Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This paper aims to explore metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of functional decomposition methods regarding problem space exploration at the early design stage. Functional decomposition involves breaking down the main purpose of a complex problem or system into a set of more manageable sub-functions, leading to a clearer understanding of the problem space and its various aspects. While various metrics have been used to evaluate functional decomposition outcomes, little literature has focused on assessing its effectiveness in problem space exploration. To address the gap, this research introduces three metrics for problem space evaluation defined by functional models: quantity of unique functions (M1), breadth and depth of the hierarchical structure (M2), and relative semantic coverage ratio of the problem space (M3). An example study is conducted to illustrate the evaluation process, comparing functional analysis with and without explicit human-centric considerations using a power screwdriver as a case product. The analysis in the example study reveals that the breadth of the hierarchical structure (part of M2) is marginally larger in the condition with explicit human-centric considerations (Condition A) compared to the condition without such considerations (Condition B). However, no significant differences are observed in terms of other metrics. The qualitative analysis based on semantic comparisons suggests that Condition A facilitates participants in generating a diverse set of functions supporting user safety requirements more effectively than Condition B. Overall, the example study demonstrates the evaluation process for each metric and discusses their nuances and limitations. By proposing these metrics, this research contributes to benchmarking and evaluating the effectiveness of different methods in promoting functional analysis in engineering design. The metrics provide valuable insights into problem space exploration, offering designers a better understanding of the efficacy of their functional decomposition methods in early design stages. This, in turn, fosters more informed decision-making and contributes to the advancement of functional analysis methodologies in engineering design practices.
This paper aims to explore metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of functional decomposition methods regarding problem space exploration at the early design stage. Functional decomposition involves breaking down the main purpose of a complex problem or system into a set of more manageable sub-functions, leading to a clearer understanding of the problem space and its various aspects. While various metrics have been used to evaluate functional decomposition outcomes, little literature has focused on assessing its effectiveness in problem space exploration. To address the gap, this research introduces three metrics for problem space evaluation defined by functional models: quantity of unique functions (M1), breadth and depth of the hierarchical structure (M2), and relative semantic coverage ratio of the problem space (M3). An example study is conducted to illustrate the evaluation process, comparing functional analysis with and without explicit human-centric considerations using a power screwdriver as a case product. The analysis in the example study reveals that the breadth of the hierarchical structure (part of M2) is marginally larger in the condition with explicit human-centric considerations (Condition A) compared to the condition without such considerations (Condition B). However, no significant differences are observed in terms of other metrics. The qualitative analysis based on semantic comparisons suggests that Condition A facilitates participants in generating a diverse set of functions supporting user safety requirements more effectively than Condition B. Overall, the example study demonstrates the evaluation process for each metric and discusses their nuances and limitations. By proposing these metrics, this research contributes to benchmarking and evaluating the effectiveness of different methods in promoting functional analysis in engineering design. The metrics provide valuable insights into problem space exploration, offering designers a better understanding of the efficacy of their functional decomposition methods in early design stages. This, in turn, fosters more informed decision-making and contributes to the advancement of functional analysis methodologies in engineering design practices.
Functional analysis aims to decompose complex product main functions into manageable sub-functions. Novice and experienced designers have reported challenges with functional analysis such as high cognitive loads, and difficulties in identifying and expressing functions. Recently, interest in explicitly considering users during functional modeling has grown to enhance analysis completeness, but how this addresses commonly reported challenges is not clear. This research proposes and assesses a simple way to streamline user considerations for novice designers (i.e., embedding requirements into a user workflow explicitly) as a potential mitigation for some challenges in functional analysis at physical product early design stage. Analyses of the results indicate that workflow helps novice designers generate significantly more functions with correct syntax. In addition, the exploration space is prominently broader (especially at higher levels) when a workflow is presented as measured by the geometry of the generated tree diagrams. These results suggest that strategically incorporating user considerations in functional analysis, even in a simple way, has a positive effect in addressing commonly reported challenges of functional analysis. The better outcome from the functional analysis will likely be instrumental in later systematic conceptual design.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.