Advertisement

Models in Engineering Design: Generative and Epistemic Function of Product Models

  • Claudia Eckert
  • Rafaela Hillerbrand
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

Engineers interact with their products and processes largely through models, however rarely reflect about the nature of these models and how technical possibilities and actions are affected by the models’ properties and characteristics. Models in engineering describe the product as well as its generating process, but at the same time also shape and create them. This clearly distinguishes them from scientific models that primarily aim to describe a certain target system. While over the last decade, there has been a growing body of literature on models in the sciences, much less research has been done on models in engineering design. In this chapter we aim to fill this gap by taking a closer look at models in engineering design from an epistemic point of view. In particular we suggest a classification of different types of models used in engineering design and compare them to models used in scientific research. Thereby we do not aim at an encompassing map of models in engineering practice, but we aim to identify key categories of models with regards to their relationship to their targets. We contend that the functions of models in engineering design cannot be fully captured when focusing on the representative aspects of models alone as done in contemporary philosophy of science.

Keywords

Models Models in science Engineering design Representation 

References

  1. Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Browning, T. R., & Ramasesh, R. V. (2007). A survey of activity network-based process models for managing product development projects. Production and Operations Management, 16, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. MIT press.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chakravartty, A. (2010). Informational versus functional theories of scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes, 4.Google Scholar
  8. Eckert, C. (2013). That which is not form: The practical challenges in using functional concepts in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(03), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckert, C., Clarkson, P. J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design, 15(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckert, C. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2010). Planning development processes for complex products. Research in Engineering Design, 21(3), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckert, C. M., Stacey, M., & Earl, C. (2005). References to past designs. Studying designers, 5(2005), 3–21.Google Scholar
  12. Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. K. (2010). What is a process model? Reflections on the epistemology of design process models. In Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes (pp. 3–14). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eger, T., Eckert, C., Clarkson, P. J. (2005). The role of design freeze in product development. In DS 35: Proceedings ICED 05, the 15th International conference on engineering design, Melbourne, Australia, 15.-18.08. 2005.Google Scholar
  14. Eppinger, S. D., Ulrich, K. T. (1995). Product design and development. 1995.Google Scholar
  15. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson, E. S. (1994). Engineering and the Mind's eye. MIT press.Google Scholar
  17. French, M. J. (1999). Conceptual design for engineers. Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Frigg, R. (2010). Fiction in science. In J. Woods (Ed.), Fictions and models: New essays (pp. 247–287). Munich: Philosophia.Google Scholar
  19. Frigg, R. and Hartmann, S., 2012 “Models in science”, The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/
  20. Galle, P. (1999). Design as intentional action: A conceptual analysis. Design Studies, 20(1), 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies, 25, 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grauer, R., Marliani, C., & Germaschewski, K. (1998). Adaptive mesh refinement for singular solutions of the incompressible Euler equations. Physical Review Letters, 80(19), 4177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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(01), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartmann, S. (1996). The world as a process. In: R. Hegselmann u. a. (eds.): Modelling and simulation in the social sciences from the philosophy of science point of view (pp. 77–100), Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Hesse, M. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  27. Hillerbrand, R. (2012). Order out of chaos? A case study in High Energy Physics. Studia Philosophica Estonica, 5(2), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillerbrand, R. (2015). Explanation via micro-reduction: On the role of scale separation for quantitative modelling. In B. Falkenburg & M. Morrison (Eds.), Why more is different – philosophical issues in condensed matter physics and complex systems (pp. 69–87). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hughes, R. I. G. (1999). The sing model, computer simulations and universal physics. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 97–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphreys, P. (1991). “Computer simulations”, In: A. Fine, M. Forbes & L. Wessels (eds.), PSA 1990, Vorl. 2, 497–506, East Lansing.Google Scholar
  32. Klein, E. E., & Herskovitz, P. J. (2005). Philosophical foundations of computer simulation validation. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Küppers, G., & Lenhard, J. (2005). Validation of simulation: Patterns in the social and natural sciences. Journal of artificial societies and social simulation, 8(4).Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press.Google Scholar
  36. Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, M. S., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 38–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison, M. (2009). Models, measurement and computer simulation: The changing face of experimentation? Philos. Stud, 143, 33–57.Google Scholar
  40. Pahl, G., Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: A systematic approach (edited by Ken Wallace and translated by Ken Wallace, Lucienne Blessing, and Frank Bauert).Google Scholar
  41. Parker, W. S. (2009). Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments, and materiality. Synthese, 169(3), 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pidd, M. (1999). Just modeling through: A rough guide to modeling. Interfaces, 29(2), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poznic, M. (2016). Modeling organs with organs on chips: Scientific representation and engineering design as modeling relations. Philosophy and Technology, 29(4), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sargent, R. G. (2005, December). Verification and validation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation .Winter simulation conference. pp. 130–143.Google Scholar
  45. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  47. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(2), 153–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and planning B, 7(3), 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suárez, M. (1999). Theories, models, and representations. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery springer US (pp. 75–83).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Suppes, P. (1961). A comparison of the meaning and use of models in mathematical and empirical sciences. In H. Freudenthal (Ed.), The concept ad role of the models in mathematics and natural and social sciences (pp. 163–177). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suppes, P. (1962). Models of data. In E Nagel, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (eds.): Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceeding of the 1960 International Congress. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press, pp 252–261.Google Scholar
  54. Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeller. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 10, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tahera, K., Earl, C., & Claudia, E. (2014). Integrating virtual and physical testing to accelerate the engineering product development process. International Journal of Information Technology and Management 9, 13(2–3), 154–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tolk, A., Turnitsa, C. (2012, December). Conceptual modeling with processes. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)(pp. 1–13). IEEE.Google Scholar
  57. Tolk, A. (2012). Truth, trust, and Turing – Implications for Modeling and simulation. In A. Tolk (Ed.), Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for Modeling and simulation (pp. 1–26). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  58. Vermaas, P. E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: Four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(03), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing (p. 264). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Weisberg, M. (2013). Simulation and similarity. Using models to understand the world. New York: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wynn, D. C. (2007). Model-based approaches to support process improvement in complex product development (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).Google Scholar
  62. Wynn, D., & Clarkson, J. (2005). Models of designing. In Design process improvement (pp. 34–59). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wynn, D. C., & Eckert, C. M. (2017). Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Research in Engineering Design, 28(2), 153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering and InnovationThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Philosophy of Science, Engineering and TechnologyInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) (ITAS) & Institute for PhilosophyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations