What distinguishes a model of systems engineering from other models of designing? An ontological, data-driven analysis

Abstract

This paper investigates how the core technical processes of the INCOSE model of systems engineering differ from other models of designing used in the domains of mechanical engineering, software engineering and service design. The study is based on fine-grained datasets produced using mappings of the different models onto the function-behaviour-structure (FBS) ontology. By representing every model uniformly, the same statistical analyses can be carried out independently of the domain of the model. Results of correspondence analysis, cumulative occurrence analysis and Markov model analysis show that the INCOSE model differs from the other models in its increased emphasis on requirements and on behaviours derived from structure, in the uniqueness of its verification and validation phases, and in some patterns related to the temporal development and frequency distributions of FBS design issues.

Modelling the Design of Models: An Example Using Crisp-Dm

“…The graphs for F and Be issues flatten towards the end when no iteration occurs (see Figure 6(a)). These graph behaviours are consistent with those observed for the other four design approaches (Kannengiesser and Gero 2022).…”

“…First-order Markov models produced for all iteration types show the same patterns in terms of socalled dominant state transitions − transitions between FBS issues that are the most likely to occur, based on the highest probability of occurrence in the model for that transition. They are shown in Figure 7, together with those identified for the other design approaches (see Kannengiesser and Gero (2022)). The results show that CRISP-DM shares two dominant state transitions with the other approaches: R to F, Bs to S, and D to S. The dominance of the F-to-F transition and of the S-to-S transition in CRISP-DM is shared only by RUP and DFSS/ICOV, respectively.…”

“…For space reasons, the detailed mappings onto FBS issues (i.e., instances of one of the six FBS categories: R, F, Be, Bs, S and D) are not elaborated in this paper. Readers may refer to Kannengiesser and Gero (2022) for further details. The output of this step are sequences of FBS issues, where every sequence corresponds to a simulated execution of individual steps described in each approach.…”

“…The method used to compare CRISP-DM with the four other models of designing (INCOSE, Pahl and Beitz, RUP and DFSS-ICOV) follows the two-step approach developed by Kannengiesser and Gero (2022). In the first step, the different design approaches are brought into a uniform FBS representation.…”

Product-Service System Designing for Environmental Sustainability : Insights into Design Cognition of Experienced Product Developers

“…Although extant literature reports significant differences in the characteristics of the product and PSS design objects and the design problems of the respective domains (see Section 1.2), there is limited empirical evidence to suggest if these differences will have any influence on the respective design activities in the micro-scale . PSS designing needs to be compared with product designing in order to ascertain if it is different from the latter and to determine whether there is a need to develop dedicated support for the former (based on Kannengiesser & Gero (2022)).…”