Application of the goal tree—success tree (GTST) technique to decompose ship design in a production context

Abstract

The design of ships and other made-to-order products is a complex process. A good understanding of design for production issues is essential to ensure a quality product at optimal costs. The overall objective is to improve the design process so that performance and producibility requirements can be met simultaneously. This paper examines the suitability of the goal tree-success tree (GTST) technique to consider the design and production process in a systematic manner and thus to feed back producibility requirements into the initial design phase. The adopted approach explicitly questions linkages between product attributes such as cost or performance and the ability of the design and production specification to ensure delivery of the attributes.

Keywords

ship design GTST technique decomposition design for production made-to-order products

References

Peters

Advanced Structured Analysis and Design, 1988 (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).

Ptack

(Ed.) IEEE Trial-Use Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process, IEEE Standard 1220–1994, 1995 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, New York).

Watson

D. G. M.

Gilfillan

A. W.

Some ship design methods. Trans. R. Instn Nav. Archit., 1977, 119, 279–324.

Storch

R. L.

Hammon

C. P.

Bunch

H. M.

Ship Production, 1995 (Cornell Maritime Press, Centreville, Maryland).

Takezawa

Development of the automated shipyard. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., 1972, 273, 151–172.

Chirillo

L. D.

Scientific shipbuilding-the challenge. In Proceedings of Ship Technology and Research (STAR) Symposium, 1984, pp. 189–197 (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York).

Baldwin

E. N.

Niebel

R. D.

Designing for Production, 1957 (Irwin, Homewood, Illinois).

Kuo

MacCallum

K. J.

Shenoi

R. A.

An effective approach to structural design for production. Trans. R. Instn Nav. Archit., 1984, 126, 33–50.

Winkle

I. E.

Baird

Towards more effective structural design trough synthesis and optimisation of relative fabrication costs. Trans. R. Instn Nav. Archit., 1986, 128, 313–336.

10.

Hills

Buxton

I. L.

Integrating ship design and production considerations during the pre-contract phase. Trans. R. Instn Nav. Archit., 1989, 131, 189–210.

11.

Beitz

Kuttner

K.-H.

(Eds) Dubbel Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau, 1990 (Springer, Berlin).

12.

Lind

Modelling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Appl. Artif. Intell. Int. J., 1994, 8(2), 259–284.

13.

Jalashgar

Goal oriented system modelling: Justification of the approach and overview of the methods. Reliability Engng System Saf., 1999, 64(2), 271–278.

14.

Lambert

Riera

Martel

Application of functional analysis techniques to supervisory systems. Reliability Engng System Saf., 1999, 64(2), 209–224.

15.

Modarres

Cadman

A method of alarm system analysis for process plants. Comput. Chem. Engng, 1986, 10, 557–565.

16.

Birky

G. J.

McAvoy

T. J.

Modarres

An expert system for distillation control design. Comput. Chem. Engng, 1988, 12(9/10), 1045–1063.

17.

Bruce

Hills

Storch

Design for production. In Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units (Eds Oosterveld

M. W. C.

Tan

S. G.

), 1998, pp. 331–339 (Elsevier, Amsterdam).

18.

Alfeld

L. E.

Colleen

S. P.

Wilkins

J. R.

The virtual shipyard: A simulation model of the shipbuilding process. J. Ship Prod., 1998, 14(1), 33–40.

19.

Steinhauer

Heinemann

Prozessmodellierung in der Schiffsfertigung. Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. Presentation for STG-Jahreshauptversammlung, Lübeck, 1998.