Advertisement

Design Process Planning Using DSM

  • Arie Karniel
  • Yoram Reich
Chapter

Abstract

Complex product development processesProduct Development Processes (PDP) can be managed by mapping them through various kinds of project flowcharts and diagrams. The commonly used GANTTGANTT and PERTPERT charts are inadequate for planning design processesDesign process planning, as they do not effectively model the design activities interdependencies and process iterationsIteration (feedback loops) (Lévárdy et al. 2004; Yassine 2007). A comprehensive survey of methods used for modeling design processes is given in (Browning et al. 2006). The use of multiple views of the different representations for different stakeholders is presented in (Clarkson and Hamilton 2000; Flanagan et al. 2006; Keller et al. 2006; Wynn 2007).

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Activity Loop Quadratic Assignment Problem Couple Activity Design Structure Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abdelsalam HME, Bao HP (2006) A simulation-based optimization framework for product development cycle time reduction. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Braha D, Maimon O (1998) A mathematical theory of design: foundations, algorithms and applications. Kluwer, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix system to decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48:292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browning TR, Eppinger SD (2002) Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(4):428–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browning TR, Fricke E, Negele H (2006) Key concepts in modeling product development processes. Syst Eng 9(2):104–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho SH, Eppinger SD (2001) Product Development Process Modeling Using Advanced Simulation. ASME Conf on Design Theory and Methodology (DECT 2001/DTM), Pittsburgh, PA, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho SH, Eppinger SD (2005) A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(3):316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choo HJ, Hammond J, Tommelein ID, Austin SA, Ballard G (2004) DePlan: a tool for integrated design management. Autom Constr 13:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarkson PJ, Hamilton JR (2000) Signposting, A parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Res Eng Design 12(1):18–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danilovic M (1999) Loop: leadership and organization of integration in product development. Dissertation. Linköpings UniversitetGoogle Scholar
  12. Danilovic M, Browning TR (2007) Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int J Project Manag 25(3):300–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis L (1991) Handbook of genetic algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong Q, Whitney DE (2001) Designing a requirement driven product development process. Proc of ASME Design Eng Technical Conf and Comput and Inf in Eng Conf, DTM-21682, 1–10Google Scholar
  15. Eckert CM, Keller R, Earl C, Clarkson PJ (2006) Supporting change processes in design: Complexity, prediction and reliability. Reliability Eng Saf Syst 91(12):1521–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eppinger SD, Salminen V (2001) Patterns of product development interactions. Int Conf on Eng Design, ICED 01, Glasgow, 21–23 AugustGoogle Scholar
  17. Eppinger SD, Whitney DE, Smith R, Gebala D (1994) A Model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Design 6(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eppinger SD, Nukala MV, Whitney DE (1997) Generalized models of design iterations using signal flow graph. Res Eng Design 9:112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernandez C (1998) Integration analysis of product architecture to support effective team co-location. SM Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  20. Flanagan TL, Eckert CM, Keller R, Clarkson PJ (2006) Bridging the gaps between project plans and reality: The role of overview. Proc of Tools and Methods of Competitive Eng (TMCE 2006), 1:105-116, Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ford DN, Sterman JD (1998) Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and mental models. Syst Dynamics Review 14(4):309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gebala DA, Eppinger SD (1991) Methods for analyzing design procedures. ASME 3rd Int Conf on Design Theory and Methodology, 227–233Google Scholar
  23. Huberman BA, Wilkinson DM (2005) Performance variability and project dynamics. Comput Math Organiz Theory 11:307–332MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karniel A, Reich Y (2007) Managing dynamic new product development processes. Proc of the 17th Annual Int Symposium of The Int Council on Sys Eng INCOSE’07, San Diego, California, JuneGoogle Scholar
  25. Karniel A, Belsky Y, Reich Y (2005) Decomposing the problem of constrained surface fitting in reverse engineering. Comput Aided Des 37:399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller R, Flanagan TL, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2006) Two sides of the story: Visualising products and processes in engineering design. Proc of the 10th Int Conf on Inf Visualistion (IV 2006), IEEE Computer Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kusiak A, Larson N, Wang J (1994) Reengineering of design and manufacturing processes. Comput Ind Eng 26(3):521–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kusiak A, Wang JR, He DW, Feng CH (1995) A structured approach for Analysis of Design Processes. IEEE Trans Compon Manuf Technol—Part A 18(3):664–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ledet WP, Himmelblau DM (1970) Decomposition procedures for the solving of large scale systems. Adv Chem Eng 8:185–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lester I (1996) Adaptive simulated annealing (ASA): lessons learned. J Control Cybern 25(1):35–54Google Scholar
  32. Lévárdy V, Hoppe M, Browning TR (2004) Adaptive test process––An integrated modeling approach for test and design activities. In: The Product Development Process, Proc of DETC’04 ASME 2004 Design Eng Technical Conf and Comput and Inf in Eng Conf, Salt Lake City, Utah, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  33. Maheswari JU, Varghese K (2005) Project Scheduling using dependency structure matrix. Int J Project Manag 23:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maurer M (2007) Structural Awareness in complex product design. Dissertation, Technischen Universität München, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Meier C, Yassine A, Browning T (2007) Design process sequencing with competent genetic algorithms. J Mech Des 129(6):566–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norman RL (1965) A matrix method for locating of cycles of a directed graph. AIChE J 11:450–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. ASME Conf on Design Theory and Methodology, Minneapolis, MN, 343-351, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers JL, Bloebaum CL (1994) Ordering design tasks based on coupling strengths. AIAA, paper no. 94-4326Google Scholar
  39. Sargent RWH, Westerberg AW (1964) Speed-up in chemical engineering design. Trans Instn Chem Engrs 42:T190–T197Google Scholar
  40. Sered Y, Reich Y (2006) Standardization and modularization driven by minimizing overall process effort. Comput Aided Des 38(5):405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharman D, Yassine A (2007) Architectural valuation using the dependency structure matrix and real options. Concurrent Eng 15(2):157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith RP, Eppinger SD (1997a) Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Manag Sci 43(3):276–293MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith RP, Eppinger SD (1997b) A predictive model of sequential iteration in engineering design. Manag Sci 43(8):1104–1120MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steward DV (1965) Partitioning and Tearing Systems of Equations, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics: Series B. Numer Anal 2(2):345–365MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. Steward DV (1981a) Systems Analysis and Management: Structure Strategy and Design. Petrocelli Books, NJGoogle Scholar
  46. Steward DV (1981b) The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 28:71–74Google Scholar
  47. Warfield JN (1973) Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:441–449MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Whitfield RI, Smith JS, Duffy AHB (2002) Identifying component modules. Artificial Intelligence in Design, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitfield RI, Duffy AHB, Gartzia-Etxabe LK (2005) Identifying and evaluating parallel design activities using the design structure matrix. Int Conf on Eng Design, ICED05, Melbourne, AugustGoogle Scholar
  50. Wynn DC (2007) Model-based approaches to support process improvement in complex product development. Dissertation, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Yassine A (2007) Investigating product development process reliability and robustness using simulation. J Eng Des 18(6):545–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yassine A, Braha D (2003) Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurrent Eng Res Appl 11(3):165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yassine A, Joglekar N, Braha D, Eppinger SD, Whitney D (2003) Information hiding in product development: The design churn effect. Res Eng Design 14(3):131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yassine A, Whitney D, Lavine J, Zambito T (2000) Do-it-right-first-time (DRFT) approach to design structure matrix restructuring. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on design theory and methodology, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, SeptemberGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations