Advertisement

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 85–101 | Cite as

An application of game theory in distributed collaborative decision making

  • Angran XiaoEmail author
Research Article
  • 69 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Innovative Design and Intelligent Design

Abstract

In a distributed product realization environment, new paradigms and accompanying software systems are necessary to support the collaborative work of geographically dispersed engineering teams from different disciplines who have different knowledge, experience, tools and resources. To verify the concept of collaboration by separation, we propose a generic information communication medium to enable knowledge representation and exchange between engineering teams, a digital interface. Across digital interfaces, each engineering team maintains its own perspective towards the product realization problem, and each controls a subset of design variables and seeks to maximize its own payoff function subject to individual constraints. Hence, we postulate the use of principles from game theory to model the relationships between engineering teams and facilitate collaborative decision making without causing unnecessary information exchange or iteration across digital interfaces. A product design and manufacturing scenario is introduced to demonstrate the efficacy of using game theory to maintain a clean interface between design and manufacturing teams.

Keywords

collaboration distributed product realization game theory digital interface 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was performed at the Systems Realization Laboratory at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology and Industrial Design at New York City College of Technology.

References

  1. 1.
    Li W D, Lu W F, Fuh J Y H, et al. Collaborative computer-aided design—Research and development status. Computer Aided Design, 2005, 37(9): 931–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang L, Shen W, Xie H, et al. Collaborative conceptual design—State of the art and future trends. Computer Aided Design, 2002, 34(13): 981–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosen D, Chen Y, Gerhard J, et al. Design decision templates and their implementation for distributed design and solid freeform fabrication. In: Proceedings of ASME Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Baltimore: ASME, 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chao P, Wang Y. A data exchange framework for networked CAD/CAM. Computers in Industry, 2001, 44(2): 131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu D, Rosen D W, Wang L, et al. Cloud-based design and manufacturing: A new paradigm in digital manufacturing and design innovation. Computer Aided Design, 2015, 59: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whitfield R I, Duffy A H B, Gatchell S, et al. A collaborative platform for integrating and optimizing computational fluid dynamics analysis requests. Computer Aided Design, 2012, 44(3): 224–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eynard B, Liénard S, Charles S, et al. Web-based collaborative engineering support system: Applications in mechanical design and structural analysis. Concurrent Engineering, Research and Applications, 2005, 13(2): 145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kleiner S, Anderl R, Gräb R. A collaborative design system for product data integration. Journal of Engineering Design, 2003, 14(4): 421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlenoff C, Gruninger M, Creek T, et al. The essence of the process specification language. Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation, 1999, 16(4): 204–216Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whitfield R, Duffy A H, Coates G, et al. Distributed design coordination. Research in Engineering Design, 2002, 13(4): 243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whitfield R I, Duffy A H B, Boyle I, et al. An integrated environment for organisational decision support. Computers in Industry, 2011, 62(8–9): 842–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitfield R I, Duffy A H B, York P, et al. Managing the exchange of engineering product data to support through life ship design. Computer Aided Design, 2011, 43(5): 516–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffmann C M, Joan-Arinyo R. Distributed maintenance of multiple product views. Computer Aided Design, 2000, 32(7): 421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoffman C M, Joan-Arinyo R. CAD and the product master model. Computer Aided Design, 1998, 30(11): 905–918CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Badin J, Monticolo D, Chamoret D, et al. Using the knowledge configuration model to manage knowledge in configuration for upstream phases of the design process. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 2011, 5: 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belkadi F, Dremont N, Notin A, et al. A meta-modelling framework for knowledge consistency in collaborative design. Annual Reviews in Control, 2012, 36(2): 346–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bracewell R, Wallace K, Moss M, et al. Capturing design rationale. Computer Aided Design, 2009, 41(3): 173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peng G, Wang H, Zhang H, et al. A collaborative system for capturing and reusing in-context design knowledge with an integrated representation model. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2017, 33: 314–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chandrasegaran S K, Ramani K, Sriram R D, et al. The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems. Computer Aided Design, 2013, 45(2): 204–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mistree F, Smith W F, Bras B, et al. Decision-based design: A contemporary paradigm for ship design. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1990, 98: 565–597Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McMahon C, Liu Y, McAdams D, et al. Ontology-based executable design decision template representation and reuse. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2016, 30(4): 390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nellippallil A B, Song K N, Goh C H, et al. A goal-oriented, sequential, inverse design method for the horizontal integration of a multistage hot rod rolling system. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2017, 139(3): 031403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vadde S, Allen J K, Mistree F. Compromise decision support problems for hierarchical design involving uncertainty. Computers & Structures, 1994, 52(4): 645–658CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hu Y, Rao S S. Game-theory approach for multi-objective optimal design of stationary flat-plate solar collectors. Engineering Optimization, 2009, 41(11): 1017–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dhingra A K, Rao S S. A cooperative fuzzy game theoretic approach to multiple objective design optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 1995, 83(3): 547–567CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sunar M, Rao S S. Simultaneous passive and active control design of structures using multiobjective optimization strategies. Computers & Structures, 1993, 48(5): 913–924CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rao S S. Game theory approach for multiobjective structural optimization. Computers & Structures, 1987, 25(1): 119–127MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Badhrinath K, Jagannatha Rao J R. Modeling for concurrent design using game theory formulations. Concurrent Engineering, 1996, 4(4): 389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Takai S. A game-theoretic model of collaboration in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2010, 132(5): 051005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xiao M, Shao X, Gao L, et al. A new methodology for multiobjective multidisciplinary design optimization problems based on game theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 2015, 42(3): 1602–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen L, Li S. A computerized team approach for concurrent product and process design optimization. Computer Aided Design, 2002, 34(1): 57–69MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ge Z, Hu Q. Collaboration in R&D activities: Firm-specific decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 185(2): 864–883MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewis K, Mistree F. Collaborative, sequential and isolated decisions in design. ASME journal of Mechanical Engineering, 1998, 120(4): 643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewis K, Mistree F. Modeling interactions in multidisciplinary design: A game theoretic approach. AIAA Journal, 1997, 35(8): 1387–1392CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Montgomery D C. Design and Analysis of Experiments. 8th ed. Wiley, 2012Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sambu S. A design for manufacture method for rapid prototyping and rapid tooling. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 2001Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gao W, Zhang Y, Ramanujan D, et al. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Computer Aided Design, 2015, 69: 65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Design Technology, New York City College of TechnologyCity University of New YorkBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations