2012
DOI: 10.1007/s00163-012-0133-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: In this paper, a proof is given that in design methods, the relation between technical functions and their subfunctions in functional descriptions of technical products cannot be analysed as a formal relation of parthood. This result holds for design methods in which transformations of flows of energy, material and signals are accepted as functions. First, two specific categories of such technical functions are modelled. Second, the composition relation by which ordered sets of these functions define other fun… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…and expanding the alternatives on the still unknown and emerging object (alternatives on functional definition of the emerging object, on the conceptual definition of the emerging object, etc.). Note that this implies a double meaning of functional language (functions of the known objects and functions of the unknown object) that explains formal issues with functions (Vermaas 2013). The same generative process appears in Function-BehaviorStructure model (Dorst and Vermaas 2005;Gero 1990) or in Zeng's product design theory (Zeng and Gu 1999a, b), which models evolutionary design processes.…”
Section: Defining and Modelling Generativity: A Rationale For An Extementioning
confidence: 97%
“…and expanding the alternatives on the still unknown and emerging object (alternatives on functional definition of the emerging object, on the conceptual definition of the emerging object, etc.). Note that this implies a double meaning of functional language (functions of the known objects and functions of the unknown object) that explains formal issues with functions (Vermaas 2013). The same generative process appears in Function-BehaviorStructure model (Dorst and Vermaas 2005;Gero 1990) or in Zeng's product design theory (Zeng and Gu 1999a, b), which models evolutionary design processes.…”
Section: Defining and Modelling Generativity: A Rationale For An Extementioning
confidence: 97%
“…This prompts for the need to consider the definitions of function and failure in a much broader sense. Building on the user-and use-case centric function reasoning originating from software engineering (Cockburn, 2000), and the description of functions from either a device-centric or an environment centric viewpoint (Brown and Blessing, 2005), Vermaas (2009Vermaas ( , 2013 has introduced an ontological framework that includes goals, actions, functions, behaviours and structure. This offers an opportunity to consider the concept of failure in relation to stakeholder goals, and not just in relation to structure and specifications of functions / behaviours as the prevalent engineering approach.…”
Section: Proposed Goal-centric Definition Of Durabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is related to design thinking. Additionally, Vermaas 37 has shown from a philosophical point of view that the relation between technical functions and their subfunctions in (abstract) functional descriptions of technical products cannot be analyzed as a formal relation of parthood. That is, operating solely with (abstract) functional decompositions may lead to the paradox of a function containing an instance of itself.…”
Section: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%