The establishment of a platform architecture is a critical task but there is no methodological support for this in the first phases of development. There are several approaches for evaluating designs and architectures when an initial design is present, however, not for the phases foregoing the embodiment of ideas into concepts. This paper fills this void by introducing a new design methodology for modelling, assessing and narrowing down the architectural design space. It allows exploration of more alternatives in the earliest phases of development, which ultimately may produce better designs. The result is a design space of a manageable and desirable size for subsequent embodiment and detailed design with traditional engineering tools. The advantage is that feasibility of the candidate platforms have been established to a high degree of certainty. The approach is illustrated with a case of redesign showing how a manufacturer of parts for a jet engine can use the methodology to model and assess platform concepts in the earliest phase of development.
PughS., Total design: Addison-WesleyNew York, 1991.
2.
KesselringF., Bewertung von Konstruktionen (In German). Düsseldorf, Germany: Deutscher Ingenieur-Verlag, 1951.
3.
PahlG., BeitzW., et al., Engineering Design – A Systematic Approach. Berlin, Germany.: Springer, 2007.
4.
KolonayR.M., “A physics-based distributed collaborative design process for military aerospace vehicle development and technology assessment”, International Journal of Agile Systems and Management20(7), (2014), 242–260.
5.
JohannessonH., “On the Nature and Consequences of Functional Couplings in Axiomatic Machine Design,” presented at the Proceedings of ASME DETC, Irvine, California, USA, 1996.
6.
HubkaV. and EderW., “Functions revisited”, WDK Publications (2001), 69–76.
7.
SuhN.P., The Principles of Design. New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 1990.
8.
AndreasenM.M., “Syntesemetoder på Systemgrundlag – Bidrag til en konstruktionsteori,” Doctoral Thesis, In Swedish. Lund Technical University, Lund, Sweden, 1980.
9.
TjalveE., Systematisk udformning af industriprodukter – Værktøjer for konstruktøren. In Danish. Copenhagen, Denmark: Akademisk Forlag, 1976.
10.
SvendsenK.H. and HansenT.C., “Decomposition of mechanical systems and breakdown of specifications,” presented at the Proceedings of ICED 1993, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1993.
11.
JohannessonH. and ClaessonA., “Systematic product platform design: A combined function means and parametric modeling approach”, Journal of Engineering Design16 (2005), 25–43.
12.
LevandowskiC., RaudbergetD. and JohannessonH., “Set-based concurrent engineering for early phases in platform development,” in The 21st ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering-CE2014, 2014.
13.
SobekD.K., WardA. and LikerJ., “Toyota's Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering”, Sloan Management Review40 (1999), 67–83.
14.
HubkaV. and EderW.E., “Functions revisited,” in ICED’01: International conference on engineering design, Glasgow, GBR, 2001.
15.
SchachingerP. and JohannessonH.L., “Computer modelling of design specifications”, Journal of Engineering Design11(2000), 317–329.
16.
HvamL., MortensenN.H. and RiisJ., Product Customization. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008.
17.
BonjourE., DeniaudS. and MicaélliJ.-P., “A method for jointly drawing up the functional and design architectures of complex systems during the preliminary system-definition phase”, Journal of Engineering Design24 (2013), 305–319.
18.
ClaessonA., “A Configurable Component Framework Supporting Platform-Based Product Development,” Doctor of Engineering Doctoral Thesis, Department of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2006.
19.
EdholmP., WahlA., JohannessonH. and SóderbergR., “Knowledge-based configuration of integrated product and process platforms,” in ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (2009), 495–504.
20.
BerglundF. and ClaessonA., “Utilising the Concept of a Design's Bandwidth to Achieve Product Platform Effectiveness,” presented at the Proceedings of ICED 2005, Melbourne, Australia, 2005.
21.
WahlA. and JohannessonH., “Managing Design Change in Configurable Component Based Platforms,” presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Biannual Conference NordDesign 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2010.
22.
RaudbergetD., “The decision process in Set-based Concurrent Engineering- An industrial case study.,” in 11th International Design Conference - DESIGN 2010, Dubrovnik, Croatia., 2010.
23.
LikerJ.K., SobekD.K., WardA.C. and CristianoJ.J., “Involving suppliers in product development in the United States and Japan: Evidence for set-based concurrent engineering”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management43 (1996), 165–178.
24.
RaudbergetD., “Practical Applications of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering in Industry”, Journal of Mechanical Engineering- Strojniški vestnik56 (2010), 685–695.
25.
LevandowskiC.E., “Platform Lifecycle Support using Set-Based Concurrent Engineering,” Ph.D. thesis, PPU, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 2014.
MeyerM.H. and LehnerdA.P., The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. New York, New York, USA: Free Press, 1997.
28.
RaudbergetD., MichaelisM. and JohannessonH., “Combining Set-Based Concurrent Engineering and Function- Means Modelling to Manage Platform-Based Product Family Design.,” in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE IEEM, Kuala Lumpur, 2014.
29.
ClarksonP., SimonsC. and EckertC., “Predicting change propagation in complex design”, J Mech Des126 (2004), 788–797.
30.
HamrazB., CaldwellN.H., RidgmanT.W. and ClarksonP.J., “FBS Linkage ontology and technique to support engineering change management”, Research in Engineering Design26 (2015), 3–35.
31.
StewardD.V., “The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems”, IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, 1981.
32.
TOICA. (2015). Thermal Overall Integrated Conception of Aircraft. Retrieved September 29, 2015, fromhttp://www.toica-fp7.eu.
33.
WynnD.C., WyattD.F., NairS.M. and ClarksonP.J., “An introduction to the Cambridge advanced modeller,” presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes (MMEP 2010), Cambridge, UK, 2010.
34.
KipourosT. and IsakssonO., “Integrating value assessment into the computational engineering design cycle,” in OPT-i 2014-1st International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimization, Proceedings (2014), 2446–2455.
35.
MichaelisM.T., JohannessonH. and ElMaraghyH.A., “Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems36 (2015), 203–215.
