3. Major-component design - division of project into wing design,
fuselage design, landing-gear design, electrical-system design, etc.
4. Subdivision of areas of component design from level 3 according to
engineering discipline required (e.g., aerodynamic wing design,
structural wing design, mechanical wing design).
5. Further division of categories in level 4 into highly specific
problems (e.g., aerodynamic wing design into problems of
platform, airfoil section, and high-life devices. (Vincenti 1990, p.9)
The process Vincenti outlines appears simple enough. One defines the problem,breaks it into components, and subdivides the areas by problem and specialty required, as needed. What is not obvious at first glance is the way in which the levels interact. Upon further reflection, one can see that what happens at level three will have ramifications for the overall design and visa versa, but recognizing this requires some work. In short, any design project must allow for a good deal of give and take throughout the process. In this respect, if one focuses only on the give and take, the design process sounds reminiscent of the scientific process. But there is a more and it clearly marks out a crucial difference between the process of scientific inquiry and engineering design. As Vincenti says it, "Such successive division resolves the airplane problem into smaller manageable subproblems, each of which can be attacked in semi- isolation. The complete design process then goes on iteratively, up and down and horizontally through the hierarchy." (Vincenti 1990, p.9, emphasis added) If – by way of example – we apply this way of thinking to an architectural problem, we can easily determine what kind of a building to design (level 1), e.g., specific or multi-purpose, as opposed to the kinds of bathroom fixtures to have (level 4),although the one will ultimately bear on the other.
At this point we can pause and take stock of this comparison of scientific and engineering knowledge. First, the characterization of scientific knowledge as theory-bound and aiming at explanation appears to be in sharp contrast to theAt this point we can pause and take stock of this comparison of scientific and engineering knowledge. First, the characterization of scientific knowledge as theory-bound and aiming at explanation appears to be in sharp contrast to the
There is a second important difference between the two forms of knowledge thai is revealed by Vincenti's account of engineering knowledge. With engineering cast as a problem-solving activity (not in itself a characteristic which distinguishes it from other activities such as biology or even philosophy), the manner in which engineers solve their problems does have a distinctive aspect. The solution to specific kinds of problems ends up catalogued and recorded in the form of reference works which can be employed across engineering areas. For example, measuring material stress has been systematized to a great extent. Depending on the material, how to do it can be found in an appropriate book. This gives rise to the idea that much engineering is "cookbook engineering," but what is forgotten in this caricature is that another part of the necessary knowledge is knowing what book to look for. This a unique form of knowledge that engineers bring to problem solving. But there is more: We read the phrase cookbook engineering usually in a derogatory way. But what is wrong with it? If the knowledge in the book represents information we can use in a variety of circumstances, nay, in circumstances wherever certain contingencies hold – then isn’t this knowledge that comes close to being universal, certain and, must we say it? – true? Could it be said that those who refer to engineering knowledge as stored in books as cookbook knowledge are employing a bit of rhetoric, in order to hide the inadequacies of scientific knowledge? 机械设计制造及其自动化英文参考文献和翻译(5):http://www.751com.cn/fanyi/lunwen_366.html