Fuzzy Selection of Concurrent Engineering Implementation Tactics

  • F. Lettice
  • A. Matin
  • S. Evans


There are many Concurrent Engineering implementation tactics to choose from, but no formal mechanism exists to aid the selection process. The selection procedure is surrounded by ambiguity and the consequences of different decisions are difficult to predict and quantify. A system to support the evaluation and selection of implementation tactics is therefore required by companies during their transformation to a CE product development environment. This paper describes a prototype decision support system which uses fuzzy logic rather than numerical arithmetic. The design allows the user to determine the importance of a number of significant attributes. These inputs are in a subset of the users language. The expressions are converted into fuzzy sets and processed by the scoring model. The output — itself a fuzzy set — is then converted into a natural language term. The user is presented with a list of tactics in order of their importance.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    P. DRUCKER (1990) The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, May/June 1990, pp 94–111Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.T. VESEY (1990) Meet the New Competitors: They Think in Terms of Speed-To-Market, Industrial Engineer. December. p 20–26Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    THE CIM INSTITUTE (1991) Concurrent Engineering Forum, The CIM Institute, August 1991Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. LARSON (1988) Team Tactics Can Cut Product Development Costs, Journal of Business Strategy, Sept/Oct 1988, pp 22–25Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. IZUCHUKWU (1991) The Design Team Approach to Class ‘A’ Engineering is Working for Digital, Industrial Engineer, Jan 1991. pp 37–39Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. KUMAR and Y.P. GUPTA (1991) Cross Functional Teams Improve Manufacturing at Motorola’s Austin Plant, Industrial Engineer, May 1991, pp 32–36Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R.I. WINNER, J.P. PENNELL, H.E. BERTRAND (et al) (1988) The Role of Concurrent Engineering in Weapons System Acquisition, IDA-R-338, Institute of Defence Analysism, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.P. PENNELL and W.E. AKIN (1990) An examination of various methods used in support of Concurrent Engineering, IDA-P-2318, Institute of Defence Analysis, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. TRANFIELD and S. SMITH (1990) Managing Change — Creating Competitive Edge, IFS Ltd, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    P.D. COUGHLAN and C.A. VOSS (1992) Review of Practice and Issues in Simultaneous Engineering in the UK, London Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    D.J. KENNEDY, D.A. ROLLIER and J.E. BAILEY (1992) A conceptual methodology for Tool/Method selection in Concurrent Engineering, Logistics Spectrum, Vol 26, Issue 3, p 8–14Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    H.A. ELMARAGHY and L. KROLL (1989) Flexible Assembly of a Family of DC Motors in Manufacturing Review, Vol 2, No 4Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. MUNRO (1992) The Cadillac Success Story, Proceedings International Forum on Design For Manufacture and Assembly, June 15–16Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. BOOTHROYD and L. ALTING: Design For Assembly and DisassemblyGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    E. MOLLOY, H. YANG and J. BROWNE (1986) Design For Assembly Within Concurrent Engineering, in Annals of CIRP, Vol 35/1/1986, p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    K. NICHOLS (1991) Profit By Design, Total Quality Management, April 1991, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    O. PORT (1989) The Best-Engineered Part is No Part at All, Business Week, 8 May, 1989, p 69Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. SHARPE (1991) Fresh Approach Reduces Product Time-To-Market, Design Engineering, Feb 1991, pp 26–28Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S.M. MANTON (1991) Concurrent Engineering for the Land Rover Discovery, CALS Europe 91 Conference Proceedings, pp 593–598Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    G.J. KLIR and T.A. FOLGER (1988) Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information, Prentice-Hall, UK, ISBN 0–13-345638-2zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. WAKABAYASHI and H. ISHIKAWA (1991). A fuzzy selection method for generated logic circuits, Electronics and Communications in Japan, Part 3, Vol 74, Issue 12, p 11–23Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S.P. JOSHI, J.R. UMARETIYA and S.B. JOSHI (1991) Decision making in preliminary engineering design, AI EDAM, Vol 5, Issue 1, p 21–30Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M.J.-J. WANG and H.P. SINGH (1991) A decision support system for robot selection, Decision Support Systems, Vol 7, Issue 3, p 273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    M.A. MUSTAFA and T.C. RYAN (1990) Decision support for bid evaluation, International Journal of Project Management, Vol 8, Issue 4, p 230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    O.P. DIAS (1988) R&D Project selection problem with fuzzy coefficients, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol 26, No 3, p 299–316zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    G. TANZI-MIRA, F. ZIVIERI, Q. SEMERARO., [et al.] (1990) Economic evaluation of alternative CAD/CAM systems: A fuzzy multi attribute decision making model, Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth International MATADOR Conference, B.J. Davies (Ed. MacMillan Publishers p 265–272Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. GARCIA, J. PAZOS, J. RIOS., [et al.] (1992) Methodology of linguistics evaluation in risk situations using fuzzy techniques, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol 48, p 185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    A. MATIN and S. EVANS (1992) A knowledge based architecture to exploit concurrency in Product Development Projects, Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Computer Aided Production Engineering, J. McGeough (Ed.), Edinburgh, UK, p 256–263Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. KANGARI and L.S. RIGGS, (1989). Construction Risk Assessment by Linguistics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol 36, No 2, p 126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Lettice
    • 1
  • A. Matin
    • 1
  • S. Evans
    • 1
  1. 1.The CIM Institute, Cranfield Institute of TechnologyUK

Personalised recommendations