Conflict Management in an Interdisciplinary Design Environment

  • V Oh
  • J E E Sharpe
Conference paper

Abstract

Engineering design is, of necessity, a complex process that requires the design engineer to exercise initiative and inventiveness as well as deploying a wide range of skills and expertise in attaining a solution. In an interdisciplinary design environment, such as one involving a mechatronics approach to design, the designer is often required to function in a generalist mode with an eye towards employing a wider range of technologies. Where this is not possible, a product design team is often assembled to facilitate and encourage the interaction between different disciplines. The increasing occurrence of interdisciplinary product development has not only removed many of the traditional constraints to design but has now given the designer or design team a much wider freedom of choice as to the best solution to a particular design problem.

Keywords

Torque Marketing Expense Nash Casing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bahler, D., Dupont, C., & Bowen, J. (1994). In Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘94 (Gero, J., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp 363–379. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  2. Bracewell, R. H., & Sharpe, J. E. E. (1994). Computer aided methodology for qualitative development of schemes from first principles. In Computer Aided Conceptual Design ( Sharpe, J. E. E., & Oh, V. Eds.), pp 79–94. Lancaster EDC, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, D. A., Dawson, D., Burd, N. C., & Loader, A. J. (1991). Mechatronics: Electronics in Products and Processes. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D. C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  5. Easterbrook, S., Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., & Nuseibeh, B. (1994). Co-ordinating conflicting viewpoints by managing inconsistency. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘94 Workshop on Conflict Management in Design. Lausanne.Google Scholar
  6. Galliers, J. R. (1990). The positive role of conflict in cooperative multi-agent systems. In Decentralized AI, ( Demazeau, Y., & Muller, J. P. Eds.), pp 33–46. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Haroud, D., Boulanger, S., Gelle, E., & Smith, I. (1994). Strategies for conflict management in preliminary engineering design. In AI Design ‘94 Workshop on Conflict Management in Design. Lausanne.Google Scholar
  8. Kannapan, S. M., & Marshek, K. M. (1992). In Intelligent Computer Aided Design (Brown, D. C., Waldron, M. B., & Yoshikawa, H., Eds.), pp 1–25. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Karnopp, D. C., Margolis, D. L., & Rosenberg, R. C. (1990). System Dynamics: A Unified Approach 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  10. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Klein, M., & Lu, S. C. Y. (1989). Conflict resolution in cooperative design. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering. 4 (4), 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klein, M. (1993). Supporting conflict management in cooperative design teams. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2 (3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lander, S. E., Lesser, V. R., & Connell, M. E. (1991). Knowledge-based conflict resolution for cooperation among expert agents. In Computer-Aided Cooperative Product Development ( Sriram, D., Logeher, R., & Fukuda, S., Eds.), pp 269–297. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Langdon, P. (1993). Software for Schemebuilder: an aid for design creativity. Technical Report EDC 1993/01. Engineering Design Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  15. March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Oh, V., Taleb-Bendiab, A., Sommerville, I. & French, M. (1993). Incorporating a cooperative design model in a computer-aided design improvement system. In Prospects for Artificial Intelligence ( Sloman, A., Hogg, D., Humphreys, G., Ramsay, A., & Partridge, D., Eds.), pp 101–110. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Oh, V., Langdon, P., & Sharpe, J. E. E. (1994a). Schemebuilder: an integrated environment for product design. In Computer Aided Conceptual Design ( Sharpe, J. E. E., & Oh, V., Eds.), pp. 339–362. Lancaster EDC, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  18. Oh, V., Chaplin, R. V., Yan, X. T., & Sharpe, J. E. E. (1994b). A generic framework for the description of components in the design & simulation of mechatronic products. In Mechatronics: The Basis for New Industrial Development ( M. Acar, M., Makra, J., & Penney, E., Eds.), pp 515–520. Computational Mechanics, Southampton.Google Scholar
  19. Petrie, C., Cutkosky, M., Webster, T., Conru, A., & Park, H. (1994). Next-Link: An experiment in coordination of distributed agents. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘94 Workshop on Conflict Management in Design. Lausanne.Google Scholar
  20. Rahim, M. A. (1986). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Saaty, T. (1990). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Sycara, K. (1991). Cooperative negotiation in concurrent engineering design. In Computer-Aided Cooperative Product Development ( Sriram, D., Logeher, R., & Fukuda, S., Eds.), pp 269–297. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Werkman, K. J. (1990). Multiagent Cooperative Problem Solving through Negotiation and Perspective Sharing. PhD Dissertation, Lehigh University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • V Oh
  • J E E Sharpe

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations