enhancement of engineering design within product ...

Proceedings of TMCE 2014, May 19-23, 2014, Budapest, Hungary, Edited by I. Horváth, Z. Rusák

 Organizing Committee of TMCE 2014, ISBN 978-94-6186-177-1

ENHANCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WITHIN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT W. Ernst Eder Mechanical Engineering Royal Military College of Canada, Canada (retired) [email protected]

ABSTRACT Industrial design engineering has two cooperating aspects: an artistic design and an engineering design component – both must cooperate, have much in common, but also differences. Discussions by Dreyfus (adapted from Dorst), Müller and Pahl, show that each design problem can be characterized in several ways, which indicate when systematic methods can be useful. A guiding principle for design engineering, as formulated by Klaus, is: ‘Both theory and method emerge from the phenomenon of the subject’. For design engineering, the theory describes the nature of all engineering products as subject, Theory of Technical Systems, TTS. Engineering Design Science, EDS, based on TTS, offers a coordinated theory of engineering design processes. EDS is a body of knowledge (a science) as subject from which a systematic design engineering methodology can be derived, for voluntary application when needed. This should provide good guidance for the engineering design process within product development. These steps are illustrated in (to date) 22 case examples published between 1976 and 2014. The concept of ‘functions’ has been enhanced by Hubka, differentiating operations in a TrfP (that require an operand) from capabilities within the TS, TS-internal and cross-boundary functions. A ‘functional basis’ (Hirtz et al) has improved the definitions of ‘flows’ and ‘functions’. ‘Flows’ are operations in the TrfP, ‘functions’ are the TS-internal and cross-boundary functions. ‘Affordances’ (Maier and Fadel) can be recognized from systematic conceptualizing of design engineering solutions

1. INTRODUCTION The process of industrial design engineering and product development has two major cooperating aspects, an artistic design and an engineering design component. Both must cooperate, both have much in common, with partly overlapping duties and procedures, but also significant differences in scope and possible approach. Especially, the outcomes and deliverables of the two design components is significantly different – the outcome of engineering design is engineering drawings. Design engineering and the more artistic forms of designing (e.g. industrial design, architecture, graphic and sculptural art) [18] can be characterised as shown in figure 1 – the descriptions show a contrast of extremes, rather than all aspects of designing, and down-plays differences among the artistic varieties.

KEYWORDS Engineering and artistic designing, expertise, theory and methodology of engineering design, comparisons of methods.

Figure 1 Scope of Sorts of Designing [21,22]

1

1.1. Characteristics of Artistic Designing If a product is intended to be visually attractive and user-friendly, its form (especially its observable shape) is important – a task for industrial designers, architects and similar professions. Industrial design [26,38,49,50], in the English interpretation, tends to be primary for consumer products and durables, emphasizes the artistic elements, appearance (size, shape, etc.), ergonomics, marketing, economics, customer appeal, satisfaction, and other observable properties of a product. This includes color, line, shape, form, pattern, texture, proportion, juxtaposition, emotional reactions [29], etc. – in the terminology adopted by Hubka (as modified in [22]), these are mainly observable properties of a tangible product. The task given to or chosen by industrial designers is usually specified only in rough terms. The mainly intuitive industrial design process emphasizes ‘creativity’ and judgment, is used in a studio setting in product development, architecture, typographic design, fine art, etc. Industrial designers can introduce new fashion trends in their products. For industrial designers, ‘conceptualizing’ for a future tangible product consists of preliminary sketches of observable possibilities (even if somewhat abstract) – a direct entry into hardware (the constructional structure) and its representation. The sketches are progressively refined, and eventually ‘rendered’ (drawn and colored, and/or modeled by computer or in tangible materials – e.g. clay maquettes) into visually assessable presentation material, full artistic views of the proposed artifact, to provide a ‘final’ presentation, for management approval. The tangible model (to scale), or the sample produced by the designer, as it (will) appear(s) is or directly represents the final product. Considerations of engineering may take place, depending on circumstances, e.g. stability and selfstrength of a sculpture. Industrial designers usually work ‘outside inwards’, defining the observable envelope, thus constraining any internal constituents and actions (but often there are none). E.g. the pistons inside a car engine are of no interest.

1.2. Characteristics of Design Engineering In contrast, for design engineering, the transformation process, TrfP(s), and/or the operator involved in the TrfP(s), technical system, TS(s), are the subjects of the theory and the method. The suffix indicates that this TrfP(s) and/or TS(s) signifies the

2

‘subject’, the product of interest that should be or has been designed. If a tangible product should work and fulfill a purpose by helping to perform a transformation process, TrfP, e.g. by mechanical, electrical, chemical, electronic, etc. means, its functioning and operating (note the verb form) are important – a task for engineering designers. Anticipating and analyzing this capability for operation, performance and behavior is a role of the engineering sciences. Engineering intends to create what does not yet exist, that is likely to work, even if the way it works (its mode of action) is only partially understood by scientific means. Engineering needs designers to be aware of a wide range of existing information (scientific and experience-based heuristic) and its complex interactions, and to consider and accommodate all relevant influences of scientific, technical, economic, societal, political and other areas to achieve a technically and economically successful and optimal product. The outcome of design engineering is a set of manufacturing instructions, engineering drawings for a product that is or will be capable of operating – detail and assembly drawings to scale, including dimensions, tolerances and raw material specifications [2] for each constructional part, instructions for assembly, adjustment, testing, use, spare parts, etc., see the companion paper [21]. These design outcomes, in more recent times, are likely to be computer-resident. They were traditionally produced manually in a design/drawing office, using drafting machines. Computer ‘seats’ have more recently taken over some duties. In addition, documented analytical verification of anticipated performance in all lifecycle phases must be delivered, preferably by a qualified professional engineer. The resulting tangible product is a technical system (TS), e.g. the drive train in a car, usually not readily observable. Design engineering is more constrained than industrial design, because (a) a design specification is usually prescribed by a customer or a marketing department, and is often the basis of a legally binding contract for delivery of a desired performance, a transformation process, TrfP, (b) the relevant engineering sciences must be applied, for analysis, and for synthesis [15] by ‘what if’ and heuristic investigations, (c) societal norms and regulations (including laws) must be satisfied, (d) risks and hazards must be controlled, the existing information must be respected, and W. Ernst Eder

(e) economic considerations apply, e.g. survival and profitability. Design engineering has available a theory of technical systems [34] and its associated engineering design science [36]. This suggests several abstract models and representations of structures for transformation processes, TrfPStr, and technical systems, TSStr, that can be used as tools for establishing requirements, and for verbal, graphical, cognitive and conceptual modelling of novel or redesigned engineering products (mathematical modelling is well established in the engineering sciences), see section 4 of this paper. In fact, design engineering must consider a wide spectrum of information, and fit into the various cultural schemes applicable to different regions and countries, see figure 2. This is one of the many challenges facing engineering. Conversely, design engineering influences many of the cultural, social, political and other environments. The process of implementing any technology (process or tangible object, old or new, including software) almost invariably begins with design engineering.

Corresponding with seven ways of perceiving, interpreting, structuring and solving problems within three worlds – theory, subjective internal, and objective external – Dreyfus [5,6] distinguishes seven levels of expertise (adapted from [7]): 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

Novice – views objective features of a situation, follows strict rules. Advanced Beginner – situational aspects are important, looks for exceptions to ‘hard’ rules, maxims and heuristics [40] guide the problem situation. Competent – selects relevant elements, chooses a plan, higher involvement in the design situation – seeks opportunities, builds up expectations, ‘trial and error’ character. Proficient – sees important issues and an appropriate plan, and then reasons actions. Expert – responds to a situation intuitively (‘normal operation’ [44]), and acts straight away. Problem solving and reasoning is generally not externally observable. Master – standard ways of working are seen as contingent, not as natural. Visionary – the world discloser consciously strives to extend the domain.

The ‘trial and error character’ (in item 3) should be recognized as ‘directed trial and error correction, aiming towards success’. Only a few engineering designers need to reach the highest levels. An engineering designer necessarily shows different expertise for different types of problem, progression through these levels is not uniform. Such progress requires added learning and reflection – formal or informal learning, experience, obtaining relevant information, etc. This learning must include object information about the engineering product being designed (transformation process, TrfP, and/or technical system, TS), and (of at least equal importance) information about engineering design processes, an improvement of the mind-internalized theory and the derived methods. Figure 2 Dimensions of Design Engineering in Technology and Society [22]

2. EXPERTISE AND DIFFICULTY Three interconnected regions influence engineering design capability: (a) levels of expertise, (b) action operations that use expertise, and (c) competencies that influence expertise.

This learning preferably takes place in a nonthreatening educational environment. The learner should be provided with a sequence of small successes in applying the engineering design methods, to reinforce learning. Attempting to learn a method ‘on the job’, where the results are of economic significance, mostly leads to failure, the mental capacity of the learner/practitioner is overloaded. Learning about design processes for all engineering graduates should involve a theory-based

ENHANCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WITHIN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

3

systematic approach at an appropriate level of instruction, such as shown in [21,22]. An ‘intuitive’ response, claimed for the ‘5. Expert’, is to be expected at all levels of expertise – the relevant theory and method becomes sufficiently well internalized to run routinely [27]. Once the method has been learned and transferred into ‘tacit knowing’, it becomes increasingly more difficult to detect a person’s ‘knowing’ of a method by the usual formal (oral or written) examinations in the conventional educational format. Development of engineering expertise [16,41] requires a change in the teaching and learning procedures and methods from the conventional science-oriented lecturing and examination assessment, and thus changes in the curriculum. According to Müller [44,45], human designers use three action modes in design engineering: (a)

(b)

(c)

Normal operation (routine, intuitive, second nature procedure) runs from the subconscious in a learned and experienced way, at low mental energy [24,46,47]. Risk operation uses the available experiences (and methods) together with partially conscious rational and more formalized methods, in a ‘trial and error’ behavior. Safety or rational operation needs conscious planning for systematic and methodical work, with conscious processing of a plan, because competence is in question, but this mode must be learned before attempting to use it.

Normal, routine, operation is mainly preferred and carried out by an individual. The engineering designer is working below his/her highest level of expertise. Risk operation occurs when the engineering designer is working close to or at his/her highest level of expertise, and tends to demand team activity. The task becomes non-routine, consultations can and should take place – ‘bouncing ideas off one another’, obtaining information and advice from experts, reaching a consensus on possibilities and preferred actions, etc. In risk operation, the applied theories and methods are often no longer conscious and externally recognizable – it becomes difficult (e.g. in educational situations) to examine the existing internalized design process ‘knowing’ of a designer.

4

In safety or rational operation, engineering designers need advice how they can proceed (i.e. what methods can help) to overcome the barriers. For the novice, almost all problems appear to require risk or safety operation – preparation for coming professional duties is helped by introducing and practicing a systematic and methodical approach to design engineering, such as briefly described in section 4 of this paper. A full record of all transactions and decisions can only be generated and recorded in safety/rational operation. Teams working in different locations can more easily coordinate their work. Normal and risk operation are obviously also available to industrial designers and practitioners of integrated product development. The proportion of systematic and methodical work should ideally be increased, especially for team consultations and management of more complex engineering design processes. This systematic and methods-conscious mode of working, and documented results, should be demanded by higher management. At times, especially where the problem needs safety or rational operation, the creative right brain hemisphere can find very useful support from the left brain in systematic engineering design procedural aspects, aided by the corpus callosum, which provides a strong inter-connection between the brain hemispheres. This is where engineering design methodology scores, if students during their education become familiar with engineering design theory and its methodology. Engineering education, and continuing learning during practice (see also [10,11]) should aim to achieve competency of engineers, technologists, technicians, etc., in analyzing and, more importantly, in synthesizing (designing) [15] transformation systems, TrfS. This requires ‘knowing’, internalized information of objects and of design processes, and awareness of where to find recorded and experiential available information. Competencies include [24,46,47]: (A) heuristic and practice related competency – ability to use experience, precedents [3], design principles [36], heuristics [40], information and values (e.g. technical data) as initial assumptions and guidelines, etc.; (B) branch and subject related competency – knowledge of a TS-‘sort’ within which designing is expected (completed during employment); typical examples of TS-‘sorts’ should be included in engineering education, in W. Ernst Eder

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

addition to conventional and newer machine elements [12,13,52] (usually less relevant for industrial design), and should also show the engineering sciences, pragmatic information, knowledge and data [4,51], and examples of realized technical systems; methods related competency – knowledge of and ability to use methods, under controlled conditions, and eventually learning them well enough to use them intuitively – for diagnostics, engineering analysis, experimentation, information searching, representing (in sketches, formal engineering drawings, computer models), creativity [8], innovative thinking, and systematic synthesizing [24,34,37] – usually less applicable to artistic designing; systems related competency – ability to see beyond the immediate task to take account of the complex situation and its implications, both analytically/reductionistically and synthetically /holistically [15], e.g. as in life-cycle engineering [1,9,25,28,53]; personal and social competency – including team work, people skills, trans-disciplinary cooperation, obtaining and using advice, managing subordinates, social and environmental awareness, and cultural aspects, etc. [10]; and the associated leadership and management skills (often lacking in engineering education); and socio-economic competency – including awareness of cost, price, return on investment, microand macro-economics, politics, entrepreneurial and business skills, etc.

Competencies are related to creativity [8,16]. Engineering education should emphasize these competencies, each contributes to the holistic and reductionistic understanding possessed by the future engineer, especially for designing a TrfP(s) and/or TS(s). One aim in this paper is to show a relationship of some existing knowledge about systematic engineering design and its underlying theory with the needs to develop design expertise, and therefore to enhance faculty and curriculum development for effective engineering design education. In general it is necessary for engineering designers to learn engineering design methodology during their education, see section 4.

3. SUBJECT – THEORY -- METHOD A guiding premise, also valid for design engineering, is formulated by Klaus [39]: ‘Both theory and method emerge from the phenomenon of the subject’, see figure 3. Close relationships should exist between the subject under consideration (its nature as a concept, product, artifact or process), the basic theory (formal or informal, recorded or in a human mind), and the recommended method. The theory should describe and provide a foundation for the behaviour of the (natural or artificial, tangible or process) object, and should support the utilized methods, by providing advice for voluntary adoption. The method should also be sufficiently well adapted to the subject. All methods must be adapted, usually by the applying designer, to the immediate situation on which the designer is active. These three phenomena of theory, method and subject are of equivalent status to each other. Considering our subject of design engineering, the underlying theory should describe the general nature of all engineering products, what they have in common, as a Theory of Technical Systems, TTS [21,22,34]. This includes a basic model of a transformation system (TrfS), a typical life cycle of a technical system (TS) consisting of seven typical TrfS, structures and properties of technical systems, modes of action, development in time, etc. Based on this theory [21,22,34], and using the circumstances of design engineering as a process, a comprehensive approach (theory and method) to designing and redesigning (of technical products) can be proposed that can be applied (voluntarily) for safety and rational operation, and for management of design processes, when needed. Interrelationships with engineering sciences are obvious [18]. Hubka [21,22,34,36] strictly separates theory from method. The theory is a basis for an explanatory framework to show the needs, procedures and contexts of design engineering. Method is voluntary, can be used selectively as needed, and is supported by experience, opportunistic, intuitive and idiosyncratic behaviour, creativity, etc. Other pragmatic, ‘industry best practice’, theory-based, and computer-assisted methods can be interspersed as a need arises.

ENHANCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WITHIN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

5

Proceedings of TMCE 2014, May 19-23, 2014, Budapest, Hungary, Edited by I. Horváth, Z. Rusák

 Organizing Committee of TMCE 2014, ISBN 978-94-6186-177-1

Figure 3 Relationships Subject, Theory, Method [21,22]

4. ENGINEERING DESIGN SCIENCE Design engineering ‘is’ neither an art nor a science (both ‘art’ and ‘science’ are bodies of experience and knowledge, objects) – engineering design is a process. ‘The design’ (noun) refers to an actual manifestation of a product, a tangible object, an idea, a concept, a pattern, etc. – the result of an intention. The verb ‘designing’ refers to the mental and other processes that occur during this activity in order to establish ‘the design’. Engineering Design Practice at times looks for guidance to overcome problems – when the situation is non-routine, when expertise and competence is lacking [16,24,46,47], for instance in educating novices, or in allowing experienced engineering designers to reach beyond their level of competence, to raise their expertise.

4.1. Theory of Technical Systems Hubka and associates from about 1965 to the present developed a scientifically founded theory of technical systems [34], and derived a fully systematic engineering design methodology which can be voluntarily applied to overcome problems occurring during the engineering design process. Figure 4 shows the basic model of the theory of technical systems [34] on which engineering design science

6

[35] (and the method) is based. This model of the transformation system declares [21,22]:

Figure 4 General Model of a Transformation System [21,22]

An operand (materials, energy, information, and/or living things – M, E, I, L) in state Od1 is transformed into state Od2, using the active and reactive effects (in the form of materials, energy and/or information – M, E, I) exerted continuously, intermittently or instantaneously by the operators (human systems, technical systems, active and reactive environment, information systems, and management systems, as outputs from their internal processes), by applying a suitable technology Tg (which mediates the exchange of M, E, I between effects and operand), whereby assisting inputs are needed, and

secondary inputs and outputs can occur for the operand and for the operators. Hubka’s additional models of engineering design science, coordinated with figure 4, cover: (a)

(b) (c)

(d)

(e)

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)

the transformation process, TrfP, with typically five operators (human system, HuS; technical system, TS; active and reactive environment, AEnv; information system, IS; and management system, MgtS) acting within that TrfS, recognizing a structure of operations in the TrfP (including the ‘affordances’ of Maier and Fadel [42,43], logically derived from the TrfP, see section 5 of this paper), and the operand in its initial state, Od1, and its final state, Od2; the means and technologies, Tg, by which these TrfP operations are performed; the effects needed to drive the technologies, as output effects (Ef) from one or more of the typically five operators (HuS, TS, AEnv, IS, MgtS); the TS-internal and cross-boundary functions, Fu, needed to produce the effects developed in (c), including aesthetic and ergonomic functions; the organs and constructional parts that exist to realize the manufactured TS, and that need to be designed and detailed as manufacturing instructions for the TS; TS-life cycle, states of existence and operation of TS; Properties of TrfP and TS, and consequently requirements for future TrfP and TS; General development in time, and other influences; Duty cycle of TS; Supply and marketing chains for TS and/or TrfP; Economics and other societal influences.

The function structure, organ structure and constructional structure co-exist in any one TS, but usually not in a 1:1 correspondence, see figure 5. Item (p) shows seven (typical) stages of life cycle processes: LC1 - product planning, LC2 - product designing, LC3 - manufacturing planning, LC4 manufacturing, LC5 - product distributing, LC6 product in use (LC6A - product being serviced, maintained, repaired, etc.), and LC7 - product liquidation and disposal. Real TS(s) life cycles consist of many more such transformation systems, these seven stages are a necessary minimum, and a

maximum that preserves complete generality for all TS. The subscript ‘(s)’ is added to designate that TS as the subject of interest – many other TS influence the life-cycle of the TS(s).

Figure 5 TS-internal and Cross-boundary Structures [21,22]

All products (technical and artistic) carry their properties, item (g), whether they have been deliberately designed, or occur as by-product of existence [14]. Many of these properties are necessary, they provide the purpose of the technical system, TS(s), its physical presence, and the outputs (effects, Ef) that can drive the transformation processes we wish to perform, TrfP. A complete theory-based classification for the properties of existing ‘as is’ transformation processes, TrfP, and ‘as is’ technical systems, TS(s), can be derived by considering life cycle stages LC4 LC7 (and the operators of each of these life-cycle stages), and adding three axiomatic classes: intrinsic (experience-based and heuristic), general (engineering sciences-based – these two are the mediating properties), and elemental design properties (those directly established by the engineering designer) [21,22]. This classification is complete, no other classes are needed.

4.2. Design Methodology Engineering Design Science, EDS, is based on TTS. It offers a coordinated theory of engineering design processes, and is therefore a body of knowledge (a

ENHANCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WITHIN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

7

science) as secondary subject from which a fully systematic design engineering methodology can be derived, for voluntary application when a need arises. Using the models of the transformation system (figure 4) and TS-structures (figure 5) as basis, the stages and steps of a systematic engineering design process for a novel product, TS(s), can be derived [21,22], and used for design engineering by searching for alternative embodiments at each level of abstraction. The most important steps, using the numbering of the full listing [22, figure 11.1, 3 pages], are summarized as: - task defining: (P1) establish a design specification for the required system, a list of requirements; (P2) establish a plan and timeline for design engineering; - conceptualizing: (P3a) from the desirable and required output (operand in state Od2), establish a suitable transformation process TrfP(s), (P3.1.1) if needed, establish the appropriate input (operand in state Od1); (P3.1.2) decide which of the operations in the TrfP(s) will be performed by technical systems, TS(s), alone or in mutual cooperation with other operators; and which TS(s) (or parts of them) need to be designed; (P3.1.3) establish a technology (structure, with alternatives) for that transformation operation, and therefore the effects (as outputs) needed from the technical system; (P3b) establish what the technical system needs to be able to do (its TS-internal and cross-boundary functions, with alternatives); (P4) establish what organs (function-carriers in principle and their structure, with alternatives) can perform these functions. These organs can be found mainly in prior art, especially the machine elements, in a revised arrangement as proposed by Weber [12,13,52]; - embodying/laying out and detailing: (P5a) establish what constructional parts and their arrangement are needed, in sketch-outline, in rough layout, with alternatives; (P5b) establish what constructional parts are needed, in dimensional-definitive layout, with alternatives; (P6) establish what constructional parts are needed, in detail and assembly drawings, with alternatives.

8

The suffix ‘(s)’ again indicates that this TrfP(s) and/or TS(s) is the subject of interest. Only those parts of this engineering design process that are thought to be useful are employed. Such an ‘idealized’ procedure cannot be accomplished in a linear fashion – iterative and recursive working is essential, using analysis and synthesis [11,15,17]. Steps (P3a) to (P4) may be useful for architecture, but are usually not useful for non-engineering applications. Adaptation for redesign problems (probably about 95% of all design engineering tasks) proceeds through stages (P1) and (P2) above, then analyzes from (P6) or (P5b) to (P4), and/or to (P3b) to ‘reverse-engineer’ these structures, modify them according to the new requirements, and use the stages in the usual order to complete the redesign. For designing of novel technical products and radical innovations, it is important to recognize the operand of the transformation process under consideration. Even for re-design problems, the author has found it useful to recognize the operand, although it plays no specific role in the re-design process. The list of requirements (step P1) can be based on the complete list of classes [22, figure 11.4, 2 pages], consisting of requirements for the manufacturing organization (life cycle stages LC1-LC3), requirements for the transformation process, TrfP (in analogy to the TrfP- properties), and requirements for the technical system, TS(s) (in analogy to the TSproperties). Superimposed on (and ‘orthogonal’ to) the (systematic) engineering design process as outlined above is a frequently-applied problem-solving sequence, the cycle of basic operations, which is repeatedly applied to each of the design process steps. This problem-solving proceeds in four operational steps: Op-H3.1 – determining, defining and clarifying the task (‘framing’ the problem), Op-H3.2 – searching creatively and routinely for likely (and alternative candidate) solutions, principles and means at differing levels of abstraction, Op-H3.3 – evaluating, optimizing, improving, making decisions, and selecting the preferred or most promising solution(s), and Op-H3.4 – fixing, describing, capturing the ‘design intent’, communicating the solution, trans-

W. Ernst Eder

mitting to the records, the next phase, stage, step, or organization function. These operations use three supporting operations: Op-H3.5 – providing and preparing information, Op-H3.6 – checking, including auditing, verifying, validating and reflecting, and Op-H3.7 – representing, with data, solution proposals, etc. The supporting operations appear only in this model of problem-solving, no other model of problemsolving known to the author makes specific mention of them. It is noteworthy that in especially Op-H3.2 (but also in other operations) there is always an interaction between mental models and physical representations or models, whether verbal, graphical-pictorial, or mathematical-symbolic, or a combination of these, see figure 6 [23]. The interactions take three distinct forms: (a) perceiving, abstracting, formulating (and similar operations) to obtain a mental model of a reality, (b) using (and similar operations) to apply that mental model to a reality, and (c) designing, realising, concretising, predicting, controlling (and similar operations) to generate a revised or new reality. The physical representation or model can be a sketch, a set of engineering drawings, tangible constructional parts, a technical or other system, etc. This obviously represents a basis for the (independently devised) C-K theory of design reasoning [30,31,32].

Figure 6 Mental and Physical Interactions of Thinking [23]

In many cases of more complex design engineering of technical systems, only a selection of the TSinternal and cross-boundary functions proposed in step (P3a) need to be initially considered to establish the main TS(s). Those functions that are (at that stage) initially relatively unimportant can then be elevated to transformation processes (TrfP) for the next more detailed stage of design engineering – a sub-problem, which can be solved using the same systematic method if needed. Equally, the transformation process (TrfP) for a more complex TS(s) can reappear as a TS-internal or cross-

boundary function in a higher-order transformation system. Systems are hierarchical. The models of Hubka encompass all possible modes of action of technical products. Each mode of action (way of operating) is based on an action principle, usually supported by an engineering science – mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, electrical, electronic/analog, electronic/digital, building, civilstructural, chemical, optical, nuclear, biomedical, software, or other discipline or engineering branch, singly or in a hybrid combination, in a static and/or dynamic mode – ‘high-tech’ products are mostly hybrids of mechanical, computer, and other disciplines. Mechatronics and nanotechnology are the result of automation and miniaturization.

5. DISCUSSION The concept of ‘functions’ has been enhanced, and more clearly defined, by Hubka and colleagues. The operations in a TrfP can only take place if an operand is present, and are therefore separated from the capabilities for action by the TS, the TS-internal and cross-boundary functions.

A ‘functional basis’ (Hirtz et al) [33] has improved the definitions of ‘flows’ and ‘functions’ – their work does not go far enough to provide a basis for conceptualizing. Closely following the ‘function’ definitions provided by Pahl and Beitz [48], Hirtz et al [33] have attempted a reconciliation of several proposals for a complete list of ‘functions’. As distinct from previous proposals, in their ‘functional basis’ they separate ‘flows’ from ‘functions’. In terms of Hubka’s theories, the Hirtz et al ‘flows’ are either transformation operations, or operator effects exerted via technologies on the operand. The Hirtz et al ‘functions’ are equivalent to the TS-internal and cross-boundary functions. The listings provided are mainly the appropriate verbs (what is being done?) – verb phrases are hardly considered, nouns and noun phrases (to what is it being done?) are omitted because they are likely to be product-specific. Hirtz et al also do not differentiate between situations where the TS is (a) active – it delivers effects (Ef) to operand (Od) in transformation process; (b) reactive – it reacts to operand in transformation process, and/or to other operators (e.g. human system, HuS) to generate effects, or (c) inactive, no operand. Maier and Fadel [42] proposed ‘affordances’ as requirements and TS-properties that allow a user to do something with a technical system. These ‘affordances’ can easily be accommodated into

ENHANCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WITHIN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

9

systematic conceptualizing of design engineering solutions – they are all included in the requirements for TrfP and TS, mainly as observable properties, especially where the TS is an operand or a reactive operator in the considered transformation system (TrfS). For this purpose, the TrfP should be as complete as necessary to be able to extract these ‘affordances’. For instance, a step-ladder, an example used by Maier and Fadel [42], is almost purely reactive to its handling and loading – its transformation process operations could be established as: (1) remove TS from storage, (2) transport TS to usage site, (3) open and secure TS, (4) position TS, (5) permit human operator to climb up and down TS and to manipulate other items, (6) disable and close TS, (7) transport TS to storage site, (8) store TS. Maier’s ‘DAU’ [43] (design team, artefact, user) model shows that these factors, plus other factors of the active and reactive environment, can influence each other, but does not specify in what way the influences can be exerted or used for designing. A research study shows a time sequence for DAU-internal interactions [43] during an engineering student design project for industry. Further discussions of comparisons with other design approaches may be found in [19,21,22]. It is worth noting that the two of the case examples mentioned in the companion paper [20] (re-design of a water valve, and re-design of an automotive oil pump) include a transformation process, TrfP, even though it is not strictly within the scope of redesigning – the ‘affordances’ remain unchanged. Inclusion of the TrfP thus has the justification to verify that the ‘affordances’ are considered. These steps of the Hubka systematic engineering design methodology are illustrated in (to date) 22 case examples published between 1976 and 2014. Hubka’s engineering design methodology is demonstrated by the scope and variety of these case examples. Care should be exercised when reading these case examples, they were not intended to show a plausible optimal resulting proposed technical system, TS(s) – the ‘(s)’ indicates that this TS is the subject of interest – and some of these cases are doubtful in that respect. The case studies are listed in the companion paper [20].

6. CLOSURE The individual models and methods of the full engineering design methodology are available for selective application, as the designer (or team)

10

consider it useful. More experienced engineering designers, and those working on more routine problems, will tend to work more intuitively, and at low mental energy [16]. When an unfamiliar situation arises, and competence is lacking, the models and methods of the full systematic engineering design methodology can be useful to ‘break the log-jam’. Management of engineering design is encouraged to insist on all results of designing being brought into the full methodology – a well-documented design process can then be available in case of litigation. The Hubka theory and method should be preferred for engineering design and engineering education. It is currently the most comprehensive and wellfounded system of knowledge and guide for engineering design procedures.

REFERENCES [1] Berendt, S., Jasch, Chr., Peneda, M.C. and Weenen, H.van (1997) Life Cycle Design, A Manual for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Berlin: SpringerVerlag [2] Booker, P.J. (1979) History of Engineering Drawing, London: Northgate [3] Booker, P.J. (1962) ‘Principles and Precedents in Engineering Design’, London: Inst. of Engineering Designers [4] Constant, E.W. II (1980) The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution, Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P. [5] Dreyfus H.L. (2003) ‘From Socrates to Artificial Intelligence: The Limits of Rule-Based Rationality’, unpublished lecture notes of the first 2003 Spinoza Lecture at the University of Amsterdam [6] Dreyfus H.L. (2003) ‘Can there be a better source of meaning than everyday practices?’, unpublished lecture notes of the second 2003 Spinoza Lecture at the University of Amsterdam [7] Dorst, K. and Reymen, I. (2004) ‘Levels of expertise in design education’, in Proc. International Engineering and Product Design Education Conference, 2-3 September 2004, Delft, The Netherlands [8] Eder, W.E. (ed.) (1996) WDK 24 – EDC – Engineering Design and Creativity – Proceedings of the Workshop EDC, Pilsen, Czech Republic, November 1995, Zürich: Heurista [9] Eder, W.E. (2001) ‘Designing and Life Cycle Engineering – A Systematic Approach to Designing’, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (UK), Part B, Jnl. of Eng. Manufacture, Vol. 215, No. B5, p. 657-672 [10] Eder, W.E. (2002) ‘Social, Cultural and Economic Awareness for Engineers’, in CSME Forum 2002,

W. Ernst Eder

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21] [22] [23]

Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, abstract p. 130, on CD-ROM Eder, W.E. (2002) ‘Education for Engineering and Designing’, in Proc. International Design Conference - Design 2002, Dubrovnik, May 14 – 17, 2002, on CD-ROM, 2002 Eder, W.E. (2004) ‘Machine Elements – Integration Of Some Proposals’, in Proc. AEDS 2004 Workshop, The Design Society – Special Interest Group Applied Engineering Design Science, 11 – 12 Nov 2004, Pilsen, Czech Republic, on CD-ROM Eder, W.E. (2005) ‘Machine Elements – Revision and Outlook for Design Education’, in Proc. Second CDEN International Conference, University of Calgary, Alberta, 18 – 19 July 2005 at Kananaskis Resort, paper 10006 on CD-ROM Eder, W.E. (2006) ‘Properties of Technical Systems – Key to Crossing Design Boundaries’, in Proc. Canadian Design Engineering Network Conference CDEN, 24-26 July 2006, Toronto, ON, on CD-ROM Eder, W.E. (2008) ‘Aspects of Analysis and Synthesis in Design Engineering’, in Proc. CDEN 08, Halifax, N.S., 27-29 July 2008, on CD-ROM Eder, W.E. (2009) ‘Why Systematic Design Engineering?’ in Proc. 6th Symposium on International Design and Design Education, August 30 – September 2, 2009, San Diego, California, USA, New York: ASME, paper number DETC200986067 Eder, W.E. (2010) ‘Requirements to Properties – Iterative Problem Solving’, in Proc. Canadian Engineering Education Association 2010 Inaugural Conference, 7-9 June 2010, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON Eder, W.E. (2011) ‘Theory of Technical Systems – Relationships to Engineering Sciences’, paper 3 in Proc. CEEA 2011 Conference, 6-8 June 2011, Memorial University, St. Johns, Newfoundland Eder, W.E. (2012) ‘Comparisons of Several Design Theories and Methods with the Legacy of Vladimir Hubka’, private publication (74 pages) available from [email protected], and on the web-site of The Design Society, www.designsociety.org, select ‘resources’, ‘publications’, ‘public reports’ Eder, W.E. (2014) ‘Case Study in Systematic Design Engineering – Life-boat Davits’, for Tools and Methods in Competitive Engineering – TMCE 2014 Symposium – 19-23 May 2014, Budapest, Hungary Eder, W.E., and Hosnedl, S. (2008) Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity, Boca Raton, FL: CRC-Press Eder, W.E., and Hosnedl, S. (2010) Introduction to Design Engineering – Systematic Creativity and Management, Leiden, NL: CRC Press / Balkema Eder, W.E. and Hubka, V. (1986) 'Methodical Design in Engineering – Basis and Applicability', in R. Trappl (ed), Cybernetics and Systems '86, Reidl

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28] [29] [30]

[31] [32]

[33]

[34] [35] [36]

[37]

Publ, Dordrecht, p. 75-92, and Springer Netherlands, p. 181-188 Eder, W.E. and Hubka, V. (2001) ‘Curriculum, Pedagogics, and Didactics for Design Education’, in WDK 28: Proc. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED01 Glasgow, 21-23 August 2001, London: IMechE, Vol 4, p. 285-292 Ernzer, M. and Birkhofer, H. (2003) ‘Life Cycle Design for Companies – Scaling Life Cycle Design Methods to the Individual Needs of a Company’, in Folkeson, A., Gralên, K., Norell, M. and Seligren, U. (eds.), DS 31 – Proc. ICED 2003 Stockholm, Glasgow: The Design Society, p. 393-394 Flurscheim, C.H. (1983) Industrial Design in Engineering: a marriage of techniques, London: The Design Council and Berlin/Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag Fricke, G. and Pahl, G. (1991) ‘Zusammenhang zwischen Personenbedingtem Vorgehen und Lösungsgüte’ (Relationship between Personally Conditioned Procedure and Quality of Solution), in Hubka, V. (ed.) WDK 20: Proc. of ICED 91 Zürich, Zürich: Heurista, p. 331-341 Graedel, T.E. (1998) Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Green, W.S., and Jordan, P.W. (2002) Pleasure With Products: Beyond Usability, Boca Raton: CRC Press Hatchuel, A., and Weil, B. (2003) ‘A New Approach of Innovative Design: an Introduction to C-K Theory’, in DS 31 – Proc. ICED 03 Stockholm on CD-ROM, The Design Society Hatchuel, A., and Weil, B. (2009) ‘C-K Design Theory: and Advanced Formulation’, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 181-192 Hatchuel, A., LeMasson, P., and Weil, B. (2006) ‘The Design of Science-Based Products: an Interpretation and Modelling with C-K Theory’, in Proc. International Design Conference – Design 2006 Dubrovnik, p. 33-44 Hirtz, J, Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S. and Wood, K.L. (2002) ‘A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts’, NIST Technical Note 1447, U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 40 pages Hubka, V., and Eder, W.E. (1988) Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design, New York: Springer-Verlag Hubka, V., and Eder, W.E. (1992) Einführung in die Konstruktionswissenschaft (Introduction to Design Science), Berlin, Springer-Verlag Hubka, V., and Eder, W.E. (1996) Design Science: Introduction to the Needs, Scope and Organization of Engineering Design Knowledge, London: SpringerVerlag, completely revised edition of [38], http://deseng.ryerson.ca/DesignScience/ Hubka, V. and Schregenberger, J.W. (1988) ‘Eine neue Systematik konstruktionswissen-schaftlicher

ENHANCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WITHIN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

11

[38] [39] [40] [41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

12

Aussagen – Ihre Struktur und Funktion’ (A New Systematic Order for Design-Scientific Statements – its Structure and Function), in WDK 16: Proceedings of ICED 88, Budapest: GTE and Zürich: Heurista, Vol. 1, p. 103-117 Julier, G. (2000) The Culture of Design, London: Sage Publ. Klaus, G. (1965) Kybernetik in philosophischer Sicht (Cybernetics in Philosophical View) 4th edn., Berlin: Dietz Verlag Koen, B.V. (2003) Discussion of The Method: Conducting the Engineer’s Approach to Problem Solving, New York: Oxford Univ. Press Litzinger, T.A., Lattuca, L.R., Hadgraft. R.G. and Newstetter, W.C. (2011) ‘Engineering Education and the Development of Expertise’, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 100, No 1, p. 123_150, http://www.jee.org Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2009) ‘Affordance Based Design: A Rational Theory for Design’, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 13-27 Maier, J.R., Troy, T., Johnson, P.J., Bobba, V. and Summers, J.D. (2010) ‘Case Study Research Using Senior Design Projects: An Example Application’, ASME-Journal of Mechanical Design, Paper 111011, Vol.132, No. 11, 8 pages Müller, J. (1990) Arbeitsmethoden der Technikwissenschaften – Systematik, Heuristik, Kreativität (Working Methods of Engineering Sciences – systematics, heuristics, creativity), Berlin: Springer-Verlag Müller, J. (1994) ‘Akzeptanzprobleme in der Industrie, ihre Ursachen und Wege zu ihrer Überwindung’ (Acceptance Problems in Industry, their Causes, and Ways to Overcome them), in Pahl, G. (ed.), Psychologische und pädagogische Fragen beim methodischen Konstruieren (Psychological and Pedagogic Questions in Systematic Designing) – Ladenburger Diskurs, Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland, p. 247-266 Pahl, G. (scientific director) (1994) ‘Ergebnisse der Diskussion’ (Results of the Discussions), in G. Pahl (ed.), Psychologische und Pödagogische Fragen beim methodischen Konstruieren: Ergebnisse des Ladenburger Diskurses vom Mai 1992 bis Oktober 1993 (Psychological and Pedagogic Questions in Systematic Designing: Results of a Discourse at Ladenburg from May 1992 to October 1993), Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland, p. 1-37 Pahl, G. (1995) ‘Transfer Ability as Educational Goal – Results of a Discourse at Ladenburg’, in Eder, W.E. (ed.), WDK 24 – EDC – Engineering Design and Creativity – Proceedings of the Workshop EDC, Pilsen, Czech Republic, November 1995, Zürich: Heurista, p. 133-138; and Hubka, V. (ed.) WDK 23 – Proc. International Conference on Engineering

[48]

[49] [50] [51]

[52]

[53]

Design – ICED 95 Praha, Zürich, Heurista, p. 247252 Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, H-K. (2007) Engineering Design (3 edn.), London: Springer-Verlag, (1 edn. 1984) (Edited and translated by K. Wallace and L. Blessing), translated from 2003 (5 edn.) of Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, H-K. Konstruktionslehre, Methoden und Anwendungen, (7 ed.) Berlin/Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag, 2007 (1 ed. 1977) Tjalve, E. (1979) A Short Course in Industrial Design, London: Newnes-Butterworths Tjalve, E., Andreasen, M.M., and Schmidt, F.F. (1979) Engineering Graphic Modelling, London: Butterworths Vincenti, W.G. (1990) What Engineers Know and How They Know It – Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press Weber, C. and Vajna, S. (1997) ‘A New Approach to Design Elements (Machine Elements)’. In Riitahuhta, A. (ed.) WDK 25 – Proc. ICED 97 Tampere, Tampere University, Vol. 3, 1997, p. 685690 Wimmer, W. and Züst, R. (2003) Ecodesign Pilot, Dordrecht: Kluwer

W. Ernst Eder