Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:03:11.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measures of product design adaptability for changing requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2014

Serdar Uckun ,
Ryan Mackey ,
Minh Do ,
Rong Zhou ,
Eric Huang  and
Jami J. Shah
Serdar Uckun
Affiliation:
Telact, Palo Alto, California, USA
Ryan Mackey
Affiliation:
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
Minh Do
Affiliation:
NASA Ames, Moffett Field, California, USA
Rong Zhou
Affiliation:
PARC, Palo Alto, California, USA
Eric Huang
Affiliation:
PARC, Palo Alto, California, USA
Jami J. Shah*
Affiliation:
Design Automation Lab, Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Jami J. Shah, Design Automation Lab, Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-6106, USA. E-mail: jami.shah@asu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adaptability can have many different definitions: reliability, robustness, survivability, and changeability (adaptability to requirements change). In this research, we focused entirely on the last type. We discuss two alternative approaches to requirements change adaptability. One is the valuation approach that is based on utility and cost of design changes in response to modified requirements. The valuation approach is theoretically sound because it is based on utility and decision theory, but it may be difficult to use in the real world. The second approach is based on examining product architecture characteristics that facilitate changes that include modularity, hierarchy, interfaces, performance sensitivity, and design margins. This approach is heuristic in nature but more practical to use. If calibrated, it could serve as a surrogate for real adaptability. These measures were incorporated in a software tool for exploring alternative configurations of fractionated space satellite systems.

Keywords

AdaptabilityChangeabilityReliabilityRobustnessSurvivability
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 28 , Issue 4: Design of Complex Engineered Systems , November 2014 , pp. 353 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldwin, C.Y., & Clark, K.B. (2003). Managing in an Age of Modularity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bischof, A., & Blessing, L. (2008). Guidelines for the development of flexible products. Int. Design Conf., Design 2008, Dubrovnik, May 19–22.Google Scholar
Chalupnik, M., Wynn, D., & Clarkson, J. (2009). Approaches to mitigate the impact of uncertainty in development processes. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED2009, Stanford, August.Google Scholar
Chen, W., & Yuan, C. (1999). A probabilistic-based design model for achieving flexibility in design. Journal of Mechanical Design 121(1), 77–83.Google Scholar
Fixson, S.K. (2003). The Multiple Faces of Modularity—A Literature Analysis of a Product Concept for Assembled Hardware Products, Technical Report 03-05. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering.Google Scholar
Guo, F., & Gershenson, J.K. (2003). Comparison of modular measurement methods based on consistency analysis and sensitivity analysis. Proc. 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Chicago, September.Google Scholar
Guo, F., & Gershenson, J.K. (2004). A comparison of modular product design methods based on improvement and iteration. Proc. 2004 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf./Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 261–269.Google Scholar
Hashemian, M. (2005). Design for adaptability. PhD Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
Hölttä, K., Suh, E.S., & de Weck, O. (2005). Trade-off between modularity and performance for engineered systems and products. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, August 15–18.Google Scholar
Jiao, J., & Tseng, M.M. (2004). Customizability analysis in design for mass customization. Computer-Aided Design 36(8), 745–757.Google Scholar
Kalligeros, K., de Weck, O., Neufille, R., & Luckins, A. (2006). Platform identification using design structure matrices. Proc. 16th Int. Symp. INCOSE, July.Google Scholar
Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., & Miller, R. (2000). A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, X., & Gershenson, J. (2008). Representation of similarity and dependency for assembly modularity. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 37(7), 803–827.Google Scholar
Lehnerd, M.A. (1997). The Power of Product Platforms. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, K., Chen, W., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Decision Making in Engineering Design. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Xue, D., & Gu, P. (2008). Design for product adaptability. Concurrent Engineering 16(3), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Neufille, R. (n.d.). Flexibility in engineering design with examples from electric power systems. Powerpoint presentation.Google Scholar
Newcomb, P.J., Bras, B., & Rosen, D.W. (2001). Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Oman, P., & Hagemeister, J. (1992). Metrics for Assessing a Software System's Maintainability. New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1995). Engineering Design. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rajan, P., Van Wei, M., Campbell, M., Wood, K., & Otto, K. (2005). An empirical foundation for product flexibility. Design Studies 26(4), 405–438.Google Scholar
Ross, A.M., Rhodes, D.H., & Hastings, D.E. (2008). Defining changeability: reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value. Systems Engineering 11(3), 246–262.Google Scholar
Shaw, G.B., Miller, D., & Hastings, D. (1999). The Generalized Information Network Analysis Methodology for Distributed Satellite Systems. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Shibata, T., Yano, M., & Kodama, F. (2004). Empirical analysis of evolution of product architecture. Research Policy 34(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
Shibata, T., Yano, M., & Kodama, F. (2005). Empirical analysis of evolution of product architecture: Fanuc numerical controllers from 1962 to 1997. Research Policy 34(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
Siddall, J. (1972). Analytical Decision-Making in Engineering Design. Englewood, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, A., Bounova, G., de Weck, O., Keller, R., & Robinson, B. (2011). A posteriori design change analysis for complex engineering projects. Journal of Mechanical Design 133(10).Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
Simpson, T. (2004). Product platform design and customisation: status and promise. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Simpson, T., Rosen, D., Allen, J., & Mistree, F. (1998). Metrics for assessing design freedom and information certainty in the early stages of design. ASME Transactions, Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(4), 628–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, M.B., Magleby, S., & Parkinson, A. (2003). A classification method to compare modular product concepts. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., pp. 657–668, Chicago, September 2–6.Google Scholar
Suh, E.S., de Weck, O.L., & Chang, D. (2007). Flexible product platforms: framework and case study. Research in Engineering Design 18(2), 67–89.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2000). Axiomatic Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3), 419–440.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2011). Product Design and Development, Vol. 2. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Yassine, A., Whitney, D., & Daleiden, J. (2003). Connectivity maps: modeling and analysing relationships inproduct development processes. Journal of Engineering Design 14(3), 377–394.Google Scholar
Zha, X., Sriram, R., & Lu, W. (2004). Evaluation and selection in product design for mass customization: a knowledge decision support approach. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18(1), 87–109.Google Scholar