Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A method to evaluate direct and indirect design dependencies between components in a product architecture

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methods for evaluating the strength of design dependencies in a product architecture have been widely studied in the literature; however, evaluating the effects of direct and indirect interactions between components/modules remains a challenge. In fact, indirect connections between components/modules are often overlooked in many cases when evaluating design dependencies. Having a more consistent way of defining a product architecture that considers both its direct and indirect connections is important, especially when analyzing redesign complexity and change propagation. In this study, we propose a systematic method to evaluate direct and indirect design dependencies between components in product architectures. Interfaces are classified into six different types based on a thorough review of the literature, and a method for evaluating design dependencies is introduced to estimate the relative importance of interfaces directly from a set of comparable products. Using an electrical circuit analogy, the proposed method can quantify both direct and indirect design dependencies between components within a product architecture. We compare design dependency results for different wireless computer mice to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The results show that using the proposed design dependency measure including direct and indirect effects provides more reliable design dependency results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more information, visit: http://www.microsoft.com/accessories/en-us/mice.

References

  • Ahmad N, Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2013) Change impact on a product and its redesign process: a tool for knowledge capture and reuse. Res Eng Des 24(3):219–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariyo O, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2010) Towards a decentralised approach to modelling connectivity in complex products. ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. ASME, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp 35–45

  • Bettig B, Gershenson JK (2006) Module interface representation. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences. ASME, Philadelphia, PA

  • Bozzo E, Franceschet M (2013) Resistance distance, closeness, and betweenness. Soc Netw 35(3):460–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(3):292–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson PJ, Simons C, Eckert C (2004) Predicting change propagation in complex design. J Mech Des 126(5):788–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCarlo RA, Lin P-M (1995) Linear circuit analysis: time domain, phasor, and Laplace transform approaches. Prentice-Hall, Inc

  • Dobberfuhl A, Lange MW (2009) Interfaces per module: is there an ideal number? ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences- Computers and Information in Engineering Design Conference. ASME, San Diego, CA

  • Eckert C, Clarkson PJ, Zanker W (2004) Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Res Eng Des 15(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press

  • Ericsson A, Erixon G (1999) Controlling design variants: modular product platforms. ASME, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Giffin M, de Weck O, Bounova G, Keller R, Eckert C, Clarkson PJ (2009) Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems. J Mech Des 131(8):081001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamraz B, Clarkson PJ (2015) Industrial evaluation of FBS Linkage—a method to support engineering change management. J Eng Des 26(1–3):24–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamraz B, Caldwell NHM, Clarkson PJ (2012) A multidomain engineering change propagation model to support uncertainty reduction and risk management in design. J Mech Des 134(10):100905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamraz B, Hisarciklilar O, Rahmani K, Wynn DC, Thomson V, Clarkson PJ (2013) Change prediction using interface data. Concurr Eng 21(2):141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamraz B, Caldwell NHM, Ridgman TW, Clarkson PJ (2015) FBS Linkage ontology and technique to support engineering change management. Res Eng Des 26(1):3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirtz J, Stone R, McAdams D, Szykman S, Wood K (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Des 13(2):65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holley V, Jankovic M, Yannou B (2014) Physical interface ontology for management of conflicts and risks in complex systems. Concurr Eng 22(2):148–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölttä KM, Otto KN (2005) Incorporating design effort complexity measures in product architectural design and assessment. Des Stud 26(5):463–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hundal M (1990) A systematic method for developing function structures, solutions and concept variants. Mech Mach Theory 25(3):243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankovic M, Holley V, Yannou B (2012) Multiple-domain design scorecards: a method for architecture generation and evaluation through interface characterisation. J Eng Des 23(10–11):746–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarratt T, Eckert C, Clarkson PJ (2004) Development of a product model to support engineering change management. In: Theory and methods of competitive engineering (TMCE) 2004. Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 331–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarratt TAW, Eckert CM, Caldwell NHM, Clarkson PJ (2011) Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature. Res Eng Des 22(2):103–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller R, Eger T, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2005) Visualising change propagation. In: The 15th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 05), Melbourne, Australia

  • Klein DJ, Randić M (1993) Resistance distance. J Math Chem 12(1):81–95

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ko Y-T (2013) Optimizing product architecture for complex design. Concurr Eng 21(2):87–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh ECY, Caldwell NHM, Clarkson PJ (2012) A method to assess the effects of engineering change propagation. Res Eng Des 23(4):329–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockledge JC, Salustri FA (1999) Defining the engine design process. J Eng Des 10(2):109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin MV, Ishii K (2002) Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res Eng Des 13(4):213–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MathWorks (2015) Matlab, R2015a ed, MathWorks. Inc, Natick

    Google Scholar 

  • Min G, Suh ES, Hölttä-Otto K (2016) Impact of technology infusion on system architecture complexity. J Eng Des 27(9):613–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moullec M-L, Bouissou M, Jankovic M, Bocquet J-C, Réquillard F, Maas O, Forgeot O (2013) Toward system architecture generation and performances assessment under uncertainty using Bayesian networks. J Mech Des 135(4):041002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer

  • Parraguez P (2015) A networked perspective on the engineering design process: at the intersection of process and organisation architectures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical University of Denmark

  • Pasqual MC, de Weck OL (2012) Multilayer network model for analysis and management of change propagation. Res Eng Des 23(4):305–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. In: ASME 6th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. ASME, Minneapolis, MN

  • Sanchez R (1994) Towards a science of strategic product design: system design, component modularity, and product leveraging strategies. In: 2nd International Product Development Conference on New Approaches to Development and Engineering, Brussels, Belgium

  • Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2003) Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. J Mech Des 125(2):240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2007) A network approach to define modularity of components in complex products. J Mech Des 129(11):1118–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson K, Zelen M (1989) Rethinking centrality: methods and examples. Soc Netw 11(1):1–37

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Steward DV (1981) Systems analysis and management: structure, strategy and design. Petrocelli Books, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh ES, de Weck OL, Chang D (2007) Flexible product platforms: framework and case study. Res Eng Des 18(2):67–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilstra AH, Seepersad CC, Wood KL (2009) Analysis of product flexibility for future evolution based on design guidelines and a high-definition design structure matrix. In: ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 951–964

  • Tilstra AH, Seepersad CC, Wood KL (2012) A high-definition design structure matrix (HDDSM) for the quantitative assessment of product architecture. J Eng Des 23(10–11):767–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye Y, Jankovic M, Kremer GE (2015) Understanding the impact of subjective uncertainty on architecture and supplier identification in early complex systems design. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncert Eng Syst Part B Mech Eng 1(3):031005-031005-11

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16082, USA

    Sangjin Jung & Timothy W. Simpson

  2. QAD, Inc., Mt. Laurel, NJ, 08054, USA

    Oyku Asikoglu

Authors
  1. Sangjin Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oyku Asikoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy W. Simpson.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: DSMs for wireless mobile mouse 3500 and sculpt mobile mouse

Appendix: DSMs for wireless mobile mouse 3500 and sculpt mobile mouse

See Figs. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Fig. 16
figure 16

DSMs obtained using 0–1 representation

Full size image
Fig. 17
figure 17

DSMs obtained using MCS

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

Interfaces in the DSMs

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Change resistances

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Visualization of change-resistance values

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, S., Asikoglu, O. & Simpson, T.W. A method to evaluate direct and indirect design dependencies between components in a product architecture. Res Eng Design 29, 507–530 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0291-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0291-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation