We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/designscience.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Additive manufacturing (AM) has gained prominence over the last 15 years and become a viable manufacturing option. Since there is great industrial interest to implement serial production of products using AM, the education of engineers in design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) is important today. DfAM extends on design for manufacturing to provide knowledge about the new design opportunities enabled by AM. A set of design heuristics for additive manufacturing (DHAM) to assist designers with conceptual-level DfAM has previously been proposed. In this paper, these DHAM are evaluated through workshops with 3 engineering companies and 19 engineers, in which the participants re-design existing company products for AM using the DHAM as an aid, and then give feedback. The DHAM are well received by the workshop participants, and they find that the DHAM are good for teaching others about the capabilities of AM, provide a checklist of items to consider to help avoid oversights, and encourage the generation of new ideas. Criticisms include the number of examples provided and the lack of information about how to implement the ideas concretely. It is also found that the DHAM fulfil 16 of 18 criteria for early design phase DfAM methods, identified in academic literature.
As products are being developed over time and across organisations, the risk for unintended accumulation and mis-conception of margins allocated may occur. Accumulation of margins can result in over design, but also add risk due to under allocation. This paper describes the different terminology used in one organisation and shows the different roles margins play across the design process and in particular the how margins are a critical but often overlooked aspect of product platform design. The research was conducted in close collaboration with a truck manufacturer between 2013 and 2018. The objective was to gain understanding of the current use of margins, and associated concepts evolve along the product life cycle, across organisation and product platform representations. It was found that margins already play an important role throughout the entire design process; however, it is not recognised as a unified concept which is clearly communicated and tracked throughout the design process. Rather different stakeholders have different notions of margins and do not disclose the rationale behind adding margins or the amount that they have added. Margins also enabled designers to avoid design changes as existing components and systems can accommodate new requirements and thereby saving significant design time.
Recommendations of sustainable design methods are usually based on theory, not empirical industry tests. Furthermore, since professionals often mix components of different design methods, recommending whole methods may not be relevant. It may be better to recommend component activities or mindsets. To provide empirical grounding for recommendations, this study performed 23 workshops on three sustainable design methods involving over 172 professionals from 27 companies, including consultancies and manufacturers in three industries (consumer electronics, furniture and clothing). The design methods tested were The Natural Step, Whole System Mapping and Biomimicry. Participants were surveyed about what components in each design method drove perceived innovation, sustainability or other value, and why. The most valued components only partially supported theoretical predictions. Thus, recommendations should be more empirically based. Results also found unique and complementary value in components of each method, which suggests recommending mixed methods for sustainable design. This may help design professionals find more value in green design practices, and thus integrate sustainability more into their practice.
Set-based design (SBD), sometimes referred to as set-based concurrent engineering (SBCE), has emerged as an important component of lean product development (LPD) with all researchers describing it as a core enabler of LPD. Research has explored the principles underlying LPD and SBCE, but methodologies for the practical implementation need to be better understood. A review of SBD is performed in this article in order to discover and analyse the key aspects to consider when developing a model and methodology to transition to SBCE. The publications are classified according to a new framework, which allows us to map the topology of the relevant SBD literature from two perspectives: the research paradigms and the coverage of the generic creative design process (Formulation–Synthesis–Analysis–Evaluation–Documentation–Reformulation). It is found that SBD has a relatively low theoretical development, but there is a steady increase in the diversity of contributions. The literature abounds with methods, guidelines and tools to implement SBCE, but they rarely rely on a model that is in the continuum of a design process model, product model or knowledge-based model with the aim of federating the three Ps (People–Product–Process) towards SBCE and LPD in traditional industrial contexts.
The use of metal Additive Manufacturing (AM) has increased in recent years with potential benefits for novel design solutions and efficient manufacturing. In order to utilise these potentials, engineers need to address uncertainties related to product design and the AM process. This paper presents a design process utilising product-specific AM Design Artefacts (AMDAs) to assess uncertainties identified during design. The process emphasises the importance of concurrently developing the product and AM knowledge. Based on a research collaboration with industry, three case studies describe the use of this process in the development of products for AM. In total, six different types of AMDAs show how AM-related uncertainties are resolved to provide confidence in design solutions and manufacturability. The contributions of this paper are: (i) a design process where AMDAs are used as support in evolving and defining an AM design specification, (ii) an example of how Design for AM (DfAM) is practiced in industry and of typical AM uncertainties that are encountered and addressed, and (iii) an example of how collaborative research can facilitate new knowledge for both industry and academia. The practical implication is a DfAM process for engineers to use and adapt according to existing AM knowledge.
The problem at hand is that vast amount of data on industrial changes is captured and stored; yet the present challenge is to systematically retrieve and use them in a purposeful way. This paper presents an industrial case study where complex product development processes are modeled using the design structure matrix (DSM) to analyze engineering change requests sequences. Engineering change requests are documents used to initiate a change process to enhance a product. Due to the amount of changes made in different projects, engineers want to be able to analyze these change processes to identify patterns and propose the best practices. The previous work has not specifically explored modeling engineering change requests in a DSM to holistically analyze sequences. This case study analyzes engineering change request sequences from four recent industrial product development projects and compares patterns among them. In the end, this research can help to identify and guide process improvement work within projects.
In the context of cross-disciplinary and cross-company cooperation, several challenges in developing manufacturing systems are revealed through industrial use cases. To tackle these challenges, two propositions are used in parallel. First, coupling technical models representing different content areas facilitates the detection of boundary crossing consequences, either by using a posteriori or a priori connection. Second, it is necessary to enrich these coupled technical models with team and organizational models as interventions focusing on the collaboration between individuals and teams within broader organizational conditions. Accordingly, a combined interdisciplinary approach is proposed. The feasibility and benefits of the approach is proven with an industrial use case. The use case shows that inconsistencies among teams can be identified by coupling engineering models and that an integrated organizational model can release the modelling process from communication barriers.
The use of decision-making models in the early stages of the development of complex products and technologies is a well-established practice in industry. Engineers rely on well-established statistical and mathematical models to explore the feasible design space and make early decisions on future design configurations. At the same time, researchers in both value-driven design and sustainable product development areas have stressed the need to expand the design space exploration by encompassing value and sustainability-related considerations. A portfolio of methods and tools for decision support regarding value and sustainability integration has been proposed in literature, but very few have seen an integration in engineering practices. This paper proposes an approach, developed and tested in collaboration with an aerospace subsystem manufacturer, featuring the integration of value-driven design and sustainable product development models in the established practices for design space exploration. The proposed approach uses early simulation results as input for value and sustainability models, automatically computing value and sustainability criteria as an integral part of the design space exploration. Machine learning is applied to deal with the different levels of granularity and maturity of information among early simulations, value models, and sustainability models, as well as for the creation of reliable surrogate models for multidimensional design analysis. The paper describes the logic and rationale of the proposed approach and its application to the case of a turbine rear structure for commercial aircraft engines. Finally, the paper discusses the challenges of the approach implementation and highlights relevant research directions across the value-driven design, sustainable product development, and machine learning research fields.
In order to reduce the time spent on tolerance analysis, it is necessary to correctly identify and prioritize the key characteristics of the product. For multiple-state mechanisms, a systematic procedure for doing this is lacking. We present a new complexity metric for multiple-state mechanisms based on the product behavior, describing the impact of geometrical variation. The sequence of the structural state transitions is linked to the product composition, enabling a clear prioritization of variation-critical states and interfaces. The approach is applied on an industrial case and verified based on a comparison with the company-specified priority tolerance calculations.
Value models are increasingly discussed today as a means to frontload conceptual design activities in engineering design, with the final goal of reducing cost and rework associated with sub-optimal decisions made from a system perspective. However, there is no shared agreement in the research community about what a value model exactly is, how many types of value models are there, their input–output relationships and their usage along the engineering design process timeline. Emerging from five case studies conducted in the aerospace and in the construction equipment industry, this paper describes how to tailor the development of value models in the engineering design process. The initial descriptive study findings are summarized in the form of seven lessons learned that shall be taken into account when designing value models for design decision support. From these lessons, the paper proposes a six-step framework that considers the need to update the nature and definition of value models as far as new information becomes available, moving from initial estimations based on expert judgment to detailed quantitative analysis.
Modular design allows to reduce costs based on scaling effects. However, due to strong alternating effects between the resulting modules and products, methods and tools are required that enable engineers to use specific views in which the respective information can be linked and retrieved according to the situation. Within the scope of this paper, the model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach is used to model the complex real-world problem of vehicle modular kits. The aim is to investigate the potentials in this context, how modular kits and products can be efficiently modeled and finally how MBSE can support modular design. In order to investigate this in detail, two extensive studies are carried out in a company over a period of three years. The studies show that modular kits lead to an increased complexity of development. Across industries and companies, the demand for reference product models is shown, which facilitate the unification of inhomogeneous partial models and serve as a knowledge repository for the development of future product generations. On this basis, a framework is derived which enables the reuse of large proportions of the product models of previous product generations. This framework is evaluated on the basis of five case studies.
In multi-domain product development organizations, there is a continuous need to transfer captured knowledge between engineers to enable better design decisions in the future. The objective of this paper is to evaluate how engineering knowledge can be captured, disseminated and (re)used by applying a knowledge reuse tool entitled Engineering Checksheet (ECS). The tool was introduced in 2012 and this evaluation has been performed over the 2017–2018 period. This case study focused on codified knowledge in incremental product development with a high reuse potential both in and over time. The evaluation draws conclusions from the perspectives of the knowledge workers (the engineers), knowledge owners and knowledge managers. The study concludes that the ECS has been found to be valuable in enabling a timely understanding of technological concepts related to low level engineering tasks in the product development process. Hence, this enables knowledge flow and, in particular, reuse among inexperienced engineers, as well as providing quick and accurate quality control for experienced engineers. The findings regarding knowledge ownership and management relate to the need for clearly defining a knowledge owner structure in which communities of practice take responsibility for empowering engineers to use ECS and as knowledge evolves managing updates to the ECS.
In complex products the values of parameters are rarely exactly the required values, rather they often have a margin that might be designed in deliberately or be the incidental results of other design decisions. These margins play a critical role in design processes in managing engineering change and iteration. While engineers often talk about margins informally, designers and researchers also use other terms for specific margin concepts. This paper reviews the existing literature on related concepts and defines margins formally. It discusses the role margins play in handling uncertainty by distinguishing between buffer and excess. Buffer deals with uncertainty and excess with the remaining overcapacity of the design. Buffer can transition into excess of the design solution if the uncertainty can be reduced. The concepts are applied to the temperature margins of several candidate materials for a non-rotary jet engine component. This shows that a clear understanding of margins can help a company to select design alternatives.
When a change request is raised in an engineering project an ad hoc team often forms to manage the request. Prior research shows that practitioners often view engineering changes in a risk-averse manner. As a project progresses the cost of changes increases. Therefore, avoiding changes is reasonable. However, a risk-averse perspective fails to recognize that changes might harbor discoverable and exploitable opportunities. In this research, we investigated how practitioners of ad hoc teams used practices and praxes aimed at discovering and exploiting opportunities in engineering change requests. A single case study design was employed using change request records and practitioner interviews from an engineering project. 87 engineering change requests were analyzed with regards to change triggers, time-to-decision and rejection rate. In total, 25 opportunities were discovered and then 17 exploited. Three practices and six praxes were identified, used by practitioners to discover and exploit opportunities. Our findings emphasize the importance of the informal structure of ad hoc teams, to aid in opportunity discovery. The informal structure enables cross-hierarchal discussions and draws on the proven experience of the team members. Thus, this research guides project managers and presumptive ad hoc teams in turning engineering changes into successful opportunities.