The Given-Find-Solution (GFS) method is a widely used procedure to systematically understand “what the problem is” in engineering problems. Nevertheless, the GFS method does not provide a clear guide on how to handle uncertainty, feasibility, and preference for design problems. Addressing this issue is crucial since the designer usually requires making assumptions to be able to propose functional solutions. The Given-Find-In Order To-Subjected To (GFIS) method and roadmap are here proposed to systematically state a design problem and requirements using fuzzy desirability functions to handle uncertainty, feasibility, and preference. The GFIS method lists the parameters, variables, specifications, restrictions, and preferences to facilitate the decision-making process. A comparative study was conducted with undergraduate students from Tecnológico de Monterrey enrolled in the course Design Methodologies. The students solved a band brake design problem before and after applying the GFIS method, and their performance was compared. The results showed a significant improvement in their decision-making ability, their capability to find feasible solutions, and the time required to make a design proposal.
CrossN. Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: EastmanCMcCrackenMNewstetterW (eds) Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. 1st ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2001, pp.79–103.
2.
SobekDII. Understanding the importance of intermediate representations in engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2001 American Society of Engineering Education annual conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 24–27 June 2001. New Mexico: ASEE, pp.6.1083.1–6.1083.8.
3.
WaldronMWaldronK. The influence of the designer’s expertise on the design process. In: WaldronMWaldronK (eds) Mechanical design: Theory and methodology. 1st ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp.5–20.
4.
JainVSobekDII. Linking design process to customer satisfaction through virtual design of experiments. Res Eng Des2006; 17: 59–71.
5.
AtmanCAdamsRCardellaM, et al.Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. J Eng Educ2007; 96: 359–379.
6.
SeiregA. Mechanical systems analysis. USA: International Textbook Company, 1969.
7.
Hernández-LunaASeiregA. Optimal design of vibration absorber using CAD/CAE and response surface methodology. Master’s Research Project, ME Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison,1981.
8.
SobekDIICundyVBriggemanV. Assessing the given-find-solution method in an undergraduate thermodynamics course. Int J Mech Eng Educ2004; 32: 183–196.
9.
MorphewJSilvaMHermanG,et al.Frequent mastery testing with second-chance exams leads to enhanced student learning in undergraduate engineering. Appl Cogn Psychol2020; 34: 168–181.
10.
DartnallWReizesJ. Molecular dynamic computer simulation models for teaching thermodynamic principles. In: Proceedings of the international mechanical engineering conference and exposition MECE2011, Denver, Colorado, 11–17 November 2011. ASME, pp.259–268.
11.
AlenskisB. Solving problem-solving problems: solution step discipline. In: Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual conference & exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, 20–23 June 2004. ASEE, pp.9.1110.1–9.1110.11.
LauxCWaltonAVan EppsA, et al.Gateway experiences to engineering technology: Development of an introductory course. J STEM Teacher Educ2011; 50: 91–103.
14.
BagdatliBMavrisD. Use of high-level architecture discrete event simulation in a system of systems design. In: 2012 IEEE aerospace conference, Big Sky, MT, 2012.
15.
LuckRHodgeB. A multicourse effort for instilling systematic engineering problem solving skills through the use of a mathematic computer aided environment. In: 2009 ASEE southeast section conference, Austin, Texas, 14–17 June 2009. ASEE pp.14.65.1–14.65.25.
16.
MunsonBOkiishiTHuebschW,et al.Fundamentals of fluid mechanics. 7th ed. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2012, pp. 5–6.
17.
Fernández-CaballeroJSobekDIIHernández-LunaA. Trade-off curve approach to unit load decisions. In: CromartyLShirwaikerRWangP (eds) Proceedings of the 2020 industrial and systems engineering annual conference. 1–3 November 2020. IISE, pp.1205–1210.
18.
Fernández-CaballeroJHernández-LunaARamírez-MendozaR. A roadmap with integrated methods and tools to enable set-based design. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering international congress, 5–8 June 2022. CSME.
19.
CiccarelliMPapettiACappelletiF, et al.Combining world class manufacturing system and industry 4.0 technologies to design ergonomic manufacturing equipment. Int J Interact Des Manuf2022; 16: 263–279.
20.
MadridJAnderssonPSöderbergR, et al.Automated and interactive evaluation of welding producibility in an multidisciplinary design optimization environment for aircraft components. Int J Interact Des Manuf2022; 15: 463–479.
21.
SongXPoirsonERavautY,et al.Efficient multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm for interactive layout problems. Int J Interact Des Manuf2021; 15: 441–451.
22.
PeichengSZengweiXKefeiW, et al.Hard point parameter optimization of a wheel-hubdriven electric vehicle suspension based on a three-step screening method. Int J Interact Des Manuf2021; 15: 681–694.
23.
MartinelliIFaviCCampiF, et al.Gas turbine cost and value management in the conceptual design stage. Int J Interact Des Manuf2022; 16: 389–407.
24.
SobekDIIWardALikerJ. Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering 1999. MIT Sloan Manag Rev1999; 40: 67–83.
25.
SobekDII. A set-based model of design. Mech Eng1996; 118: 78–81.
26.
BudynasRNisbettJ. Shigley’s mechanical engineering design. 9th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education, 2010.
27.
UlrichKEppingerS. Product design and development. 5th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education, 2011.
28.
WardALikerJChristianoJ,et al.The second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars faster. MIT Sloan Manag Rev1995; 36: 43–61.
29.
WardASobekDII. Lean product and process development. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: Lean Enterprise Institute, 2014.
30.
Hernández-LunaA. A unified set-based method for parameter design of robotic actuators with high dynamic performance. PhD Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, USA, 1994.
31.
Hernández-LunaAWoodK. A set-based concurrent engineering method for parameter design. In: International symposium on artificial intelligence, Tecnológico de Monterrey, 17–21 October 1994. Intelligent Systems in Industry and Business, pp.189–198.
32.
Hernández-LunaAMoreno-GrandasDWoodK. Trade-off of fuzzy set-based design parameters. In: Proceedings of the 2010 industrial engineering research conference, Cancun, 5–9 June 2010. IISE, pp.676–683.
33.
WardASeeringW. Quantitative inference in a mechanical design “compiler”. ASME J Mech Des1993; 115: 29–35.
CollinsJBusbyHStaabG. Mechanical design of machine elements and machines: A failure prevention perspective. 2nd ed. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
46.
NealeM. The tribology handbook. 2nd ed. London, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.
47.
BuckinghamE. On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Phys Rev1914; 4: 345–376.
