The Measurement of a Design Structural and Functional Complexity

  • Dan Braha
  • Oded Maimon
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 17)


The complexity of a design process or a design artifact substantially influences their performance. When evaluation of terms such as “design complexity” and its “quality” is addressed in studies, it is often performed in an ad hoc manner. This chapter attempts to remedy this situation by articulating two definitions of design complexity (structural complexity versus functional complexity), their associated value measures, and the relationships between them. The structural definition states that a design complexity is a function of its representation. Defining design complexity in the structural way provides quantitative techniques for evaluating vague terms such as ‘abstraction level’, ‘design form’s size’, and ‘designing effort’. The functional definition states that a design complexity is a function of its probability of successfully achieving the required specifications (functional requirements and constraints). The proposed measurable metrics provide a proper basis for evaluating each step of the design process, and accordingly recommends the direction to follow for design modification and enhancement. It also provides a framework for comparing competing artifacts (the output of a design process). Detailed examples of complexity valuation using the measures are described. The chapter concludes by discussing the scope of the measures.


Information Content Functional Requirement Complexity Measure Abstraction Level Design Complexity 
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. 1.
    Carrol, J. T. and T. F. Bellinger, “Designing Reliability into Rubber and Plastic AC Motor Control Equipment,” IEEE Trans. Industry and General Applications, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 455–464, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crouse, R. L., “Graphic Trees Help Study of Reliability Versus Cost,” Product Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 48–9, 1967.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mihalski, J., “Design to Cost Versus - Design to Customer Requirements - Versus Design for Safe Operation: Is There a Conflict?,” In Proc. ASME, 75-SAF-2, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suh, N.P., The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pugh, S., “Load Lines: An Approach to Detail Design,” Production Engineer, Vol. 56, pp. 15–18, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahmoud M.A.M. and S., Pugh, “The Costing of Turned Components at the Design Stage,” In Proc. Information for Designers Conf. Southampton, pp. 37–42, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shannon, C. E., “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 1948.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wiener, N. Cybernetics, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1948.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stroud, J. M., “The Fine Structure of Psychological Time,” Annals of New York Academy of Science, pp. 623–631, 1966.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon, H. A. and E. A. Feigenbaum, “A Theory of the Serial Position Effect,” In Models of Thought (Simon, H. A., ed.), Vol. I. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ullman, D., T. G. Dietterich, and L. A. Stauffer, “A Model of the Mechanical Design Process Based on Empirical Data,” AI EDAM, Vol. 2, pp. 33–52, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst P., Product Design for Assembly. Wakefield, RI: Boothroyd & Dewhurst Inc, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braila, J. G., Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ostwald, F. P., Cost Estimation for Engineering and Management, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halstead, M. H., Elements of Software Science, New York: Elsevier/North-Holland, 1977.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCabe, T. J., “A Complexity Measure,” Software Engineering, SE-2, no. 4, pp. 308–320, 1976.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. McTap, J. L., “The Complexity of an Individual Program,” In Proceedings of the 1980 NCC,Arlington, VA: AFIPS Press, pp. 767–771, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chapin, N. “A Measure of Software Complexity,” In Proceedings of the 1979 NCC, Arlington, VA: AFIPS Press, pp. 995–1002, 1979.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dasgupta, S., “The Structure of Design Processes,” In Advances in Computers, Vol. 28, M.C. Yovits (ed.). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–67, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Braha
    • 1
  • Oded Maimon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations