Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T09:33:17.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHOOSING THE RIGHT MEASURES TO IMPROVE COLLABORATION BETWEEN DESIGN AND SIMULATION DEPARTMENTS

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Schweigert-Recksiek  and
U. Lindemann
S. Schweigert-Recksiek*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich, Germany
U. Lindemann
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich, Germany
*
*schweigert.recksiek@tum.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Increasing complexity of products and design processes leads to intensive collaboration of different stakeholders in technical product development. This causes a demand for suitable methods of collaboration across department interfaces, as between design and simulation. The paper investigates typical barriers of collaboration at this interface and measures to overcome them. Methods of complexity management form links based on literature and empirical data from online surveys and interview studies. The framework uses a set of structural metrics to analyse collaboration networks systematically.

Keywords

structural complexitycommunicationprocess improvementcollaborationdesign management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 727 - 736
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Basili, V.R. and Weiss, D.M. (1984), “A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27662-9_7Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), “DRM: A design research methodology”, Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deubzer, F. et al. (2005), “A structured holistic approach for the integration of CAD and CAE environments”, ProSTEP iViP Science Days 2005 - Cross Domain Engineering. Darmstadt, ProSTEP iViP Association.Google Scholar
Eppler, M. (2007), “Knowledge communication problems between experts and decision makers: An overview and classification”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 291–300.Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. et al. (2014), “Interaction between Computer-based Design Analysis Activities and the Engineering Design Process - An Industrial Survey”, International Design Conference. Dubrovnik: DESIGN2014.Google Scholar
Herfeld, U. et al. (2006), Verknüpfung von Komponenten und Funktionen zur Integration von Konstruktion und Simulation in der Karosserieentwicklung. VDI BERICHTE, 1967 (1), p. 259.Google Scholar
Knippenberg, S.C. et al. (2018), “Analyzing complex socio-technical systems in technical product development using structural metrics”, In International Dependency and Structure Modeling (DSM) Conference, p. 203.Google Scholar
Kreimeyer, M. and Lindemann, U. (2011), “Complexity metrics in engineering design: managing the structure of design processes”, Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreimeyer, M.F. (2009), “A Structural Measurement System for Engineering Design Processes (PhD Thesis)”, Technical University of Munich. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20963-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebold, R. and Trinczek, R. (2009), “Experteninterview”, In: Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung: Springer, pp. 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91570-8_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M. (2007), “A Grid-Based asssessment method of communication in Engineering design (PhD Thesis)”, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Maier, A.M. et al. (2011), “Improving communication in design: recommendations from the literature”, In DS 68-7: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 7: Human Behaviour in Design, 15-19 August 2011, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Mathieson, J. and Summers, J.D. (2017), “A protocol for modeling and tracking engineering design process through structural complexity metrics applied against communication networks”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x16666936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motte, D. et al. (2014), “Integration of the computer-based design analysis activity in the engineering design process”, Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, Delft University of Technology, pp. 1181–1194.Google Scholar
Norris, M. (2017), “How to succeed @ SPDM”, International SPDM Conference 2017. NAFEMS. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Petersson, H., Eriksson, M. and Bjärnemo, R. (2013), “Integration of Computer Aided Design Analysis Into the Engineering Design Process for Use by Engineering Designers”, Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Esposition. San Diego: IMECE2013. https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2013-62130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicheneder, J. (2015), “15 Years SPDM@BMW”, NAFEMS Europeans SPDM Conference. Munich: NAFEMS.Google Scholar
Schönwald, J.R. et al. (2019, July), “Improvement of Collaboration between Testing and Simulation Departments on the Example of a Motorcycle Manufacturer”, In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, S. et al. (2017a), “Combination of Matrix-based and Graph-based Modeling for Product and Organizational Structures”, Proceedings of the 19th International DSM Conference Espoo (Finland), September 2017, pp. 11-13.Google Scholar
Schweigert, S., Xia, M. and Lindemann, U. (2017b), “An empirical survey on efficiency improvement for the collaboration between design and simulation departments”, The 21st International Conference on Engineering Design ICED17, Vancouver, Canaca, The Design Society, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S. and Lindemann, U. (2018), “Improvement Opportunities for the Collaboration of Design and Simulation Departments - An Interview Study”, The international Design Conference on Engineering Design, Zagreb, The Design Society, pp. 905–916. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S., Koch, C. and Lindemann, U. (2019), “Matrix-Based Multivariate Analysis of Survey Data on Potentials for the Collaboration of Design and Simulation”, Proceedings of the 21st International DSM Conference (DSM 2019), 23-25 September 2019, Monterey, California. https://doi.org/10.35199/dsm2019.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S. et al. (2020), “Conception of a Digital Twin in Mechanical Engineering: A Case Study in Technical Product Development”, DESIGN2020 (accepted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songhori, M.J. and Nasiry, J. (2019), “Organizational Structure, Subsystem Interaction Pattern, and Misalignments in Complex NPD Projects”, Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3448496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2007), “Are your engineers talking to one another when they should?”, In: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 11, p. 133.Google Scholar