Abstract
In this paper, we describe the conceptual elusiveness of the notion of function as used in engineering practice. We argue that it should be accepted as an ambiguous notion, and then review philosophical argumentations in which engineering functions occur in order to identify the consequences of this ambiguity. Function is a key notion in engineering, yet is used by engineers systematically in a variety of meanings. First, we demonstrate that this ambiguous use is rational for engineers by considering the role of functions in design methods and by analysing the ambiguity in terms of Kuhn’s notion of methodological incommensurability. Second, we discuss ontological and mereological analyses of engineering functions and describe a proof that subfunctions cannot formally be taken as parts of the functions they decompose. Engineering functions figure sometimes in philosophical work and are then typically taken as having an unambiguous, well-defined meaning. Finally, we therefore revisit work in philosophy of technology on the dual nature of technical artefacts, in philosophy of science on functional and mechanistic explanations, and in philosophy of biology on biological functions, and explore the consequences of the fact that engineering function is an ambiguous notion. It is argued that one of these consequences may be that also the notion of biological function has an ambiguous meaning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Authors who endorse effect functions typically introduce the concept of behaviour as well, and through descriptions of the behaviour of technical artefacts the physical conservation laws are met.
Van Eck (2011a).
See Houkes and Vermaas (2010, chapter 3) for a reasonably complete overview of philosophical analyses of functions in engineering.
Surely, the constraint that all structures are compatible with one another (and, hence, that all functions can be realised) is crucial in all design methods. Methods differ, however, by the phase in which it is checked for. In the methods considered (e.g., Chakrabarti and Bligh 2001), this constraint is checked when a functional decomposition is made, making it rational to use behaviour functional decompositions; in other methods, the check is made in later design phases (e.g., Deng et al. 2000; Deng 2002).
Masolo et al. (2003).
This is an exclusive or.
Vermaas (2012) contains also more realistic cases at odds with mereology.
In the literature on biological functions, authors typically speak about the domain of technology rather than about engineering; in this last subsection we continue referring to engineering functions.
References
Andreasen, M. M. (2009). Complexity of industrial practice and design research contributions: we need consolidation. In H. Meerkamm (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20. Symposium Design for X, Neukirchen, 24.09.2009 (pp. 1–9).
Arp, R., & Smith, B. (2008). Function, role, and disposition in basic formal ontology. In Proceedings of Bio-Ontologies Workshop (ISMB 2008), Toronto (pp. 45–48). Available from Nature Precedings at: http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2008.1941.1.
Bell, J., Snooke, N., & Price, C. (2007). A language for functional interpretation of model based simulation. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21, 398–409.
Birkhofer, H. (2006). The consolidation of design science: A critical review of the status and some proposals to improve it. In S. Hosnedl & V. Vanek (Eds.) Proceedings of the AEDS 2006 Workshop, Pilsen (pp. 13–22).
Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM: a design research methodology. London: Springer.
Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P. E. (2009). A formal ontological perspective on the behaviors and functions of technical artefacts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 23, 3–21.
Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P. E. (2011). A formalization of functions as operations on flows. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 11, 031007.
Brown, D. C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. In Proc IDETC/CIE (paper no. DECT2005-8501). ASME.
Burek, P., Herre, H., & Loebe, F. (2009). Ontological analysis of functional decomposition. In H. Fujita & V. Mařírk (Eds.), New trends in software methodologies, tools and techniques: proceedings of the eighth SoMeT_09 (pp. 428–439). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P. E. (2011). If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: assessing three formalization strategies. Applied Ontology, 6, 141–163.
Chakrabarti, A. (1998). Supporting two views of function in mechanical designs. In Proceedings 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’98, July 26–30, 1998, Madison, WI: USA.
Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Towards a taxonomy of design research areas. In H. Birkhofer (Ed.), The future of design methodology (pp. 249–259). London: Springer.
Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. (1996). Special issue: representing functionality in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 10, 251–253.
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T. P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies, 22, 493–517.
Chandrasekaran, B. (2005). Representing function: relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 19, 65–74.
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J. R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers, 16, 162–177.
Chittaro, L., & Kumar, A. N. (1998). Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 12, 331–336.
Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53–74.
Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2005). Mechanisms and mechanistic explanation. In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The philosophy of science: an encyclopedia (pp. 469–478). New York: Routledge.
Cuevas-Badallo, A., & Vermaas, P. E. (2011). A functional abc for biotechnology and the dissemination of its progeny. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 261–269.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.
De Ridder, J. (2006). Mechanistic artefact explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 81–96.
Deng, Y. M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 16, 343–362.
Deng, Y. M., Tor, S. B., & Britton, G. A. (2000). A dual-stage functional modelling framework with multi-level design knowledge for conceptual mechanical design. Journal of Engineering Design, 11(4), 347–375.
Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Montgomery: Bradford.
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1990). The interpretation of texts, people and other artefacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50S, 177–194.
Erden, M. S., Komoto, H., Van Beek, T. J., D’Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modelling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 22, 147–169.
Far, B. H., & Elamy, A. H. (2005). Functional reasoning theories: problems and perspectives. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 19, 75–88.
Garbacz, P., Borgo, S., Carrara, M., & Vermaas, P. E. (2011). Two ontology-driven formalisations of functions and their comparison. Journal of Engineering Design, 22, 733–764.
Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.
Glennan, S. (2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 375–388.
Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 23, 23–35.
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: on the use and design of artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hughes, J. (2009). An artefact is to use: an introduction to instrumental functions. Synthese, 168, 179–199.
Johansson, I. (2004). On the transitivity of the parthood relations. In H. Hochberg & K. Mulligan (Eds.), Relations and predicates (pp. 161–181). Frankfurt: Ontos.
Kandel, E., Schwartz, J., & Jessell, T. (1991). Principles of neural science. New York: Elsevier.
Keet, C. M., & Artale, A. (2008). Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole relations. Applied Ontology, 3, 91–110.
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2003). Ontology-based description of functional design knowledge and its use in a functional way server. Expert Systems with Applications, 24, 153–166.
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(4), 327–351.
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). Some ontological distinctions of function based on the role concept. In Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), August 30—September 2, 2009, San Diego, California, USA (paper no. DETC2009-87168). ASME.
Kitamura, Y., Sano, T., Namba, K., & Mizoguchi, R. (2002). A functional concept ontology and its application to automatic identification of functional structures. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 16(2), 145–163.
Kitamura, Y., Kashiwase, M., Fuse, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Deployment of an ontological framework of functional design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18, 115–127.
Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). An ontological model of device function: Industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology, 1, 237–262.
Kitamura, Y., Takafuji, S., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards a reference ontology for functional knowledge interoperability. Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), September 4–7, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (paper no. DETC2007-35373). ASME.
Kroes, P. A. (2012). Technical artefacts: creations of mind and matter—a philosophy of engineering design. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. W. M. (2002). The dual nature of technical artifacts: presentation of a new research program. Techné, 6(2), 4–8.
Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. W. M. (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 1–4.
Krohs, U. (2009). Functions as based on a concept of general design. Synthese, 166, 69–89.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewens, T. (2004). Organisms and artifacts: design in nature and elsewhere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 8, 259–283.
Longy, F. (2012). Artifacts and organisms: a case for a new etiological theory of function. In P. Huneman (Ed.), Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer: Dordrecht.
Machamer, P. K., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 57, 1–25.
Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Oltramari, A. (2003). Wonderweb deliverabled18. Accessed at http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/D18.pdf
McKay Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2010). Function and organization: comparing the mechanisms of protein synthesis and natural selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41, 279–291.
McKay Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 119–135.
McMullin, E. (1996). Epistemic virtue and theory appraisal. In I. Douven & L. Horsten (Eds.), Realism in the sciences (pp. 13–34). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories: new foundations for realism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Millikan, R. G. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ookubo, M., Koji, Y., Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards interoperability between functional taxonomies using an ontology-based mapping. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 07), August 28–31, 2007, Paris, France.
Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: a systematic approach. Berlin: Springer.
Perlman, M. (2004). The modern philosophical resurrection of teleology. The Monist, 87, 3–51.
Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of functions. Journal of Philosophy, 95, 215–254.
Price, C. J. (1998). Function-directed electrical design analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 12(4), 445–456.
Rosenman, M. A., & Gero, J. S. (1999). Purpose and function in a collaborative CAD environment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 64, 167–179.
Sankey, H. (1995). The problem of rational theory-choice. Epistemologia, 18(2), 299–312.
Sankey, H. (2002). Methodological pluralism, normative naturalism and the realist aim of science. In R. Nola & H. Sankey (Eds.), After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend: recent issues in scientific method (pp. 211–229). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Simons, P. (1987). Parts: a study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.
Sperber, D. (2007). Seedles grapes: nature and culture. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 124–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). SAPPhIRE: an approach to analysis and synthesis. In eProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stanford, California, USA, August 24–27, 2009 (pp. 2.417–2.428). Design Society.
Stone, R. B., & Wood, K. L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 359–370.
Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., & Kayyalethekkel, V. (2004). A product architecture-based conceptual DFA technique. Design Studies, 25, 301–325.
Thomasson, A. L. (2003). Realism and human kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 580–609.
Thomasson, A. L. (2007). Artifacts and human concepts. In S. Laurence & E. Margolis (Eds.), Creations of the mind: essays on artifacts and their representations (pp. 52–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state–modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 10, 275–288.
Van Eck, D. (2009). On relating functional modeling approaches: abstracting functional models from behavioral models. In eProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stanford, California, USA, August 24–27, 2009 (pp. 2.89–2.100). Design Society.
Van Eck, D. (2010). On the conversion of functional models: bridging differences between functional taxonomies in the modeling of user actions. Research in Engineering Design, 21(2), 99–111.
Van Eck, D. (2011a). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(11–12), 839–858.
Van Eck, D. (2011b). Incommensurability and rationality in engineering design: the case of functional decomposition. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 15(2), 118–136.
Van Eck, D. (2012). Mechanistic explanation across the sciences: lessons from engineering functional decomposition. University of Amsterdam manuscript.
Varzi, A. (2010). Mereology. In Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/. Last accessed 25 October 2010.
Vermaas, P. E. (2009). The flexible meaning of function in engineering. In eProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stanford, California, USA, August 24–27, 2009 (pp. 2.113–2.124). Design Society.
Vermaas, P. E. (2012). On the formal impossibility of analysing subfunctions as parts of functions in design methodology. Research in Engineering Design (prepublished online).
Vermaas, P. E. (2013). On the co-existence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(3) (forthcoming).
Vermaas, P. E., & Garbacz, P. (2009). Functional decomposition and mereology in engineering. In A. W. M. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 235–271). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Vermaas, P. E., & Houkes, W. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: a challenge to etiological accounts of functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 261–289.
Vermaas, P. E., Carrara, M., Borgo, S., & Garbacz, P. (2012). The design stance and its artefacts, Synthese
Wouters, A. G. (2003). Four notions of biological function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Science, 34, 633–668.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vermaas, P.E., van Eck, D. & Kroes, P. The Conceptual Elusiveness of Engineering Functions:. Philos. Technol. 26, 159–185 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-012-0096-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-012-0096-1