The product design process plays a central role in ensuring that new products are realized with improved quality, in a short lead-time and with costs kept to a minimum. It is identified that making decisions dynamically on how the design process should proceed is not trivial. A computational environment that aids dynamic decision making on the design process would be useful in ensuring successful design of new products. A key component of analysing and making decisions on the progression of the design process is a model that captures an ongoing design process. In this paper, an approach to modelling an ongoing design process is proposed based on the use of design nodes. The approach allows an ongoing design process to be modelled that facilitates dynamic decision making on how the design process should progress and accounts for the state of the design problem. The approach allows top-down and bottom-up design strategies to be modelled.
SmithR. P.MorrowJ. A., ‘Product development process modelling’Des. Studies20 (3) (1999): 237–261.
2.
SimonH. A., The sciences of the artificial (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press1996).
3.
KusiakA.WangJ.HeD.FengC., ‘A structured approach for analysis of design processes’IEEE Trans. on Components, Packaging, and Mfg Technol. – Part A18 (3) (1995): 664–673.
4.
BrasB. A., ‘Designing design processes for decision-based concurrent engineering’ (1992) Concurrent Engineering Research Center, 7–9.
5.
PanchalJ. H.FerándezM. G.ParedisC. J. J.AllenJ. K.MistreeF., ‘Designing design processes in product lifecycle management: Research issues and strategies’. In ASME 2004 Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2004, paper DETC2004/CIE-57742. (2004) paper DETC2004/CIE-57742.
6.
KusiakA.WangJ., ‘Decomposition of the design process’J. Mech. Des.115 (1993): 687–694.
7.
FathianathanM.PanchalJ. H., ‘Design nodes: An approach for modeling design processes’. In 4th International Conference on Digital enterprise technology, Bath, United Kingdom, 2007.
8.
EppingerS.WhitneyD. E.SmithR. P.GebalaD. A., ‘A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development’Res. Engng Des.6 (1) (1994): 1–13.
9.
ShimomuraY.YoshiokaM.TakedaH.UmedaY.TomiyamaT., ‘Representation of design object based on the functional evolution process model’J. Mech. Des.120 (2) (1998): 221–229.
10.
UllmanD. G., ‘A taxonomy for mechanical design’Res. Engng Des.3 (3) (1992): 179–189.
11.
MaimonO.BrahaD., ‘On the complexity of the design synthesis problem’IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans26 (1) (1996): 142–151.
12.
MaherM. L., ‘Process models for design synthesis’AI Mag. (1990): 49–58.
13.
GortiS. R.GuptaA.KimG. J.SriramR. D.WongA., ‘An object-oriented representation for product and design process’Computer Aided Des.30 (7) (1998): 489–501.
14.
MistreeF.SmithW. F.BrasB. A.AllenJ. K.MusterD., ‘Decision-based design: A contemporary paradigm in ship design’Trans. Soc. Naval Architects and Marine Engrs98 (1990): 565–597.
15.
ElmaghrabyS. E., ‘Activity nets: A guided tour through some recent developments’Eur. J. Op. Res.82 (3) (1995): 383–408.
16.
HarrisonF. L.LockD., Advanced project management – a structured approach (2004):.
17.
LockyerK. G., ‘The application of the matrix to ‘activity-on-node’ network systems’Ops Res. Q.18 (4) (1967): 470–472.
18.
StewardD. V., ‘The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems’IEEE Trans. Engng MgmtEM 78 (3) (1981): 71–74.
19.
BrowningT. R.EppingerS. D., ‘Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development’IEEE Trans. Engng Mgmt49 (4) (2002): 428–442.
20.
BrowningT. R., ‘Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions’IEEE Trans. Engng Mgmt48 (3) (2001): 292–306.
UmedaY.TakedaH.TomiyamaT.YoshikawaH., ‘Function, behaviour, and structure’AIENG-90 Applications of AI in Engng (1990): Pp. 177–193.
23.
HsuY.-L.TaiC.-Y.ChenY.-C., ‘A design process model based on product states’J. Chin. Soc. Mech. Engrs21 (4) (2000): 369–377.
24.
TomiyamaT.YoshikawaH., ‘Extended general design theory’. In Design theory for CAD, Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.2 working conference 1985, 1986, pp. 95–130 (Elsevier, North-Holland, Amsterdam).
25.
ZengY.GuP., ‘A science based approach to product design theory. Part II: Formulation of design requirements and products’Robotics and Computer Integrated Mfg15 (6) (1999): 341–352.
26.
KavakliM., ‘NoDes: Knowledge based modeling for detailed design process – from analysis to implementation’J. Automn in Construction10 (4) (2001): 399–416.
27.
MistreeF.BrasB. A.SmithW. F.AllenJ. K., ‘Modeling design processes: A conceptual, decision-based perspective’Int. J. Engng Des. Automn1 (4) (1996): 209–221.
28.
SchlenoffC.KnutillaA.RayS., ‘Unified process specification language: Requirements for modeling process’National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1996.
29.
SuhN. P., Principles of design (Oxford: Oxford University Press1990).
30.
BuedeD. M., The engineering design of systems: Models and methods (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2000).
31.
ForsbergK.MoozH., ‘The relationship of systems engineering to the project cycle’Engng Mgmt J.4 (3) (1992): 36–43.
PahlG.BeitzW.WallaceK., Engineering design – a systematic approach (Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer1996).
34.
GeroJ. S., ‘Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design’AI Mag. (1990): 26–36.
35.
YassineA.BrahaD., ‘Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method’Concurrent Engng: Res. and Applics11 (3) (2003): 165–176.
36.
Bar-YamY., ‘When systems engineering fails – toward complex systems engineering’. In Proceedings of International Conference on Systems, man and cybernetics, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 2021–2028 (IEEE Press).
37.
MihmJ.LochC. H., ‘Spiraling out of control: Problem solving dynamics in complex distributed engineering projects’BrahaD.MinaiA.Bar-YamY.Complex engineering systems (New York: Perseus Books2006).
38.
PanchalJ. H.ParedisC. J. J.AllenJ. K.MistreeF., ‘A value-of-information based approach to simulation model refinement’Engng Optimization40 (3) (2008): 223–251.
