A Method for Function Integrity Diagnosis and Documentation: Fidd

Abstract

This paper introduces a method to perform systematic diagnosis of function integrity. The proposed method advances the Integrated Function Modelling framework to extend its application to risk identification and documentation tasks. By analyzing the system model of interdisciplinary designs, this method guides the designer to explore function vulnerability by systematic decoupling of inherent design entities. Thereby it provides unique opportunities for failure mode identification in complex, interdisciplinary systems. The motivation for this method is ensuring system function integrity.

Concept Comparison: A Function Integrity Indicator

“…A concept assessment method for product adaptation should balance pragmatism with detail to achieve high effectiveness with efficiency. To create a sufficient compromise, the FIDD method applies a system modelling approach for concept analysis (Wichmann et al, 2018). The (I)ntegrated (F)unction (M)odelling (IFM) framework was selected because it provides opportunity to integrate design concepts in an (I)ntegrated (F)unction (IF) model (Eisenbart et al, 2017).…”

“…Once an IF Model of the to-be adapted product or subsystem is created (see Gericke and Eisenbart, 2017) the FIDD method defines an approach in how to diagnose (identify) risks and their failure modes (see Figure 2). The seven step approach (see Wichmann et al, 2018) offers guidelines to analyse an IF model following a logical sequence that scrutinises the modelled entities. The identified failure modes can be documented in an extended template of a generic FMEA supporting the designer to track any failure mode to an overarching function and use-case.…”

Research Series Review for Transdisciplinarity Assessment—Validation with Sustainable Consumption and Production Research

“…This implies a possibility of research that would realize the pathway "closing" the loop originating from [34] in a figure eight as depicted by Figure 8. In fact, outside the genealogy, a research work is found [57] citing Ref. [42], which proposed a method to explore function vulnerability and identify failure modes in complex systems and then applied it to a case from industry.…”

“…[42], which proposed a method to explore function vulnerability and identify failure modes in complex systems and then applied it to a case from industry. This means that the authors of [57] developed the method first in a theoretical field and thereby the loop is nearly closed. Several aspects of interest can be analysed looking into further details of this genealogy combined with the author's reflection of his own activity in this research.…”

“…[42], which proposed a method to explore function vulnerability and identify failure modes in complex systems and then applied it to a case from industry. This means that the authors of [57] developed the method first in a theoretical field and thereby the loop is nearly closed. Third, from this successful research series, three lessons learned can be drawn: 1) think big-a major success factor may be the fact that the research [21] began with identifying a grand challenge and need for a TD approach, 2) be patient-there was a gap in the time period for this research series right before the implementation project, but the researcher waited for an opportunity to continue this research until encountering the offer of that project, and 3) act diligently-scientific rigor was maintained throughout the series of research to get academic credit that attracted industry.…”