Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T23:45:35.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ARCHITECTING COMPLEX ENGINEERED SYSTEMS

Part of: Systems Engineering and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

U. Sellgren  and
D. Williamsson
U. Sellgren*
Affiliation:
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
D. Williamsson
Affiliation:
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Scania CV AB, Sweden
*
*ulfse@kth.se

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.

Novel products are commonly realized by integrating heterogeneous technologies. Product architecting focus on defining the scheme by which the product functions are allocated to physical components. A DSM-based clustering method that integrates technical complexity and strategic concerns has previously been proposed. It has been shown that interaction weights in the DSM may affect the clustering result. A complexity-based interaction strength model to be used in DSM clustering is proposed here. The case study gives promising results from both interaction performance and safety points of view.

Keywords

design structure matrix (DSM)complex systemssystems engineering (SE)

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 2415 - 2424
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

Blackenfelt, M. (2001), “Managing complexity by product modularization”!, Doc. Thesis, Dept. of Machine Design, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Blecker, T., Kersten, W. and Meyer, C. (2005), “Development of an approach for analyzing supply chain complexity”, MPRA Paper No. 5284, posted 12 Oct 2007 UTC, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5284/ Accessed 2019-10-29.Google Scholar
Börjesson, F. and Sellgren, U. (2013), “Fast Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Clustering Design Structure Matrix”, ASME Sesign Engineering Technical Conferences, Portland, OR, Paper number DETC2013-12041, https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2013-12041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casti, J.L. (1992), “The simply complex: trendy buzzword or emerging new science”, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, S., Grotenhuis, R. and van Goor, A.R. (2013), “Assessing complexity of supply chains: evidence from wholesalers”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 960–980, https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2012-0258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieter, E. et al. (2013), “Engineering Design”, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. et al. (1994), “A- Moel-Based Method for Organizing Tasksin Product Development”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012), Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erixon, G. (1998), “Modular function deployment: a method for product modularization”, Doc. Thesis, Dept. of Manuf. Sys., KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. et al. (2018), “Measuring the complexity of product configuration system”, Proceedings of the 20th Configuration Workshop, Graz, Austria, pp. 61-68 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), ISSN 1613-0073.Google Scholar
Hölttä-Otto, K. (2005), “Modular Product Platform Design”, Doc. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Machine Design, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
INCOSE (2007), “SE Vision 2020”, INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02, Sep 2007.Google Scholar
Mattsson, S., Gullander, P. and Davidsson, A. (2011), “Method for Measuring Production Complexity” presented at the International Manufacturing Conference IMC 28 - Manufacturing Sustainability, Dublin City University, Ireland, 2011.Google Scholar
Mattsson, S. et al. (2014), “Comparing quantifiable methods to measure complexity in assembly”, Int. J. Manufacturing Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 112–130. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMR.2014.059602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, S. and Eppinger, S.D. (2001), “Sourcing By Design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain”, Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliviera, R. (2019), “Motion Planning for Heavy-Duty Vehicles”, Lic. Thesis, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Patzak, G. (1982), “Systemtechnik – Plannung komplexer innovativer Systeme, Grundlagen, Metoden, Techniken”, Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugh, S. (1990), “Total design”, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Toro, C.A., Jared, G. and Swift, K. (2004), “Product-development complexity measures: a framework for proactive-dfa implementation”, DS32: Proceedings of DESIGN 2004, the 8th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 483-490. ISBN 953-6313-59-6Google Scholar
Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2003), “Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and their Impact on Design Team Interactions”, ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design, https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.156074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L. and Crawford, R.H. (2000), “A heuristic method for identifying modules in product architectures”, Design Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1999), “A theory of complexity, periodicity and the design axioms”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Törngren, M. and Sellgren, U. (2019), “Complexity Challenges in Development of Cyber-Physical Systems”, In: Lohstroh, M., Derler, P. and Sirjani, M. (Eds.), Principles of Modeling, Springer International Publishing AG, pp. 478–503, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95246-8Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419–440, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3, ISSN 0048-7333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2000), “Product Design and Development”, second edition, McGraw Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
VDI (2004), “Design methodology for mechatronic systems”, VDI 2206, VDI Guidelines, Beuth Berlin, 2004Google Scholar
Williamsson, D. and Sellgren, U. (2016), “An approach to integrated modularization”, 26th CIRP Design Conf., Stockholm, Sweden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamsson, D., Sellgren, U. and Söderberg, A. (2018), “Product Architecture Transition in an Evolving Multi-Brand Organisation”, 15th International Design Conference, https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018-0366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamsson, D. and Sellgren, U. (2019), “Introducing implementation dependent behavior into integrated product architecture clustering”, Proceedings of the 21th International Dependency and Structure Modeling Conference, DSM 2019, Monterey, CA, USA, https://doi.org/10.35199/dsm2019.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar