Integrated Manufacturing Systems

Emerald Article: Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur, Anil Mital

Article information:
To cite this document: Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur, Anil Mital, (2001),"Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools", Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 Iss: 6 pp. 430 - 448 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006108 Downloaded on: 02-08-2012 References: This document contains references to 68 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Franois Des Rosiers, Jean Dub, Marius Thriault, (2011),"Do peer effects shape property values?", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 510 - 528 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150376 Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role of electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63 Iss: 2 pp. 168 - 187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646 Paul Clough, Jiayu Tang, Mark M. Hall, Amy Warner, (2011),"Linking archival data to location: a case study at the UK National Archives", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63 Iss: 2 pp. 127 - 147 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135628

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDAD EAFIT For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools
Wen-Chuan Chiang Industrial Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA Arunkumar Pennathur Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso, TX, USA Anil Mital Industrial Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Keywords Abstract

Product design, Manufacturing

1. Introduction
There are numerous products that are marketed as being sophisticated in terms of features they provide consumers, but routinely fail to perform the intended functions, or do so in a very unsatisfactory manner. For instance, the Eastman Kodak Company's disk camera was marketed as being a usable camera with nearly 50 usability features. However, due to the excessive noise in the output signal and its related negative effect on the quality of the pictures the camera took, the Kodak disk camera was considered a failure; the camera failed to provide the very basic intended function i.e., taking good or even acceptable photographs. Another example is the ubiquitous can opener found on supermarket shelves. To cut the lid, the cutting edge in the can opener has to progress around the lid and sever it completely and cleanly without leaving slivers of metal behind. However, this seldom is the case in most can openers (mechanical devices). In addition to not performing the main function, most can openers jiggle the lid and cause it to splatter, or submerge the lid in the liquid as the cutter progresses around the can. In Figure 1, we provide several examples to show that functionality in can openers is routinely not ensured. In Figure 1a, the can opener has only a single cutting point, and the cutting edge is not sharp. The can opener in Figure 1b is a better design, and provides a better cutting edge than the one in Figure 1a the round shape enables random selection of the cutting point and hence longer life. The can opener in Figure 1c is similar in design to the can opener in Figure 1b, but the design uses gears to ensure that the cutting edge will be continuously rotated, hence providing longer blade life. The can opener depicted in
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Examines the product design and manufacturing literature to understand why consumer products of daily use often fail to provide the intended function to users' satisfaction. The review shows that the bulk of published literature addressing functionality and functional representation deals with mechanical systems design, and there are issues that directly affect the consumer that are yet to be accommodated in current research in functional representation. The literature also reveals that very few of the product design support systems have been tested on real design cases, or have been developed and tested using real designers in manufacturing environments this issue needs serious consideration if efficient designer aids are to be developed in the future. Also, there is relatively little that has been done to develop tools to evaluate alternative design solutions. It is also apparent from this review that the main research focus has been on providing function, rather than on ensuring function in a product that is eventually manufactured.

Received: September 1999 Revised: June 2000 Accepted: July 2000

Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448 # MCB University Press [ISSN 0957-6061]

Figure 1a uses a single joint (one rivet), and the one in Figure 1b uses two rivets (one is in the fixed style, while the other is in the open slot); hence, the structural rigidity of the can opener in Figure 1b is much higher than the can opener in Figure 1a. The crank designs in can openers in Figure 1b and 1c are better than the can opener in 1a, because these designs provide more rigidity and ease of handling than the can opener in 1a. The can opener in Figure 1d is very different from the ones in 1a, b, and c, as it cuts the can from the side so the lid will not drop into the food. From Figure 1, and other similar day-today experiences, we can conclude that while providing functionality in a product may be the design goal, designers routinely fail to ensure it in the product prototype. An understanding of the key elements involved in the design and manufacturing of consumer products for functionality, and the tools used to model functionality should help shed light on why functionality is not ensured in products. Is the definition of functionality adequate? Are the current criteria for product functionality adequate? Or is it a lack of close correspondence between a product's design and its manufacturing? These are some of the issues addressed in this review paper. The objective is to critically examine the literature (both research and practitioner literature in design, manufacturing, mechanical systems design, and consumer product design) with the focus on why products fail to provide an intended and designed function. This paper is organized into the following sections. In section 2, a brief review of the evolution and history of product design is presented. Beginning with some of the earliest design goals, such as Design for Cost, through some latter day design goals, such as Design for Safety and Design for Usability, the present day Design for X paradigm is briefly discussed in this section. Section 3 examines the different and widely used definitions for product function and

[ 430 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Figure 1 Various types of can openers

functionality, with examples for each definition. A review of the different models to represent function and the existing tools to provide functionality follows. It should be noted that the preponderance of published literature in the functionality and functional representation areas is on mechanical systems design; relatively very few articles are in the manufacturing engineering domain. Also, research on mechanical design in specific technical domains, such as mechanisms and heat exchangers, is beyond the scope of this paper. Section 4 provides

recommendations for further research. Section 5 presents an example to show how to ensure product functionality and illustrates potential linkages between functionality criteria and manufacturing variables for a can opener.

2. Design goals: history and evolution

Historically, a variety of factors, both internal and external to a company, have influenced its product design goals. For

[ 431 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

instance, the mass production paradigm pioneered by Henry Ford resulted in concepts of building products in assembly lines, use of interchangeable parts, and standardization of parts and components with a view towards reducing product cost (Bralla, 1996; Cross, 1989; Green, 1956; Lacey, 1986; Ziemke and Spann, 1993). Customers' demand for quality products prompted manufacturing companies to consider quality as their key product design goal (Akiyama, 1991; Taguchi et al., 1989). The establishment of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1972 prompted manufacturers to project product safety as their key design goal (Brauer, 1990; Hammer, 1980; Mital and Anand, 1992). The advent of the computer screen and the resulting digital interface may be considered the primary reason for companies projecting product usability as their prime product design goal (Nielsen, 1993). Similarly, the need for product manufacturers to reduce assembly time and cost have prompted product designs built from design for assembly processes (Bakerjian, 1992; Boothroyd and Dewhurst, 1983; Boothroyd, 1994; General Electric Company, 1960; Gupta and Nau, 1995; Kusiak and He, 1997; Miyakawa and Ohashi, 1986; Miyakawa et al., 1990; Nof et al., 1997; Runciman and Swift, 1985; Taylor, 1997). Recent legislation from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prompted companies to project Design for Environmental Friendliness or Green Design as an important product design goal (Billatos and Nevrekar, 1994; Hermann, 1994; Hundal, 1994; Van Hemel and Keldmann, 1996). Ford Motor Company recently set up a facility for disassembling used cars and selling used parts (an Internet junkyard), profitability of which will depend upon designing products for disassembly (Wall Street Journal, 1999). Simultaneous optimization of a number of design goals (Design for ``X'') where X could stand for assembly, manufacturability, safety, reliability or any of the other design goals, is the latest in the research agenda (Asiedu and Gu, 1998; Bralla, 1996; Chu and Holm, 1994; Gupta et al., 1997; Huang, 1996; Huang and Mak, 1998; Jansson et al., 1990; Nevins and Whitney, 1989; Priest, 1990; Sanchez et al., 1997; Ullman, 1997). While all these different design goals have gained recognition and acceptance, product performance (or what is broadly known as product functionality), as a design goal, has often been taken for granted by designers. Indeed, the provision of functionality in a product is the purpose of design. It is possible that even though product functionality may have been an important initial product

design goal for designers, the necessity to accord other design goals (safety, usability, quality, etc.), to a higher priority may have relegated the task of ensuring functionality in the prototype to a relatively lower priority.

3. Function and functionality in design: definitions, models, and tools

Designs are considered to exist to satisfy some purpose or function. Thus, knowledge of functionality is essential in a wide variety of design-related activities. Such activities include generation and modification of designs, comparison, evaluation and selection of designs, and diagnosis or repair of designs. Beyond agreement among researchers and designers that function is an important concept in determining a product's fundamental characteristics, there is no clear, uniform, objective, and widely accepted definition of functionality. Function has been historically interpreted in a variety of ways: for instance, as an abstraction of the intended behavior of a design, an indexing of its intended behavior, the relationship between a design and its environment, the external behavior of a design, or its internal behavior (Umeda and Tomiyama, 1997). The definition of function has also been influenced by design methodologies in use. For example, if the designer follows the traditional conceptual design methodology, the designer first determines the entire function by analyzing the specifications of the product to be designed and built. He or she then divides the function recursively into sub-functions, a process that produces a functional structure. For each sub-function, the next step is to use a catalog to look up the most appropriate functional element a component or a set of components that perform a function. Finally, the designer composes a design solution from the selected elements. Since the results of the design process using the traditional conceptual design methodology depend entirely on the efficacy of the decomposition of the function, the role of functionality is critical in using such a methodology (Pahl and Beitz, 1988). A number of new models for abstracting and representing function, in addition to numerous computer-aided design tools for managing the modeling of function in a product have recently emerged. For purposes of discussion in this paper, a model is a conceptual or a theoretical model represented in the form of diagrams, and other conventional representation methods for concepts and ideas. Any well-developed

[ 432 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

device with a physical form that can be used in real life to perform a design activity will be classified as a tool for instance, a software to perform certain design activity will be considered a tool, whereas the algorithm that is behind the functioning of a software will be considered a model.

3.1 Function and functional representation: definitions

Dictionaries define function as: working, action; and the action of something. The definition encompasses any of the specific roles possessed by each mutually interacting element constituting a whole. While functionality is considered an intuitive concept, dependent on the designer's intention, traditionally, there have been three approaches in representing function in design: 1 representing function in the form of verbnoun pairs (Miles, 1961) an example would be the function of a shaft, to ``transmit torque''; 2 input-output flow transformations, where the inputs and outputs can be energy, materials, or information (see Figure 2) (Rodenaker, 1971); and 3 transformation between input-output situations and states the essential difference between the definitions in 2 and 3 is the type of input and output for example, if the product is a household buzzer, according to definition 3, the function ``to make a sound'' can be represented by two behavior states, state 1 representing an upward clapper movement, and state 2 representing a downward clapper movement (Goel and Stroulia, 1996; Hubka and Eder, 1992). Miles (1961) developed the function analysis method of expressing a function as a verb and direct object (a noun or an adjective). The motivating idea for this definition is that any useful product or service has a prime function. This function can usually be described by a two-word definition, such as provide light (for a light source such as a light bulb), pump water (for a domestic water pump), and indicate time (for a clock). In addition to primary functions, there may be secondary functions involved in a product. For example, if the primary function of a light source is to provide light, a secondary function could be that the light source may be required to resist shock; a pump for domestic use, with pumping water as the primary function, may have to operate at a low noise level. Although this definition of a function is general due to the lack of clear description of relationships between product function and

product structure, this representation is not considered powerful enough for design applications. Miles' definition of function has primarily been used in Value Engineering (VE) work by representing a function in the form of ``to do something'' and by comparing the value of function with respect to the costs of the product. Rodenacker (1971) defined function as transformation between input and output of material, energy, and information (Figure 2). An example using Rodenacker's definition is provided in Figure 3. In this example, the input can be conceptualized to consist of coffee beans, energy, and information to the system in the form of electrical signals (for example: control signals); the coffee mill is the black box where the transformation of coffee beans into ground coffee occurs; the output is ground coffee, heat, and information to the user in the form of electrical signals (such as electrical flash light or electrical beep sound). Even though this definition is widely accepted in design research (Pahl and Beitz, 1988; Welch and Dixon, 1992), it has limitations there are functions that do not strictly involve transformation between input and output, and Rodenacker's definition of function does not sufficiently describe such functions. Umeda et al. (1990) proposed the FBS (Function-Behavior-State) diagram to model a system with its functional descriptions (see Figure 4). Function, according to Umeda et al., is a description of behavior abstracted by the human through recognition of the behavior in order to utilize the behavior. The underlying precept in the definition is that it is difficult to distinguish function clearly from human behavior and it is not meaningful to represent function independently of the behavior from which it is abstracted. Function, in the FBS diagram, is represented as an association of two concepts: the symbol of a function, represented in the form of ``to do something,'' as Miles (1961) proposed, and a set of behaviors that can exhibit that function. For example, some behaviors such as ``hitting a bell'' and ``oscillating a string'' may be used to realize a function ``to make a sound''. Although the concept of symbolic information is meaningful only to a human, this information, associated with its behavior, has been found to be essential for supporting design such as reuse of design results and clarification of specifications. It is easy to see that function and behavior have a subjective and many-to-many correspondence in their relationship, whereas the representation of behavior of an entity can be determined more objectively based on physical principles. The FBS diagram is intended to assist the designer

[ 433 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Figure 2 Functional hierarchy in the traditional design methodology

Figure 3 The function of a coffee mill as a black box

in the synthetic as well as analytic aspects of conceptual design. According to Sturges et al. (1990, 1996), function is defined as the domainindependent characteristics or behavior of elements or groups of elements. Function

logic methods (see Figure 5) are modified by Sturges et al. for the development and use of function block diagrams. The idea behind this definition of function is that the designer should be able to describe the intended function, expand it into required sub-functions, and map the sub-functions into components capable of fulfilling them. The design is assisted by the computer in this process in terms of systematic identification of functions, allocation of constraints to each function, the interrelations between functions, and the evaluation of the functions. The approach supports the designer mainly in the identification, articulation, and evaluation of function structures, rather than the search for design solutions, and therefore applies to later stages of task clarification and the early stages of conceptual design.

[ 434 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Figure 4 Relationships among function, behavior and state

According to Welch and Dixon (1992, 1994), function is a set of causal relationships between physical parameters as described by the outward physical action of a device. Behavior is the detailed description of the internal physical action of a device based on established physical principles and phenomena. Functional design is the transition between the three states (function, behavior, and embodiment) shown in Figure 6. A design problem is stated in terms of a set of functions that must be met, for instance, the conversion of force to displacement. The functional information is transformed by the phenomenological design process to behavior information based on physical principles and phenomena. If the function is conversion of force to displacement, the physical principles of Hooke's law would be used to accomplish the function. The embodiment design process, using behavior graphs, models the required behavior as a guide to select and configure

systems of embodiments. An embodiment is an abstraction of a physical artifact such as a spring, gear-pair, or electrical motor, which contains not only behavior information but also constraint and evaluation information. In the case of conversion of force to displacement, a spring (or more specifically, a rectangular wire helical spring), could be used to accomplish the function. Our review of the literature shows that the use of the computer as a design tool (Bracewell and Sharpe, 1996; Chakrabarti and Bligh, 1994; Chakrabarti and Bligh, 1996; Chakrabarti and Blessing, 1996; Qian and Gero, 1996) has not changed the primary definition of function, though creating new problems in transforming the design information (which is usually abstract and is a mixture of numeric, text, graphical, and empirical information), and evaluating alternative design solutions (Peien and Mingjun, 1993; Peien et al., 1996).

[ 435 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Figure 5 The general form of a function logic diagram

As this review shows, there is a multiplicity of views and definitions about function in the literature a unified view of function and functionality is lacking.

3.2 Function representation models

Functional modeling refers to a wide variety of approaches to model a design and its requirement from its functional aspects so as to allow reasoning about its functionality for various activities. Two important functional models warrant mention. Umeda et al. (1990) propose the FBS (Function-Behavior-State) diagram as a framework to model a system with its functional descriptions (see Figure 4). Since a function in a system cannot be completely described objectively, the FBS model is divided into a subjective and an objective portion: the transformation of an intended function into its corresponding behavior is a subjective process, whereas the

transformation of the behavior into a physical entity or a structure based on known physical phenomena and laws is an objective task. Goel and Stroulia (1996) propose a specific type of functional model called StructureBehavior-Function (SBF) model. The essential difference between the SBF model and the FBS model is that the ``B'' in the FBS model stands for output behaviors (e.g. oscillating the clapper in a buzzer to make a sound), while the ``B'' in the SBF model stands for internal behaviors (e.g. flow of electricity, and generation and destruction of a magnetic field in a buzzer). Thus, while FBS models emphasize the representation of the output behaviors of a device, of which the device functions are a subset, SBF models emphasize the representation of the internal causal processes of the device that result in the output behaviors of the device, including its functions. Since internal behavior

[ 436 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

representation of devices enable device diagnosis (for adaptive design and redesign of physical devices), the SBF model results in more information for functional representation than a FBS model. A number of other researchers have used the SBF model structure for functional representation (Sembugamoorthy and Chandrasekaran, 1986) and for adaptive design (Navinchandra et al., 1991).

more recent computer-based functional reasoning tools, are reviewed further in the following sub-sections.

3.3.1 Miles's value engineering technique

3.3 Functional reasoning and representation tools

Functional reasoning is a design approach that supports design in the conceptual stage. The main activities supported by functional reasoning include function description, establishment of function structures, and generation and evaluation of concept alternatives. The advent of computers and the development of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have provided a renewed focus on reasoning about functions, and extended the area into diagnosis and explanation. Several of the functional models incorporating different function definitions mentioned in the previous section have been developed further into tools that designers can use for functional representation. Some of the commonly used traditional tools, and the

Figure 6 Classification of design information and process

Miles (1961) proposed Value Engineering (VE) as a technique to improve values of products or services by changing their material, design, system, etc. The technique is aimed at maximizing product function while minimizing cost. VE techniques are summarized in terms of VE job plans (see Figure 7). In value engineering, product function is represented as ``to do something,'' and product value is represented by product cost. VE is performed by comparing the value of function with respect to the costs of the product. The functions of products and services are analyzed and their value systematically improved through VE job plans (Miles, 1961). The basic steps in a VE job plan are function definition, function evaluation and alternative plan preparation. The detailed steps in defining a function include collection of data related to a VE object a VE object is any system with a function to perform. The VE object is subject to further function analysis. Function analysis helps generate function definitions and weeding out unnecessary functions. Function evaluation involves cost analysis by function and selection of object field. These are in the analysis phase of VE job plan. The steps in alternative plan preparation (or synthesis phase) are idea generation, summary evaluation, concretization, detailed evaluation, and a new proposal to improve product value. Value engineering is limited in its use for product design and manufacturing purposes, in terms of its ability to generate product structure from a given function it is only concerned with evaluation of functions, and assumes the existence of sound relationships between behavior and structure, and relationships between function and structure.

3.3.2 Function analysis system technique (FAST)

Function Analysis System Techniques, or Function Analysis, an offshoot of the value engineering technique, are methods for systematizing functions (Bytheway, 1971). Function analysis is an improvement over value engineering in that it systematizes defined multiple functions, and helps identify a basic function among multiple functions. The essential idea in function analysis is to apply several questions to individual functions in order to isolate the basic function from among other functions. For example,

[ 437 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

some of the questions for isolating higherorder functions could be (Akiyama, 1991): . What do you really want to do in performing this function? . What high-order function is the reason for performing this function? . What is the function reason for having to perform this function? These questions not only identify basic functions, but they clarify conceptual relationships among individual functions. The function analysis technique can be summarized as follows (Akiyama, 1991): 1 Definition of component functions Definition of the function of each constituent component (part or component) of the object of analysis.

Figure 7 Value engineering job plan

2 Determination of higher functions Determination of higher functions through the application of high-order function questions to each of the defined functions to form function groups. 3 Formation of families for each functional group Application of the protocol for determining the basic function to each function group to make function families. 4 Determination of the highest function Making a function group of the high-order functions in existing function groups; then finding the highest function by applying the protocol for determining the basic function. 5 Determining critical path Determining the critical path function series by asking the critical path questions. 6 Completion of FAST diagram Completion of the FAST diagram by relating the other function families to the critical function series.

3.3.3 Rodenacker's methodology for functional representation

Rodenacker (1971) proposed a functional representation methodology for novice designers. This design methodology is based on his definition of a function as discussed in section 3.1. The process begins with a designer initially determining the function of a mechanical entity from specifications provided. The next step is to divide the function into sub-functions, sub-functions into sub-sub-functions, and so on, until the level where physical behaviors perform such sub-functions. As a result, the functional structure (main and the sub-functions) of the product is clarified. The designer then looks up catalogs of mechanical elements for each divided sub-function, and chooses the most appropriate element. Finally, the designer constructs the machine from those selected elements in the reverse process of dividing the function. This means that the function structure is copied to the physical structure of the machine in the embodiment design process. Here, function plays a crucial role, because the results of the design entirely depend on the division of the function. Researchers (Umeda et al., 1990) point to several drawbacks in Rodenacker's approach. First, the word ``function'' has no clear definition. Rodenacker uses it in different degrees of abstraction; i.e. relationships between input and output of material, energy, and information to relationships between surface of mechanical parts. Second, as explained in section 3.1, the definition does not sufficiently describe a function which is not transformation between input and output, e.g. the function of a bolt and a nut, which is to join parts. Third,

[ 438 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

the mechanism for transforming a function into sub-functions is unclear and can be subjective. There is no objective method nor an algorithm to do so. Fourth, sub-functions produced with Rodenacker's methodology imply a structure of the whole that is the sum of the sub-structure correspondent to subfunctions, which is not the case in many product domains.

3.3.4 Bond graph approach

Rosenberg and Karnopp (1975) proposed an approach to functional representation using bond graphs (see Figure 8) for analyzing dynamic systems. The Bond Graph technique is used to represent a system as a composition of components, such as transformers, sources, and gyrators. Each component deals with power flow and has effort parameters (such as pressure, voltage, and force) and flow parameters (flow rate, current, and velocity, for example) at its ports. Components connect at their ports and are categorized by the number of ports. For example, a transformer is considered to be a two-port component (Umeda et al., 1990). It also lets users graphically manipulate graphs and easily construct differential equations for further analysis (Finger and Rinderle, 1989). Rosenberg and Karnopps's approach uses a bond graph to represent power flow of a dynamic system and reasons about system behavior. The approach is limited though in that it deals with the structure of a system, and reasons about its behaviors, but does not

deal with its functions (Umeda et al., 1990). This approach has two main drawbacks: 1 Since only system power flows are represented in this approach, one cannot represent the function of, for example, a bolt and a nut using the bond graph. 2 Since the represented behavior of a system should be related to its functionality, the bond graph of the system should be constructed by considering its whole function; i.e. selection of parameter to use in the bond graph and the level of description should be determined manually (Umeda et al., 1990; Finger and Rinderle, 1989).

3.3.5 Adaptive design tools

Figure 8 Simple system with corresponding bond graph

Bhatta et al. (1994) and Goel and Stroulia (1996) use the Structure-Behavior-Function model (SBF) for function representation to develop a design support tool called Kritik. This tool has a design-case memory that represents each case as an SBF model. After a designer specifies a desired function, Kritik retrieves a case that is functionally similar to a specified function and makes a modification plan of the case. The designer first retrieves past designs with behavioral specifications similar to the specifications of the behaviors of the desired device. The designer then modifies the structure of a past design to propose a candidate design for achieving the desired behaviors. Verification of the candidate design, and redesign if the candidate design fails to provide the required function, are the next steps in the process. This process is continued until a design is generated that delivers the desired behavior. An extended version of Kritik called IDEAL (Integrated Design by Analogy and Learning), supports analogical design by using both case- and model-based reasoning. Even though IDEAL is useful during the synthetic phases of design, it is limited in terms of scalability and practicality (Umeda and Tomiyama, 1997).

3.3.6 Schemebuilder

Bracewell and Sharpe (1996) propose a design platform called Schemebuilder. This tool is aimed at seamless support of functional design to detailed design, based on the bond graph formalism discussed in section 3.3.4. Schemebuilder uses the bond graph technique to represent a function. The initial step in Schemebuilder is the creation of a generalized function-means tree which is a hierarchical decomposition of the embodiment process for the required functions. A means is at least one component and, if necessary, one or more associated required functions, which possess certain required attributes

[ 439 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

(Bracewell and Sharpe, 1996). Even though Schemebuilder is a working tool that supports both synthetic and analytical design phases, it carries with it the disadvantages of the bond graph technique it cannot effectively deal with functions not represented as power flow.

3.3.7 Sturges's extended function logic

Sturges et al. (1996) use function logic, and Function Block Diagrams (FBD) (Figure 5) to represent function. A compact description of function called the basic function of the design is generated first. It is then further decomposed by design teams into secondary functions, all necessary to perform the main function. The decomposition process results in a reasoning structure relating each component to the basic function of the design (Fowlkes et al., 1972). An example for using function logic and function block diagrams is illustrated in Figure 9. The basic function of an overhead transparency projector is identified as ``to enlarge and project image.'' The basic function is achieved by directing the light, focussing the light, and illuminating the

transparency, all secondary functions. Each of these secondary functions can be further decomposed to lower level functions as shown. The computer-based tool incorporating the FBD generator for developing functional models provides help to the designer in function-related activities at the conceptual stage. This tool is currently being improved to incorporate methods for providing automatic assistance in the function allocation process, with the realization that function allocation process is highly subjective and depends on judgement of more than one person (design team member).

3.3.8 Umeda's function-behavior-state modeler

Umeda et al. (1996) provide a conceptual design support tool called the FBS modeler based on their Function-Behavior-State (FBS) modeling concept. The FBS modeler has knowledge bases for function prototypes, physical features, and physical phenomena. With these knowledge bases, the FBS modeler supports conceptual design as follows:

Figure 9 Preliminary function block diagram of an overhead projector

[ 440 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

1 The designer selects required functions from the function prototype's knowledge base. 2 Aided by decomposition knowledge of function prototypes, a designer decomposes the required function and sub-functions. 3 The designer chooses physical features that can embody each sub-function. After choosing physical features the designer might discover that some features cannot occur. In such a case, a sub-system, Qualitative Process Abduction System (QPAS), reasons out candidates for the missing physical features to satisfy the physical conditions. 4 Next, the designer connects the instantiated physical features to complete the functional hierarchy. This process constructs the behavioral-level network structure. 5 Then, a qualitative reasoning sub-system simulates behavior. As a result of the simulation, the system might discover inconsistencies between the FBS model constructed by the designer and the result obtained. The system will then indicate phenomena that will not occur even though the designer specifies it in the initial FBS module. The main deficiency of the FBS modeler is that it does not explicitly deal with the geometry and kinematics of the product which are essential concepts in mechanical design.

that most effectively meet customers' needs. Originally applied to manufacturing facilities, the QFD has now been adapted to any environment in which the demands of a customer need to be translated into the technical aspects of design (Bossert, 1991; Mears, 1995).

4. Recommendations for future work

The following conclusions emerge from the review of the published literature: 1 The majority of functionality literature deals with mechanical systems design. Mechanical systems, such as gears and shafts, form only a small portion of consumer products; since consumer products have different functional requirements than internal mechanical components (for example, a user interfaces directly with a consumer product, but only indirectly with a mechanical component inside a product), the traditional definitions of functionality, and the methods and tools used in representing function need considerable extension. The definition needs to include the notion of function and functionality in consumer product design. Issues such as usability (of the function), how safely the function is being provided, how efficiently and quickly the function can be accomplished, are necessitated due to the user involvement in consumer product design, and need due consideration at the function definition and representation stages of product design. 2 The task domains where functional representations and models are potentially applicable and useful are on the rise. The literature, however, shows that very few design support systems have been tested on real design cases, or use real designers in industrial environments; this issue needs serious consideration. Design support tools such as design checklists generated by using actual designer input and actual cases merit attention. 3 Most published works address generating concepts to satisfy a required function. There is relatively little work supporting the clarification of functionality. Evaluation, alternative formulations of the required functionality, as well as alternative design solutions, has also been, by and large, a neglected area that needs substantial research input before an overall functional reasoning support system could be developed. Again, the

3.3.9 Quality function deployment (QFD)

The QFD concept was first introduced by Yoji Akao in Japan in 1966 and brought to the United States in 1984. The first book on QFD was published in Japan by Mizuno and Akao in 1978 (Mizuno and Akao, 1994). QFD stands for quality function deployment which is one of the seven new management tools in quality control. QFD serves as a visual language providing a valuable link for translating customer requirements into necessary system design elements. The main focus of QFD is satisfying the consumer. QFD starts the problem by defining exactly what the customer is looking for, not the organizations' assumption of what the consumer wants. By defining the product at the beginning of the process and then determining how this product definition can be met most effectively by the manufacturer/provider, ensures proper product design. This enables the manufacturer/provider to concentrate on organizing management plans that improve or provide the characteristics and functions

[ 441 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

alternative design solutions have to be generated from design support tools that are developed with the help of actual designer input and actual cases. 4 Researchers, thus far, have mainly focussed on providing function, not on ensuring that function in a product. Part of the reason for this may be the varied design goals that keep emerging from time to time. For instance, the quality movement of the early 1990s highlighted quality as a major design goal: customers demanded quality products, and designers had to focus on providing a quality product providing a function in a product may have been taken for granted by designers. There are manufacturing considerations in making a product that may have a direct impact on function definition, functional representation, and the selection of a physical entity that best represents a certain function this linkage between providing a function at the design stage (through a physical entity) and ensuring the function through proper selection of manufacturing variables to ensure functionality is completely lacking in the published literature. Section 5 of this paper presents an example of a can opener showing potential linkages between functionality criteria and various manufacturing variables (the design variables are not considered in this paper to contain the scope, which otherwise would become too large). Providing function and ensuring it are perhaps the most important steps in the product development cycle. As stated earlier, products with a problem in providing the main function will never sell, no matter how sophisticated their details.

5. Product functionality: an example of can opener

5.1 Design and manufacturing variables
Ensuring product functionality is possible only by controlling the design and manufacturing variables and keeping them within an optimal range. If a relationship between functionality and design attributes and a relationship between the design of a product and its manufacturing attributes can be developed, it should be possible to enhance and ensure a product's overall functionality. Some possible design variables that may affect product function include designer experience (novice designer versus experienced designer), design tools used (the software and hardware used in design), the type of design (creative versus adaptive

redesign), design budget, and communication mechanisms for parties involved in the design (for example, over-the-wall approach versus concurrent engineering). Manufacturing variables include both material variables and manufacturing process variables. In selecting a material for a product or a component, the primary concern of engineers is to match the material properties to the functional requirements of the component. One must know what properties to consider, how these are determined, and what restrictions or limitations should be placed on the application. Some material-related variables that can affect product function significantly include the type of material, material toughness, hardness, fatigue resistance, etc. The type of material used for a component, in turn, determines the manufacturing process to use and all manufacturing process dimensions such as machinability, formability, weldability, and assemblability, to mention a few. Depending upon the specific manufacturing process (for example, metal cutting, casting, joining, surface preparation, heat treatment/surface hardening and coating used) in making a component, one or more process variables need to be controlled for component and product functionality to be optimal. These variables may include the cutting speed and feed, the depth of cut, the temperature, presence or absence of lubricants, duration of machining, the rate of cooling/heating, current density and voltage, and the type and amount of solvent/quenchant used, among other variables (some variables are outlined in Figure 10). In addition to the design and manufacturing variables, the definition of product function, in itself, needs considerable extensions. The view that product function means product performance, is limited and narrow. A product not only has to perform the intended function, but must do so safely, reliably (every time the product is used), consistently (for the life of the product), among other factors, and be user-friendly so as to enable the user to perform the function quickly, efficiently, and simply. Thus, because the physical entity to use for performing a certain function is dependent upon the definition of the function, and because we propose an extension of the definition of function to include more elements, selection of physical entities (from a catalog of existing physical entities) and development of new ones merits further attention. Designer aids that assist in choosing appropriate physical entities to satisfy extended definitions of

[ 442 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Figure 10 Potential design and manufacturing process variables

consumer product function also need to be developed.

5.2 Can opener functionalitymanufacturing linkages

The can opener has five main parts: upper handle, lower handle, blade, crank, and the drive sprocket. The upper handle is joined with the crank and drive sprocket to form a sub-assembly. The lower handle is joined to the blade to form the second sub-assembly.

Figure 11 Functional requirements design and technical requirements transformation for can opener

These two sub-assemblies are joined to form the overall assembly. The upper and lower handles are used for holding the opener and for providing the gripping force. When mounted properly on to the can and gripped with adequate pressure, the cutting edge pierces the can and the sprocket wheel holds on to the top outside rim of the can. The crank wheel is used to apply a torque that helps the blade cut the can lid and rotate the can until the lid is completely severed. The main manufacturing operations involved in the can opener are: blanking, piercing, bending, heat treatment, nickel plating, riveting, swaging and tumbling. Functionality-manufacturing linkages were obtained by using function transformation matrices (FTM) similar to quality function deployment (QFD) matrices and tables. Function transformation matrices are used as a tool for a structured approach for defining functional requirements and translating them into specific steps in order to develop the needed products. It allows functional requirements to be taken into consideration throughout all processes, beginning with the concept design activities and continuing throughout the production operations on the factory floor. Transformation matrices use a series of relationship matrices to document and analyze the relationships between various factors. While the details of the matrices vary from stage-to-stage, the basics are the same. In the conceptual design stage, functional requirements are identified and translated into design and technical requirements. Product deployment is the second stage of the transformation process. Its purpose is to translate the previously developed design and technical requirements into product specifications and features. During the process deployment stage, various product features are converted into the specific manufacturing operations. During the manufacturing deployment stage, various

[ 443 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

manufacturing processes are related to specific process and material variables that control them. Through such a stepwise transformation of product functional requirements into process and material variables, it is possible to ensure and control the functionality of a product.

Design and technical requirements deployment

The functional requirements are listed in the horizontal portion of the first stage of the FTM process (Figure 11). The functional requirements are based on our extended function definition. Here, we just demonstrate the whole processes the detailed information about the criteria of each definition is not included. The functional requirements are then translated into the language a company can use to describe its product for design, processing, and manufacture. The objective of this step is to develop a list of design and technical requirements that should be worked on to achieve the functional requirements.

Next, the relationships between the design and technical requirements and the functional requirements are established in order to identify the relative importance of various design requirements. Every functional requirement in the horizontal portion is compared with each design requirement in the vertical portion. The degree of relationship is marked at the intersection a black circle represents a strong relationship; a half black circle, a moderate relationship; and a blank circle, a weak relationship.

Product deployment

Product deployment is the second stage of the transformation process. The design and technical requirements taken from the vertical column of the previous stage were listed in rows at this stage (Figure 12). Based on the previous design experience the product features that were needed to satisfy these design and technical requirements were identified and listed in the vertical column.

Figure 12 Design and technical requirements product features transformation for can opener

[ 444 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

The relationships between product feature requirements were identified as before.

Process deployment

Process planning is the third stage of the transformation process (Figure 13). Its purpose is to determine the manufacturing processes that will actually produce the product by relating various product features to the specific manufacturing operations. The critical product features requirements identified in the previous stage are listed in the horizontal portion of the matrix. The major process elements necessary to develop the product were extracted from the process flow diagram and are shown at the top of the column section of the matrix.

Manufacturing deployment

Manufacturing planning is the culmination of the work done in the three previous stages. In this stage, the various manufacturing techniques necessary to make the product are related to process attributes that affect them (Figure 14). For example, the hardness

of the blade is affected by the rate of cooling during the heat treatment process. The rate of cooling, in turn, is controlled by the properties of the quenching liquid. Producing of burrs is another example. These are sharp edges along the shearing lines of the cut parts. Production of burrs depends on the excessive die-punch clearance during blanking and the dull cutting edges of the die. The die-punch clearance should be properly designed and worn die edges should be eliminated. Even though the manufacturing process adopted for producing the can opener is affected by numerous process variables, only those variables that affect the can opener's functionality are considered here. The manufacturing techniques are listed in the horizontal portion and the process variables are listed in the vertical portion of the FTM (Govindaraju, 1999). Through a FTM analysis, a clear progression of the relationships linking product functionality features and manufacturing variables is established. The FTM shows that the overall functionality of a

Figure 13 Product features process transformation for can opener

[ 445 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Figure 14 Process features process variables transformation for can opener

product can be enhanced by adopting the optimum range of values for the process variables. Thus, to ensure functionality those manufacturing variables that affect functionality features must be tightly controlled.

Akiyama, K. (1991), Function Analysis Systematic Improvement of Quality and Performance, Productivity Press, Inc., Cambridge, MA. Asiedu,Y. and Gu, P. (1998), ``Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review'', International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 883-908. Bakerjian, R. (1992), ``Design for manufacturability'', Tool and Manufacturing Engineering Handbook, Vol. 6, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI. Bhatta, S., Goel, A. and Prabhakar, S. (1994), ``Innovation in analogical design: a modelbased approach'', Proc. AI in Design, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 57-74. Billatos, S.B. and Nevrekar, V.V. (1994), ``Challenges and practical solutions to design for the environment'', in Mason, J. (Ed.),

References

Design for Manufacturability, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 49-64. Boothroyd, G. (1994), ``Product design for manufacture and assembly'', Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 505-20. Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P. (1983), Design for Assembly, Boothroyd & Dewhurst, Amherst, MA. Bossert, J.L. (1991), Quality Function Deployment A Practitioner's Approach, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI. Bracewell, R.H. and Sharpe, J.E.E. (1996), ``Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation schemebuilder'', AIEDAM, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 333-46. Bralla, J.G. (1996), Design for Excellence, McGrawHill, Inc., New York, NY. Brauer, R.L. (1990), Safety and Health for Engineers, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. Bytheway, C.W. (1971),``The creative aspects of FAST diagramming'', Proc. Soc. Am. Value Eng. Conf., pp. 301-12. Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L. (1996), ``Special issue: representing functionality in design'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 251-370.

[ 446 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Chakrabarti, A. and Bligh, T.P. (1994), ``An approach to functional synthesis of solutions in mechanical conceptual design. part I: introduction and knowledge representation'', Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 6, pp. 127-41. Chakrabarti, A. and Bligh, T.P. (1996), ``An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: theory, applications, and emerging research issues'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 313-31. Chu, X. and Holm, H. (1994), ``Product manufacturability control for concurrent engineering'', Computers in Industry, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 29-38. Cross, N. (1989), Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Finger, S. and Rinderle, J.R. (1989), ``A transformational approach to mechanical design using a bond graph grammar'', Design Theory and Methodology DTM '89, pp. 107-16. Fowlkes, J.K., Ruggles, W.F. and Groothuis, J.D. (1972), ``Advanced FAST diagramming'', Proc. Save Conference, Newport Beach, CA, pp. 45-52. General Electric Company (1960), Manufacturability Producibility Handbook, Manufacturing Service, Schenectady, NY. Goel, A. and Stroulia, E. (1996), ``Functional device models and model-based diagnosis in adaptive design'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 355-70. Govindaraju, M. (1999), Development of Generic Design Guidelines to Manufacture Usable Consumer Products, PhD Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH. Green, C. (1956), Eli Whitney and the Birth of American Technology, Little Brown, Boston, MA. Gupta, S.K. and Nau, D.S. (1995), ``Systematic approach to analysing the manufacturability of machined parts'', Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 323-42. Gupta, S.K., Regli, W.C., Das, D. and Nau, D.S. (1997), ``Automated manufacturability analysis: a survey'', Research in Engineering Design-Theory Applications & Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 168-90. Hammer, W. (1980), Product Safety Management and Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hermann, F. (1994), ``Environment considerations for product design for the German market'', in Mason, J. (Ed.), Design for Manufacturability, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 35-48. Huang, G.Q. (1996), Design for X- Concurrent Engineering Imperatives, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Huang, G.Q. and Mak, K.L. (1998), ``Reengineering the product development process with design for X'', Proceeding of the Institution of Mechanical Engineering Part B

Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 212 No. B4, pp. 259-68. Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (1992), Design Science, Springer, New York, NY. Hundal, M.S. (1994), ``DFE: Current status and challenges for the future'', in Mason, J. (Ed.), Design for Manufacturability, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 89-98. Jansson, D.G., Shankar, S.R. and Polisetty, F.S.K. (1990), ``Generalized measures of manufacturability'', in Rinderle, J.R. (Ed.), Design Theory and Methodology DTM '90, pp. 85-96. Kusiak, A. and He, D.W. (1997), ``Design for agile assembly: an operational perspective'', Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 157-78. Lacey, R. (1986), Ford: The Man and the Machine, Little Brown, Boston, MA. Mears, P. (1995), Quality Improvement Tools and Techniques, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Miles, L.D. (1961), Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Mital, A. and Anand, S. (1992), ``Concurrent design of products and ergonomic considerations'', Journal of Design and Manufacturing, Vol. 2, pp. 167-83. Miyakawa, S. and Ohashi, T. (1986), ``The Hitachi assemblability evaluation method (AEM)'', Proc. Int. Conf. Product Design for Assembly, Newport, RI. Miyakawa, S., Ohashi, T. and Iwata, M. (1990), ``The Hitachi new assemblability evaluation method (AEM)'', Trans. of the North American Manufacturing Research Institution of SME, pp. 23-5. Mizuno, S. and Akao, Y. (1994), The CustomerDriven Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo. Navinchandra, D., Sycara, K. and Narasimhan, S. (1991), ``Behavior synthesis in CADET, a casebased design tool'', Proc. Seventh IEEE Conf. Artif. Intell. Applications, pp. 217-21. Nevins, J.L. and Whitney, D.E. (1989), Concurrent Design of Products & Process A Strategy for the Next Generation in Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, NY. Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. Nof, S.Y., Wilhelm, W.E. and Warnecke, H. (1997), Industrial Assembly, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1988), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Peien, F. and Mingjun, Z. (1993), ``The research on development of catalogues for conceptual design'', Proc. 3rd Nat. Conf. Eng. Design, Industrial Press, Beijing, China, pp. 101-4. Peien, F., Guorong, X. and Mingjun, Z. (1996), ``Feature modeling based on design catalogues for principle conceptual design'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,

[ 447 ]

Wen-Chuan Chiang, Arunkumar Pennathur and Anil Mital Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functionality: a literature review of current function definitions and design support tools Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12/6 [2001] 430448

Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 347-54. Priest, J.W. (1990), ``State of the art review of measurement procedures in product design for manufacturing'', Manufacturing Proceedings of Manufacturing International '90, 5, Atlanta, GA, 3-8, pp. 25-8. Qian, L. and Gero, J.S. (1996), ``Function-behaviorstructure paths and their role in analogybased design'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 289-312. Rodenacker, W. (1971), Methodisches Konstruieren, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Rosenberg, R. and Karnopp, D. (1975), Introduction to Physical System Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Runciman, C. and Swift, K. (1985), Assembly Automation, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 17-50. Sanchez, J.M., Priest, J.W. and Soto, R. (1997), ``Intelligent reasoning assistant for incorporating manufacturability issues into the design process'', Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 81-8. Sembugamoorthy, V. and Chandrasekaran, B. (1986), ``Functional representation of devices and compilation of diagnostic problemsolving systems'', in Kolodner, J. and Riesbeck, C.K. (Eds), Experience, Memory, and Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 47-53. Sturges, R.H., O'Shaughnessy, K. and Kilani, M. (1990), ``Representation of aircraft design data for supportability, operability, and producibility evaluations'', EDRC Report No. 14513, Carnegie Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center, Pittsburgh, PA. Sturges, R.H., O'Shaughnessy, K. and Kilani, M. (1996), ``Computational model for conceptual design based on extended function logic'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,

Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 255-74. Taguchi, G., Elayed, E.A. and Hsiang, T. (1989), Quality Engineering in Production Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Taylor, G.D. (1997), ``Design for global manufacturing and assembly'', IIE Transactions (Institute of Industrial Engineers), Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 585-97. Ullman, D.G. (1997), The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Umeda, Y. and Tomiyama, T. (1997), ``Functional reasoning in design'', IEEE Expert, pp. 42-8. Umeda Y., Ishll, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y. and Tomiyama, T. (1996), ``Supporting conceptual design based on the functionbehavior-state modeler'', Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 275-88. Umeda Y., Taketa, H., Tomiyama, T. and Yoshikawa, H. (1990), ``Function, behavior, and structure'', in Gero, J.S. (Ed.), Application of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering V (Design), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, Vol. 1, Boston, MA. Van Hemel, C.G. and Keldmann, K. (1996), ``Applying DFX experience in design for environment'', in Huang, G.Q. (Eds), Design for X- Concurrent Engineering Imperatives, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Wall Street Journal (1999), April 26 and 27. Welch, R.V. and Dixon, J.R. (1992), ``Representing function, behavior and structure during conceptual design'', Design Theory and Methodology, DE-Vol. 42, ASME, New York, NY. Welch R.V. and Dixon, J.R. (1994), ``Guiding conceptual design through behavior reasoning'', Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 6, pp. 169-88. Ziemke, M.C. and Spann, M.S. (1993), ``Concurrent engineering's roots in the World War II era'', Concurrent Engineering: Contemporary Issues and Modern Design Tools, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, pp. 24-41.

[ 448 ]