Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Companies that develop multi-technological products are challenged on their ability to obtain high product quality and short development lead times in today’s highly competitive and globalized markets. One of the main reasons for poor product quality is due to unidentified or poorly defined product interfaces during the design phase leading to unintended product behavior. In an effort to reduce the lead time and increase quality, companies may apply a modular product architecture, thus enabling parallel development and maturing of modules. Achieving a successful integration of the modules at the end of a design phase requires, however, an understanding of how the modules disintegrate from an early stage. This implies having a fundamental understanding of what an interface is. Despite the apparent academic consensus on the importance of product interfaces during design, very little research has been done on the definition and perception of a product interface within engineering design research which is the objective of this article. A structured literature review of interface definitions found within engineering design literature has been carried out. The different definitions were tabulated against four key issues concerning the nature of an interface. These were later discussed with use of a case example in order to reason out the implications to design. The literature review revealed an inconsistency in the perceptions of an interface with regard to how it manifests itself, whether it is a design object, and the use of element types. These key issues were justified using a case example of a solenoid valve. In light of the findings from the literature review, it is argued how interfaces between modules as well as interfaces that reside in the tension field between different engineering disciplines may require great attention since they are subject to negotiation and interpretation between disciplines, which could lead to miscommunication and inefficiency.

Keywords

interface interaction definition multi-technological product development engineering design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andreasen

(1980) Machine design methods based on a systemic approach. PhD Thesis, Lund University, Lund.

Baldwin

Clark

(2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bettig

Gershenson

(2010) The representation of module interfaces. International Journal of Product Development 10(4): 291–317.

Beyer

Holtzblatt

(1997) Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Blackenfelt

(2001) Managing complexity by product modularisation. PhD Thesis, Department of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Blackenfelt

Sellgren

(2000) Design of robust interfaces in modular products. In: Proceedings of ASME design engineering technical conference, Baltimore, MD, 10–13 September, paper no. DETC00/DAC-14486. New York: ASME.

Blyler

(2004) Interface management—managing complexity at the system interface. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 7: 32–37.

Bruun

HPL

Mortensen

Harlou

(2014) Interface diagram: design tool for supporting the development of modularity in complex product systems. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 22(1): 62–76.

Bucciarelli

(1994) Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Buur

(1990) A Theoretical Approach to Mechatronics Design. Lyngby: Institute for Engineering Design, Technical University of Denmark.

11.

Dickerson

Mavris

(2010) Architecture and Principles of Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

12.

Ericsson

Erixon

(1999) Controlling Design Variants: Modular Product Platforms. New York: SME Press.

13.

Fotso

Rettberg

(2012) State of the art for mechatronic design concepts. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE/ASME 8th IEEE/ASME international conference on mechatronics and embedded systems and applications, Suzhou, China, 8–10 July, pp. 232–240. New York: IEEE/ASME.

14.

Grady

(1994) System Integration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.

15.

Hamraz

Hisarciklilar

(2013) Change prediction using interface data. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 21(2): 141–154.

16.

Hoffman

(1990) On criteria for module interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(5): 537–542.

17.

Hölttä-Otto

De Weck

(2007) Degree of modularity in engineering systems and products with technical and business constraints. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 15(2): 113–126.

18.

Hölttä-Otto

Chiriac

Lysy

. (2014) Architectural decomposition: the role of granularity and decomposition viewpoint. In: Simpson

Jiao

Siddique

(eds) Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Berlin: Springer, pp. 221–243.

19.

Hubka

Eder

(1988) Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design, vol. 291. Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 1.

20.

ISO/IEC 2382-1:1993 (1993) Information technology—vocabulary—part 1: Fundamental terms.

21.

Jarratt

Eckert

Clarkson

(2004) Development of a product model to support engineering change management. In: Proceedings fifth international symposium on tools and methods; tools and methods of competitive engineering TCME, Lausanne, 13–17 April.

22.

Jarratt

Eckert

Clarkson

. (2004) Providing an overview during the design of complex products: the development of a product linkage modelling method. In: Gero

(ed.) Design Computing and Cognition. Berlin: Springer, pp. 239–258.

23.

Kapurch

(2007) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (ed Kapurch

). Washington, DC: NASA Special Publications, p. 360.

24.

Kihlander

Ritzén

(2012) Compatibility before completeness—identifying intrinsic conflicts in concept decision making for technical systems. Technovation 32(2): 79–89.

25.

Lalli

Kastner

Hartt

(1997) Training Manual for Elements of Interface Definition and Control. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Program. Available at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/rp1370.pdf

26.

Lam

Shankar

(1994) A theory of interfaces and modules I—composition theorem. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(1): 55–71.

27.

Liang

V-C

Paredis

CJJ

(2004) A port ontology for conceptual design of systems. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 4(3): 206–217.

28.

Meyer

Lehnerd

(1997) The Power of Product Platforms. New York: Simon & Schuster.

29.

Mikkola

(2001) Modularity and interface management of product architectures. In: Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology PICMET’01, Portland, OR, 29 July–2 August, pp. 599–609. New York: IEEE.

30.

Miller

Elgård

(1998) Design for Integration in Manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the 13th IPS Research Seminar. Aalborg University.

31.

Oxford University Press (2013) Interface, n. Available at: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97747?rskey=Eiiy9I&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid

32.

Pahl

Wallace

Blessing

(2007) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Berlin: Springer.

33.

Pimmler

Eppinger

(1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. In: ASME design theory and methodology conference, Minneapolis, MN, September. Cambridge, MA: Alfred

Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

34.

Prasad

(1997) Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated Product Development, vol. II. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall—PTR.

35.

Rahmani

Thomson

(2012) Ontology based interface design and control methodology for collaborative product development. Computer-Aided Design 44(5): 432–444.

36.

Sage

Lynch

(1998) Systems integration and architecting: An overview of principles, practices, and perspectives. Systems Engineering 1(3): 176–227.

37.

Scalice

Andrade

LFS

Forcellini

(2008) A design methodology for module interfaces. In: Curran

Chao

Trappey

(eds) Collaborative Product and Service Life Cycle Management for a Sustainable World. Berlin: Springer, pp. 297–304.

38.

Sellgren

(17–19 August 1998) Attachment of mating faces—a interrelational feature approach. In: Proceedings of 8th international ANSYS conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

39.

Sellgren

Andersson

(1998) MOSAIC—a framework and a methodology for behavior modeling of complex systems. In: Proceeding of Produktmodeller’98, pp. 119–137.

40.

Sellgren

Andersson

(2005) The concept of functional surfaces as carriers of interactive properties. In: International conference on engineering design ICED, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 18 August.

41.

Sundgren

(1999) Introducing interface management in new product family development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(1): 40–51.

42.

Tjalve

(1979) A Short Course in Industrial Design. London: Newnes-Butterworths.

43.

Ullman

(1992) The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

44.

Ulrich

(1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3): 419–440.

45.

Ulrich

Eppinger

(2012) Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

46.

United States Department of Defense (2000) Defense standardization program (DSP)—policies and procedures. No. 4120.24-M, March, Washington, DC: Defense Pentagon.

47.

United States Department of Defense (2001) 61A (SE): Military Handbook Configuration Management Guidance. United States Department of Defense.

48.

United States Department of Defense (2008) JP1–02: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense; Darby, PA: DIANE Publishing.

49.

Van Wie

Greer

Campbell

. (2001) Interfaces and product architecture. In: ASME 2001 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 9–12 September, pp. 1–12. New York: ASME.

Interface definitions in literature: A reality check

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References