Modeling Collaboration in Parameter Design Using Multiagent Learning

  • Daniel Hulse
  • Kagan Tumer
  • Chris HoyleEmail author
  • Irem Tumer
Conference paper


This paper presents a model of collaboration in multidisciplinary engineering based on multiagent learning. Complex engineered systems are often designed through the collaboration of many designers or experts. A variety of frameworks have been presented and put in practice to help manage this collaboration, with good results; however, there have been few attempts to create an underlying model of collaboration.



This research is supported by the National Science Foundation award number CMMI-1363411. Any opinions or findings of this work are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or collaborators.


  1. 1.
    Bond AH, Ricci RJ (1992) Cooperation in aircraft design. Res Eng Des 4:115–130. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sobek DK, Ward AC, Liker JK (1999) Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manag Rev 40(2):67Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith J (1998) Concurrent Engineering in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Project Design Center. SAE Technical Paper 981869. Society of Automotive Engineers.
  4. 4.
    Boy GA, Jani G, Manera A, Memmott M, Petrovic B, Rayad Y et al (2016) Improving collaborative work and project management in a nuclear power plant design team: a human-centered design approach. Ann Nucl Energy 94:555–565. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ostergaard KJ, Wetmore WR III, Divekar A, Vitali H, Summers JD (2005) An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings. Co-Des 1(3):169–185. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shishko R, Aster R (1995) NASA systems engineering handbook. NASA Special Publication, 6105Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winner RI, Pennell JP, Bertrand HE, Slusarczuk MM (1988) The role of concurrent engineering in weapons system acquisition (No. IDA-R-338). Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria VAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Portioli-Staudacher A, Van Landeghem H, Mappelli M, Redaelli CE (2003) Implementation of concurrent engineering: a survey in Italy and Belgium. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 19(3):225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mark G (2002) Extreme collaboration. Communications of the ACM 45(6) (pp. 89–93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerwin D, Barrowman NJ (2002) An evaluation of research on integrated product development. Manag Sci 48(7):938–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yassine A, Braha D (2003) Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurrent Eng 11(3):165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith RP, Eppinger SD (1997) Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Manag Sci 43(3):276–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reagans R, Miron-Spektor E, Argote L (2016) Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance. Organ Sci 27(5):1108–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirschi N, Frey D (2002) Cognition and complexity: an experiment on the effect of coupling in parameter design. Res Eng Des 13(3):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grogan PT, de Weck OL (2016) Collaboration and complexity: an experiment on the effect of multi-actor coupled design. Res Eng Des 27(3):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grogan PT, de Weck OL (Apr 2016) Collaborative design in the sustainable infrastructure planning game. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual simulation symposium (p. 4). Society for Computer Simulation InternationalGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alelyani T, Yang Y, Grogan PT (Aug 2017) Understanding designers behavior in parameter design activities. In: ASME 2017 International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (pp. V007T06A030-V007T06A030). American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2015) Rolling with the punches: an examination of team performance in a design task subject to drastic changes. Des Stud 36:99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2015) Lifting the veil: drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively-inspired computational model. Des Stud 40:119–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2017) Optimizing design teams based on problem properties: computational team simulations and an applied empirical test. J Mech Des 139(4):041101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2017) Utilizing Markov chains to understand operation sequencing in design tasks. In: Design computing and cognition’16, pp 401–418. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martins JR, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA JGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hulse D, Gigous B (2017) Appendix A: Quadrotor design model. From:
  24. 24.
    Agogino AK, Tumer K (2012) A multiagent approach to managing air traffic flow. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 24(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yliniemi L, Agogino AK, Tumer K (2014) Multirobot coordination for space exploration. AI Mag 35(4):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tuyles K, Tumer K (2013) Multiagent learning. In: Weiss G (ed), Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence (2nd ed, pp 423–484). MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hulse D, Gigous B, Tumer K, Hoyle C, Tumer IY (2017) Towards a distributed multiagent learning-based design optimization method. In: ASME 2017 International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, pp V02AT03A008–V02AT03A008. American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ben-Menahem SM, Von Krogh G, Erden Z, Schneider A (2016) Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: evidence from early-stage drug discovery. Acad Manag J 59(4):1308–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fiacco AV, McCormick GP (1966) Extensions of SUMT for nonlinear programming: equality constraints and extrapolation. Manag Sci 12(11):816–828MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chachere J, Kunz J, Levitt R (2009) The role of reduced latency in integrated concurrent engineering. CIFE Working Paper #WP116Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Hulse
    • 1
  • Kagan Tumer
    • 1
  • Chris Hoyle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irem Tumer
    • 1
  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations