Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 161–185 | Cite as

Design problem decomposition: an empirical study of small teams of facility designers

  • Erica L. GrallaEmail author
  • Jeffrey W. Herrmann
  • Michael Morency
Original Paper

Abstract

Decomposing complex design problems is an important component of design processes. When a design problem is too complex to solve all at once, the problem is decomposed into manageable subproblems. Previous work on design processes has identified some general decomposition patterns and has studied how individual designers decompose design problems; this study examines the way variables are grouped into subproblems, the process of decomposition, and whether small teams use similar decomposition patterns. Data were collected from five teams as they solved a facility design problem, and the subproblems that they considered were analyzed and compared. Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques, we examined (1) whether their subproblems group tightly coupled design variables (and separate weakly coupled variables); (2) whether their decompositions (subproblems and the sequence in which they were solved) follow a top–down design process; and (3) whether different teams used the same decompositions. Our results suggest that teams followed a partial top–down design process that moved from breadth- to depth-first search, and that subproblems were often driven by two types of coupling among design variables. However, the inconsistency of observed approaches suggests that there is room for improvement in how human designers decompose problems. By identifying these issues, the results lay a foundation for future research to provide better support for human designers in decomposing problems.

Keywords

Design teams Decomposition Facility design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Connor Tobias and Azrah Azhar Anparasan, who assisted with the data collection and analysis methods. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants CMMI-1435074 and CMMI-1435449

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

The research on human subjects described in this paper was conducted in compliance with ethical standards, with the approval of the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Maryland and the George Washington University.

References

  1. Aaby K, Herrmann JW, Jordan C, Treadwell M, Wood K (2006) Montgomery County’s Public Health Service uses operations research to plan emergency mass-dispensing and vaccination clinics. Interfaces 36(6):569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbey RL, Aaby KA, Herrmann JW (2013) Planning and managing mass prophylaxis clinic operations. In: Denton BT (ed) Handbook of healthcare operations management. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Azhar A, Gralla EL, Tobias C, Herrmann JW (2016) Identification of subproblems in complex design problems: a study of facility design. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin C, Clark K (2000) Design rules. The power of modularity. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball L, Evans J, Dennis I (1994) Cognitive processes in engineering design: a longitudinal study. Ergonomics 37(11):1753–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball L, St BT, Evans J, Dennis I, Ormerod TC (1997) Problem-solving strategies and expertise in engineering design. Think Reason 3(4):247–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ball LJ, Ormerod TC (1995) Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(1):131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black J, Hunter SL (2003) Lean manufacturing systems and cell design. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, DearbornGoogle Scholar
  9. Bostrom RP, Watson RT, Van Over D (1992) The computer-augmented teamwork project. In: Computer augmented teamwork: a guided tour. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 251–267Google Scholar
  10. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CDC SNS (2012) SNS preparedness course participant workbook. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarkson PJ, Hamilton JR (2000) Signposting, a parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Res Eng Des 12(1):18–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper RG (1994) Third-generation new product processes. J Prod Innov Manag 11(1):3–14MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper RG (2008) The stage-gate idea-to-launch processupdate, what’s new, and nexgen systems. J Product Innov Manag 25(3):213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cross N (2004) Expertise in design: an overview. Des Stud 25(5):427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dinar M, Shah J, Cagan J, Leifer L, Linsey J, Smith SM, Hernandez NV (2015) Empirical studies of design thinking: past, present, future. J Mech Des 137:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drira A, Pierreval H, Hajri-Gabouj S (2007) Facility layout problems: a survey. Ann Rev Control 31:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dym CL, Little P, Orwin EJ, Spjut E (2009) Engineering design: a project-based introduction. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  20. Eppinger S, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eppinger S, Whitney D, Smith R, Gebala D (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des 6:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ethiraj SSK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Manag Sci 50(2):159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goel V, Pirolli P (1992) The structure of design problem spaces. Cogn Sci 16(3):395–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gralla EL, Herrmann JW (2014) Design team decision processes in facility design. In: Proceedings of the 2014 industrial and systems engineering research conferenceGoogle Scholar
  25. Gralla EL, Herrmann JW, Morency M (2016) Design team decision processes in point of dispensing design. In: Proceedings of the 2016 industrial and systems engineering research conferenceGoogle Scholar
  26. Guindon R (1990) Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Hum Comput Interact 5(2–3):305–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gurnani A, Lewis K (2008) Collaborative, decentralized engineering design at the edge of rationality. J Mech Des 130(12):121101 (9 pages)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammond J, Koubek RJ, Harvey CM (2001) Distributed collaboration for engineering design : a review and reappraisal. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 11(1):35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hazelrigg GA (1998) A framework for decision-based engineering design. J Mech Des 120(4):653–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hendrick H, Kleiner B (2002) Macroergonomics: theory, methods, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrmann JW (2010) Progressive design processes and bounded rational designers. J Mech Des 132:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herrmann JW (2015) Predicting the performance of a design team using a markov chain model. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 62:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herrmann JW, Schmidt LC (2002) Viewing product development as a decision production system. ASME paper no. DETC2002/DTM-34030Google Scholar
  34. Herrmann JW, Schmidt LC (2006) Product development and decision production systems. Decis Mak Eng Des.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802469.ch20 Google Scholar
  35. Herrmann JW, Morency M, Anparasan A, Gralla EL (2017) Evaluating clustering algorithms for identifying design subproblems. J Mech Des.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040176 Google Scholar
  36. Ho C-H (2001) Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts. Des Stud 22(1):27–45MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kraemer KL, Pinsonneault A (1990) Technology and groups: assessment of the empirical research. In: Galegher J, Kraut RE, Egido C (eds) Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, pp 375–405Google Scholar
  38. Krishnan V, Eppinger SD, Whitney DE (1997) Simplifying iterations in cross-functional design decision making. J Mech Des 119(4):485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad Manag Rev 24(4):691–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis K, Mistree F (1998) Collaborative, sequential, and isolated decisions in design. J Mech Des 120(4):643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liikkanen LA, Perttula M (2009) Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Des Stud 30(1):38–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacCormack A, Baldwin C, Rusnak J (2012) Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: a test of the mirroring hypothesis. Res Policy 41(8):1309–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, Hoboken, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  44. McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky J (2017a) Capturing human sequence-learning abilities in configuration design tasks through Markov chains. J Mech Des 139:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky J (2017b) Mining process heuristics from designer action data via hidden Markov models. J Mech Des 139:1–12Google Scholar
  46. McMahon C, Xianyi M (1996) A network approach to parametric design integration. Res Eng Des 8:14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meredith JW (1997) Empirical investigation of sociotechnical issues in engineering design. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Morency M (2017) Evaluating clustering algorithms to identify subproblems in design processes. Master’s thesis, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  49. Morency M, Anparasan A, Herrmann JW, Gralla EL (2017) Using clustering algorithms to identify subproblems in design processes. In: International conference on engineering designGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Donovan B, Eckert C, Clarkson J, Browning TR (2005) Design planning and modelling. In: Clarkson J, Eckert C (eds) Design process improvement. Springer, London, pp 60–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sherwood B, McCleese D (2013) JPL innovation foundry. Acta Astronaut 89:236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482Google Scholar
  54. Sun G, Yao S, Carretero JA (2016) An experimental approach to understanding design problem structuring strategies. J Des Res 14(1):94–117Google Scholar
  55. Sutton R, Hargadon AB (1996) Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Adm Sci Q 41(4):685–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tobias C, Herrmann JW, Gralla EL (2015) Exploring problem decomposition in design team discussions. In: International conference on engineering designGoogle Scholar
  57. Tompkins JA, White JA, Bozer YA, Tanchoco J (2003) Facilities planning. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  58. Wynn DC, Eckert CM (2017) Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Res Eng Des 28(2):153–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations