Evaluating the effectiveness of functional decomposition in early-stage design: development and application of problem space exploration metrics

IF 2.3 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Research in Engineering Design Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1007/s00163-024-00434-w
Jinjuan She, Elise Belanger, Caroline Bartels
{"title":"Evaluating the effectiveness of functional decomposition in early-stage design: development and application of problem space exploration metrics","authors":"Jinjuan She, Elise Belanger, Caroline Bartels","doi":"10.1007/s00163-024-00434-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 (<i>M</i>1), breadth and depth of the hierarchical structure (<i>M</i>2), and relative semantic coverage ratio of the problem space (<i>M</i>3). 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 <i>M</i>2) 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49629,"journal":{"name":"Research in Engineering Design","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Engineering Design","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-024-00434-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估早期设计中功能分解的有效性:问题空间探索指标的开发和应用
本文旨在探索在早期设计阶段评估功能分解方法在问题空间探索方面有效性的指标。功能分解包括将复杂问题或系统的主要目的分解为一系列更易于管理的子功能,从而更清晰地了解问题空间及其各个方面。虽然已有各种指标被用于评估功能分解的结果,但很少有文献侧重于评估其在问题空间探索中的有效性。为了填补这一空白,本研究引入了三个由功能模型定义的问题空间评估指标:独特功能的数量(M1)、分层结构的广度和深度(M2)以及问题空间的相对语义覆盖率(M3)。为说明评估过程,我们进行了一项示例研究,以电动螺丝刀作为案例产品,比较了有无明确的以人为本考虑因素的功能分析。示例研究的分析表明,与不考虑以人为本因素的情况(情况 B)相比,考虑以人为本因素的情况(情况 A)的层次结构(M2 的一部分)的广度略大。不过,在其他指标方面没有观察到明显差异。基于语义比较的定性分析表明,与条件 B 相比,条件 A 能更有效地帮助参与者生成支持用户安全要求的各种功能。通过提出这些度量标准,本研究有助于制定基准和评估不同方法在促进工程设计功能分析方面的有效性。这些指标为问题空间探索提供了有价值的见解,让设计人员更好地了解其功能分解方法在早期设计阶段的有效性。这反过来又促进了更明智的决策,有助于在工程设计实践中推进功能分析方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Engineering Design
Research in Engineering Design 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
23
审稿时长
18 months
期刊介绍: Research in Engineering Design is an international journal that publishes research papers on design theory and methodology in all fields of engineering, focussing on mechanical, civil, architectural, and manufacturing engineering. The journal is designed for professionals in academia, industry and government interested in research issues relevant to design practice. Papers emphasize underlying principles of engineering design and discipline-oriented research where results are of interest or extendible to other engineering domains. General areas of interest include theories of design, foundations of design environments, representations and languages, models of design processes, and integration of design and manufacturing. Representative topics include functional representation, feature-based design, shape grammars, process design, redesign, product data base models, and empirical studies. The journal also publishes state-of-the-art review articles.
期刊最新文献
The effect of targeting both quantitative and qualitative objectives in generative design tools on the design outcomes The impacts of non-perceptual cognition (NPC) on design process and ideation A new method to prioritize the QFDs’ engineering characteristics inspired by the Law of  Comparative Judgment Fostering self-efficacy through usability and emotional product design? An explorative study Evaluating the effectiveness of functional decomposition in early-stage design: development and application of problem space exploration metrics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1