Configuring Systems Using Available Assets: A Conceptual, Decision-Based Perspective

  • P. N. Koch
  • J. D. Peplinski
  • F. Mistree
  • J. K. Allen


Design using available assets, in the context of theory and methodology, is more a state of research than a state of practice. At a low level of abstraction, design using available assets, or catalog design, is a procedure in which a system design is realized by assembling standard components selected from catalogs. A nearly endless supply of available components and component assemblies, defined in terms of key features, can be stored in catalogs or computer databases as available assets to realize new designs. If this notion of catalog design, or design using available assets, is abstracted to higher levels and implemented in the earliest stages of the design of a product, a consistent method for quickly exploring new designs based on that which already exists can be developed.


Design Requirement Priority Level Function Level Component Level Evacuation System 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agogino, A. M., and Almgren, A. S. (1987). Techniques for integrating qualitative reasoning and symbolic computation in engineering optimization. Engineering Optimization, 12, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J. K., Simovich, G., and Mistree, F. (1989). Selection under uncertain conditions: A marine application. Fourth International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units, Varna, Bulgaria, Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics Centre, pp. 80. 1–80. 8.Google Scholar
  3. Baas, S. M., and Kwakernaak, H. (1977). Rating and ranking of multiple-aspect alternatives using fuzzy sets. Automatica, 13, 47–58.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bascaran, E., Bannerot, R. B., and Mistree, F. (1989). Hierarchical selection decision support problems in conceptual design. Engineering Optimization, 14, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, S. R., and Agogino, A. M. (1991). An intelligent real time design methodology for catalog selection. In Stauffer, L. A. (Ed.). Design Theory and Methodology, New York: ASME, pp. 201–208.Google Scholar
  6. Bras, B. A., and Mistree, F. (1991). Designing design processes in decision-based concurrent engineering. SAE Transactions, Journal of Materials & Manufacturing, Warrendale, PA: SAE International, pp. 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Boer, S. J. (1989). Decision Methods and Techniques in Methodical Engineering Design, De Lier, The Netherlands: Academisch Boeken Centrum.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, J. M. (1984). Evacuation slide design. U.S. Patent #4, 434, 870.Google Scholar
  9. Habib, W., and Ward, A. C. (1990). Proving the labeled interval calculus for inferences on catalogs. Design Theory and Methodology, New York: ASME, pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
  10. Kahne, S. (1975). A procedure for optimizing development decisions. Automatica, 11, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koch, P. N. (1994). Design using available assets: A living systems approach. M.S. Thesis, School of Mechanical Engineeing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Alanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  12. Koch, P. N., Peplinski, J. D., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F. (1994). A method of design using available assets: Identifying a feasible system configuration. Behavioral Science, 39 (3), 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, J. G., and Miller, J. L. (1992). Applications of Living Systems Theory, New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, J. L. (1990). The timer. Behavioral Science, 35, 164–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mistree, F., Allen, J. K., and Attia, F. (1993a). Designing at a high level of abstraction. Behavioral Science, 38, 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F., and Bras, B. A. (1993b). The compromise decision support problem and the adaptive linear programming algorithm. In Kamat, M. P. (Ed.). Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, Washington, DC: AIAA, pp. 247–289.Google Scholar
  18. Mistree, F., Smith, W. F., and Bras, B. A. (1993c). A decision-based approach to concurrent engineering. In Paresai, H. R. and Sullivan, W. (Eds.). Handbook of Concurrent Engineering, New York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mistree, F., Kamal, S. Z., and Bras, B. A. (1989). DSIDES: Decision support in the design of engineering systems. Systems Design Laboratory Report, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  20. Mistree, F., and Muster, D. (1990). Conceptual models for decision-based concurrent engineering design for the life cycle. In Woods, R. T. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on Concurrent Engineering, Morgantown, West Virginia, pp. 443–467.Google Scholar
  21. Mistree, F., Smith, W. F., Bras, B., Allen, J. K., and Muster, D. (1990). Decision-based design: A contemporary paradigm for ship design. Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City, New Jersey, pp. 565–597.Google Scholar
  22. Mittal, S., and Arya, A. (1986). A knowledge-based framework for design. AAAI, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 856–865.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, R. E. (1979). Methods and Application of Interval Analysis, Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muster, D., and Mistree, F. (1988). The decision support problem technique in engineering design. International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 4 (1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  25. O’Shaughnessy, K., and Sturges, R. H. (1992). A systematic approach to conceptual engineering design. In Stauffer, L. A. and Taylor, D. L. (Eds.). Design Theory and Methodology-DTM ‘82, New York, ASME, pp. 283–291.Google Scholar
  26. Pahl, G., and Beitz, W. (1988). Engineering Design, London/Berlin: The Design Council/Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Papalambros, P. Y., and Wilde, D. J. (1988). Principles of Optimal Design: Modelling and Computation, New York: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Simon, H. A. (1982). The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Swanson, G. A., and Miller, J. G. (1989). Measurement and Interpretation in Accounting, New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  30. Thurston, D. L. (1990). Subjective evaluation with multiple attributes. In Rinderle, J. R. (Ed.). Design Theory and Methodology, New York: ASME, pp. 355–361.Google Scholar
  31. Vadde, S., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F. (1992a). Catalog design: Design using available assets. In Hoeltzel, D. A. (Ed.). Advances in Design Automation, New York: ASME, pp. 345–354.Google Scholar
  32. Vadde, S., Swadi, S., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F. (1992b). Design of an aircraft tire: A study in modeling uncertainty. In Hoeltzel, D. A. (Ed.). ASME Design Automation Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, pp. 315–325.Google Scholar
  33. Waldron, K., Waldron, M., and Wang, M. (1986). An expert system for initial bearing selection. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 86-DET-125, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  34. Walker, J. F., and Thiemann, F. C. (1990). The relationship of the internal security system to group level organization in Miller’s living systems theory. Behavioral Science, 35, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilde, D. J. (1978). Globally Optimal Design, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Wood, K. L. (1990). A Method for the representation and manipulation of uncertainties in preliminary engineering design. Ph.D Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. N. Koch
  • J. D. Peplinski
  • F. Mistree
  • J. K. Allen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations