Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0890060413000255How to cite this article: Marco Aurisicchio, Rob Bracewell and Gareth Armstrong (2013). The function analysis diagram: Intended benets and coexistence with other functional models. AbstractUnderstanding product functions is a key aspect of the work undertaken by engineers involved in complex system design. The support offered to these engineers by existing modeling tools such as the function tree and the function structure is limited because they are not intuitive and do not scale well to deal with real-world engineering problems. A research collaboration between two universities and a major power system company in the aerospace domain has allowed the authors to further develop a method for function analysis known as function analysis diagram that was already in use by line engineers. The capability to generate and edit these diagrams was implemented in the Decision Rationale editor, a software tool for capturing design rationale. This article presents the intended benefits of the method and justifies them using an engineering case study. The results of the research have shown that the function analysis diagram method has a simple notation, permits the modeling of product functions together with structure, allows the generation of rich and accurate descriptions of product functionality, is useful to work with variant and adaptive design tasks, and can coexist with other functional modeling methods.
Understanding product functions is a key aspect of the work undertaken by engineers involved in complex system design. The support offered to these engineers by existing modeling tools such as the Function Tree and the Function Structure is limited as they are not intuitive and do not scale well to deal with real world engineering problems. A research collaboration between two universities and a major power system company in the aerospace domain has allowed the authors to further develop a method for function analysis known as Function Analysis Diagram (FAD) which was already in use by line engineers. The capability to generate and edit these diagrams was implemented in the Decision Rationale editor (DRed) a software tool for capturing design rationale. This article presents the main beneficial characteristics of the method and justifies them using two engineering case studies. The results of the research have shown that the FAD method has a simple notation, permits the modeling of product functions together with structure, allows the production of rich and accurate descriptions of product functionality and is suitable to represent complex problems.
There has been a significant loss of spatial thinking support in the move from paper to computer-based work. Map-based software methods reported here fill this gap while resolving general challenges in deploying software tools into active industrial practice. The Decision Rationale editor (DRed) has been in use over nine years and 700 engineers have been trained within the partner company. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 13 engineers from diverse departments and with a range of experience levels. Collected examples were analysed for successful methods (what), common contexts of use (where) and advantages over existing tools (why). Map use seems to focus on problems where multiple poorly defined options need sorting in order to progress work. The diversity of use cases demonstrates a need for increased investment in flexible visual tools to aid human thinking. Future work will expand on the set of collected examples, including attempts to generalize lessons to other software. More detailed experiments are also needed to better understand specific cognitive benefits in the work environment.
The design of complex systems is based on the needs and expectations of multiple stakeholders. Analysing such elements and transforming them into a rigorous system specification is a long and demanding task. This research is interested in supporting engineers and other stakeholders in the specification of system requirements with a focus on requirement analysis. The paper presents an approach to conduct analysis of non-functional requirements in a way that benefits both the engineers involved in the development of the current system, and those who will need to make improvements to it. The approach includes suggestions towards a tool, a representation, and a method. The tool is a software tool that specialises in capturing decision rationale known as Decision Rationale editor (DRed); the representation is adopted from the IBIS notation; the method is based on a model synthesised from literature on requirement analysis.
Concept mapping software is emerging as a powerful tool for supporting complex thinking. The Decision Rationale editor (DRed) provides an illustrative example from industry. Eight years after its development, 700+ engineers in Rolls-Royce have received direct training, others have adopted it independently and it is increasingly used for knowledge management, creativity and communication. This study seeks lessons from these experiences to inform broader map-based tools and methods development. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 11 professionals ranging from junior engineers to chief designers. A qualitative analysis of transcripts and sample maps examined the value of new features and methods in practical contexts. Results suggest mapping is often the “path of least resistance” to organise unstructured ideas and conflicting perspectives. The flexible nature of maps, however, presents challenges for standardising methods. Feature development will require a continued balance of simplicity, learnability and functionality supported by integrated help documentation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.