .

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

[32]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  The Function Analysis Diagram , 2012 .

[33]  Michael Joseph French,et al.  Conceptual Design for Engineers , 1985 .

[34]  Eric Brewe.  Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics , 2008 .

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

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

[37]  Jonathan Stephen Fish,et al.  Amplifying the Mind’s Eye: Sketching and Visual Cognition , 1990 .

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

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

[40]  Henry W. Stoll.  Product design methods and practices , 1999 .