TY - GEN
T1 - Understanding abstraction in design
T2 - ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE 2013
AU - Booth, Joran W.
AU - Reid, Tahira
AU - Ramani, Karthik
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - In design classes, functional analysis is a process that is typically used to assist students with identifying essential functions to aid in the development of their concepts. However, it has been observed that students sometimes struggle with this part of the design process. In this study, a group of 26 students were studied in a 3-level within-subject study (n=78) to determine which of three common functional analysis approaches (i.e. top-down, energy-flow, and unstructured) was most effective. Participants were asked to dissect a hair dryer, power drill, and NERF pistol and generate function trees describing how these work. Measures of effectiveness include the number of functions generated, the number of errors, the number of levels of abstraction represented in the tree, and the number of unique subsystems and functions identified. No statistical difference between the approaches was found, and there was also no practical difference between the approaches. These results suggest that for novice engineers, there is no difference between methods used. This possibly indicates that for novice engineers, formal methods may not be any more effective than an unstructured approach.
AB - In design classes, functional analysis is a process that is typically used to assist students with identifying essential functions to aid in the development of their concepts. However, it has been observed that students sometimes struggle with this part of the design process. In this study, a group of 26 students were studied in a 3-level within-subject study (n=78) to determine which of three common functional analysis approaches (i.e. top-down, energy-flow, and unstructured) was most effective. Participants were asked to dissect a hair dryer, power drill, and NERF pistol and generate function trees describing how these work. Measures of effectiveness include the number of functions generated, the number of errors, the number of levels of abstraction represented in the tree, and the number of unique subsystems and functions identified. No statistical difference between the approaches was found, and there was also no practical difference between the approaches. These results suggest that for novice engineers, there is no difference between methods used. This possibly indicates that for novice engineers, formal methods may not be any more effective than an unstructured approach.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896997723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896997723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1115/DETC2013-13130
DO - 10.1115/DETC2013-13130
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84896997723
SN - 9780791855928
T3 - Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference
BT - 25th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; ASME 2013 Power Transmission and Gearing Conference
PB - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Y2 - 4 August 2013 through 7 August 2013
ER -