Determining product architecture is a key activity in new product development. This article presents a quantifying and planning method for new product development based on an algebraic matrix technique. A fuzzy design structure matrix that combines fuzzy set theory and the design structure matrix is established. The proposed fuzzy design structure matrix is a Boolean matrix that can quantify the dependency strength between product components and optimize product architecture. Partitioning and tearing algorithms are utilized to restructure a fuzzy design structure matrix, allowing the interdependent relationships within the product components in the new product development process to be obtained. A systematic clustering method that is efficient and yet flexible is developed for new product development from an informational structure perspective. The fuzzy design structure matrix can enhance the performance of new product development management by reducing the costs, offering product variety, decreasing the number of component iterations, and reducing the product development time. A case study is employed to illustrate the proposed method.
AltusSKrooI (1996) A genetic algorithm for scheduling and decomposition of multidisciplinary design problem. Journal of Mechanical Design118(12): 486–489.
2.
BorjessonFHölttä-OttoK (2012) Improved clustering algorithm for design structure matrix. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international design engineering, 12–15 August, Chicago, IL.
3.
BrowningT (2002) Process integration using the design structure matrix. Systems Engineering5(3): 180–193.
4.
BuckleyJJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems17(3): 233–247.
5.
CaganJJCampbellMIFingerS. (2005) A framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering5(3): 171–181.
6.
CrawleyEFWeckOLde EppingerSD. (2004) The influence of architecture in engineering system. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Division Monograph, Cambridge, MA, March.
7.
FernandezC (1998) Integration analysis of product architecture to support effective team co-location. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
8.
Hölttä-OttoKWeckOD (2007) Degree of modularity in engineering systems and products with technical and business constraints. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications15(2): 113–126.
9.
KurtogluTCampbellMI (2009) Automated synthesis of electromechanical design configurations from empirical analysis of function to form mapping. Journal of Engineering Design20(1): 83–104.
10.
KusiakAWangJ (1993) Efficient organizing of design activities. International Journal of Production Research31(4): 753–769.
11.
LaarhovenPJMPedryczW (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems11(1–3): 229–241.
12.
LiS (2011) A matrix-based clustering approach for the decomposition of design problems. Research in Engineering Design22(4): 263–278.
13.
LindemannUMaurerMSBraunT (2008) Structural Complexity Management: An Approach for the Field of Product Design. Berlin: Springer.
14.
LuK (1981) Graphical Theory and Its Application. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.
15.
PimmlerTEppingerSD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. In: Proceedings of the ASME international conference on design theory and methodology, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 11–14 September, paper no. DE-68L, pp. 343–351.
16.
SaatyTL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
SharmanD (2002) Valuing architecture for strategic purposes. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
18.
SharmanDMYassineAA (2007) Architectural valuation using the design structure matrix and real options theory. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications15(2): 157–173.
19.
ShekarBVenkataramRSatishBM (2011) Managing complexity in aircraft design using design structure matrix. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications19(4): 283–294.
20.
SosaMEEppingerSDRowlesCM (2000) Designing modular and integrative systems. In:Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 10–13 September, paper no. DETC2000/DTM-14571.
21.
StewardDV (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management28(3): 71–74.
22.
TengJYTzengGH (1996) Fuzzy multicriteria ranking of urban transportation investment alternative. Transportation Planning and Technology20(1): 15–31.
23.
ThebeauR (2001) Knowledge management of system interfaces and interactions for product development processes. Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
24.
WarfieldJ (1973) On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics3: 121–132.
25.
WarfieldJ (1990) A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity through System Design. Salinas, CA: Intersystems.
26.
XiaoR (2001) A new approach to modeling the complex system structure. Process in Natural Science11: 25–32.
27.
XiaoRFeiQ (1997) Application of the improved method in structural modeling to comprehensive management of the mine bereaus. System Engineering: Theory and Practice17(3): 57–62.
28.
YassineAASreenivasRS (2008) Managing the exchange of information in product development. European Journal of Operational Research184(1): 311–326.
29.
YassineAAWissmannLA (2007) The implications of product architecture on the firm. Systems Engineering10(2): 118–137.
30.
YuTLYassineAAGoldbergDE (2007) An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms. Research in Engineering Design18: 91–109.
31.
ZadehLA (1965) Fuzzy set. Information and Control8: 338–353.
32.
ZadehLA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Information Science8(3): 199–249.
33.
ZimmermannH (1993) Fuzzy Sets and Its Applications. 2nd ed.Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
