On the conversion of functional models: bridging differences between functional taxonomies in the modeling of user actions

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss a methodology for the conversion of functional models between functional taxonomies developed by Kitamura et al. (2007) and Ookubo et al. (2007). They apply their methodology to the conversion of functional models described in terms of the Functional Basis taxonomy into functional models described in terms of the Functional Concept Ontology taxonomy. I argue that this model conversion harbors two problems. One, a step in this model conversion that is aimed to handle differences in the modeling of user features consists of the removal of Functional Basis functions. It is shown that this removal can lead to considerable information loss. Two, some Functional Basis functions that I argue correspond to user functions, get re-interpreted as device functions in the model conversion. I present an alternative strategy that prevents information loss and information change in model conversions between the Functional Basis and Functional Concept Ontology taxonomies.

An analysis of functional modeling approaches across disciplines

“…Thus, within the developed functional models, rather than strictly applying suggested functional taxonomies, 1 individual functions have been formulated on an inconsistent level of abstraction and related to different understandings of function (Alink, 2010). Difficulties with the application of functional taxonomies in practice are also discussed by Ahmed and Wallace (2003) and van Eck (2010). Alink (2010) emphasizes that although they are moving toward a potential solution concept, designers need to be able to describe functions on different levels of abstraction or concreteness.…”

Functional cause analysis of complex manufacturing systems using structure

“…It may be mentioned that the functional descriptions are on the lines as per the standard functional taxonomies developed by Pahl and Beitz, 12 Kirschman and Fadel, 13 Stone and Wood, 14 Kitamura and Mizoguchi, 15 Xu et al, 16 Hirtz et al 17 and Van Eck. 18 However, these are appropriately modified in the context of functional cause analysis.…”

On the formal impossibility of analysing subfunctions as parts of functions in design methodology

“…Erden et al 2008;Vermaas 2009b;Van Eck 2010). Design methods define different rules for understanding and representing functions, and therefore, advance different procedures for functional decomposition.…”