Skip to main content
Log in

The Conceptual Elusiveness of Engineering Functions:

A Philosophical Analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. E.g., Chakrabarti and Blessing (1996), Chittaro and Kumar (1998), Chandrasekaran (2005), Far and Elamy (2005), Erden et al. (2008), Van Eck (2009), Chakrabarti (2011) and Vermaas (2013).

  2. E.g., Chakrabarti (1998), Chandrasekaran and Josephson (2000), Deng (2002) and Srinivasan and Chakrabarti (2009).

  3. Vermaas (2009, 2013).

  4. 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.

  5. Van Eck (2011a).

  6. See Houkes and Vermaas (2010, chapter 3) for a reasonably complete overview of philosophical analyses of functions in engineering.

  7. E.g., Birkhofer (2006), Andreasen (2009) and Blessing and Chakrabarti (2009).

  8. E.g., Rosenman and Gero (1999), Chandrasekaran and Josephson (2000), Deng (2002), Kitamura et al. (2007) and Kitamura and Mizoguchi (2009).

  9. 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).

  10. Kitamura et al. (2002, 2004) and Kitamura and Mizoguchi (2003, 2004).

  11. Borgo et al. (2009, 2011) and Garbacz et al. (2011).

  12. Masolo et al. (2003).

  13. Kitamura and Mizoguchi (2004, 2009), Kitamura et al. (2005, 2007) and Ookubo et al. (2007).

  14. See Van Eck (2010, 2011a) for a critical analysis of this translation of behaviour functional decompositions.

  15. This is an exclusive or.

  16. Vermaas (2012) contains also more realistic cases at odds with mereology.

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. (1996). Special issue: representing functionality in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 10, 251–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T. P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies, 22, 493–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, B. (2005). Representing function: relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 19, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J. R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers, 16, 162–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittaro, L., & Kumar, A. N. (1998). Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 12, 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Ridder, J. (2006). Mechanistic artefact explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y. M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 16, 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Montgomery: Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1990). The interpretation of texts, people and other artefacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50S, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Far, B. H., & Elamy, A. H. (2005). Functional reasoning theories: problems and perspectives. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 19, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennan, S. (2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: on the use and design of artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. (2009). An artefact is to use: an introduction to instrumental functions. Synthese, 168, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, I. (2004). On the transitivity of the parthood relations. In H. Hochberg & K. Mulligan (Eds.), Relations and predicates (pp. 161–181). Frankfurt: Ontos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E., Schwartz, J., & Jessell, T. (1991). Principles of neural science. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keet, C. M., & Artale, A. (2008). Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole relations. Applied Ontology, 3, 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(4), 327–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y., Kashiwase, M., Fuse, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Deployment of an ontological framework of functional design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). An ontological model of device function: Industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology, 1, 237–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. W. M. (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohs, U. (2009). Functions as based on a concept of general design. Synthese, 166, 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewens, T. (2004). Organisms and artifacts: design in nature and elsewhere. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 8, 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P. K., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 57, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories: new foundations for realism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: a systematic approach. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, M. (2004). The modern philosophical resurrection of teleology. The Monist, 87, 3–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of functions. Journal of Philosophy, 95, 215–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. J. (1998). Function-directed electrical design analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 12(4), 445–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenman, M. A., & Gero, J. S. (1999). Purpose and function in a collaborative CAD environment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 64, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankey, H. (1995). The problem of rational theory-choice. Epistemologia, 18(2), 299–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, P. (1987). Parts: a study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., & Kayyalethekkel, V. (2004). A product architecture-based conceptual DFA technique. Design Studies, 25, 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomasson, A. L. (2003). Realism and human kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 580–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, D. (2011a). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(11–12), 839–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pieter E. Vermaas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-012-0096-1

Keywords

Navigation