Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T20:10:28.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GUIDING LOCAL DESIGN DECISIONS TOWARDS A FLEXIBLE AND CHANGEABLE PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

L. Block
L. Block*
Affiliation:
University of Stuttgart, Germany
*
*lukas.block@iao.fraunhofer.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.

Flexibility and changeability are crucial when it comes to the design of embedded automotive architectures. However, flexibility and changeability are concepts rooted in the overall product and its objectives, while architectural design decisions may affect local subsystems as well as the overall system. Axiomatic design is applied to bridge this gap: The architecture is decomposed into its entities and changeability is described through the design's information content. Five domains of actions to foster changeability are identified and generic action schemes are derived.

Keywords

product architecturedesign structure matrix (DSM)axiomatic designflexibilitychange prediction

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 521 - 530
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

Bartolomei, J. et al. (2007), Analysis and applications of design structure matrix, domain mapping matrix, and engineering system matrix frameworks, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division.Google Scholar
Block, L., Riedel, O. and Herrmann, F. (2019), “A Lifecycle Model to Support Continuous Component Evolution in Embedded Automotive Systems”, 19. Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium: Automobil- und Motorentechnik, Stuttgart, March 19-20, 2019, Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25939-6_94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, J. et al. (2011), “Change Impact Analysis in Product-Line Architectures”, Software architecture: Proceedings of the 5th European conference, ECSA 2011, Essen, Germany, September 13-16, 2011, Springer, Berlin, pp. 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23798-0_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J. and Zanker, W. (2004), “Change and customisation in complex engineering domains”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0031-7Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Zanker, W. and Clarkson, P.J. (2001), “Aspects of a better understanding of changes”, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 01), Conference Centre, Glasgow, UK, August 21-23 2001, Design Society.Google Scholar
Foith-Förster, P. et al. (2016), “Axiomatic Approach to Flexible and Changeable Production System Design”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 53, pp. 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giffin, M. et al. (2009), “Change Propagation Analysis in Complex Technical Systems”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 131 No. 8, pp. 081001-1–081001-14. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3149847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guissouma, H. et al. (2018), “An Empirical Study on the Current and Future Challenges of Automotive Software Release and Configuration Management”, 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SSEA 2018), Prague, August 29-31, 2018, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2018.00056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helander, M.G. and Lin, L. (2002), “Axiomatc design in ergonomics and an extension of the information axiom”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482021000050794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaensch, M. (2012), Modulorientiertes Produktlinien Engineering für den modellbasierten Elektrik/Elektronik-Architekturentwurf, [PhD Thesis], Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. https://doi.org/10.5445/KSP/1000028687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Käßmeyer, M., Schulze, M. and Schurius, M. (2015), “A process to support a systematic change impact analysis of variability and safety in automotive functions”, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line, Nashville, Tennessee, July 20-24, 2015, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1145/2791060.2791079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matt, D.T. (2007), “Design of Changeable Assembly Systems: A Complexity Theory Based Approach”, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2007 (IEEE IEEM 2007), Singapore, December 2-4, 2007, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 738–742. https://doi.org/10.1109/|IEEM.2007.4419288Google Scholar
Muschik, S. (2011), Development of Systems of Objectives in Early Product Engineering, [PhD Thesis], Karlsruhe Institute for Technology. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000023768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padala, S.P.S. and Maheswari, J.U. (2019), “Axiomatic design framework for changeability in design for construction projects”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00187-1Google Scholar
Pimmler, T.U. and Eppinger, S.D. (1994), “Integration analysis of product decompositions”, Design Theory and Methodology (DTM ’94), Minneapolis, MN, September 11-14, 1994, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, K. (2008), Requirements engineering: Grundlagen, Prinzipien, Techniken, 2nd ed., dpunkt-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Rajan, P. et al. (2003), “Design for flexibility: Measures and guidelines”, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 03), Stockholm, August 19-21, 2003, Design Society.Google Scholar
Rebentisch, E. et al. (2018), “Assessment of changes in engineering design using change propagation cost analysis”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17): Design Methods and Tools, Vancouver, Canada, August 21-25, 2017, Design Society, Red Hook, NY, pp. 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarica, S. and Luo, J. (2019), “An Infinite Regress Model of Design Change Propagation in Complex Systems”, IEEE Systems Journal, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2899988Google Scholar
Schulz, A.P. and Fricke, E. (1999), “Incorporating flexibility, agility, robustness, and adaptability within the design of integrated systems: Key to success?”, Proceedings of the 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC): Gateway to the New Millennium, St Louis, MO, USA, October 24-29, 1999, IEEE, Piscataway, N.J, 1.A.2-1–1.A.2-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.1999.863677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, E.S., de Weck, O.L. and Chang, D. (2007), “Flexible product platforms: framework and case study”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0032-zGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2001), Axiomatic design: Advances and applications, MIT-Pappalardo Series in Mechanical Engineering, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2005), Complexity: Theory and applications, MIT-Pappalardo Series in Mechanical Engineering, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tilstra, A.H. et al. (2009), “Industrial Case Studies in Product Flexibility for Future Evolution: An Application and Evaluation of Design Guidelines”, 20th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 2nd International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems, Brooklyn, New York, USA, August 3-6, 2008, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2008-49370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. et al. (2015), “Design of Changeable Production Units within the Automotive Sector with Axiomatic Design”, Variety Management in Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 47th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 34, pp. 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, K.L. and Antonsson, E.K. (1990), “Modeling imprecision and uncertainty in preliminary engineering design”, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-114X(90)90031-ECrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zäh, M.F., Möller, N. and Vogl, W. (2005), “Symbiosis of Changeable and Virtual Production: The Emperor's New Clothes or Key Factor for Future Success”, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production (CARV 2005), Munich, Germany, 2005, Utz.Google Scholar
Zhu, G.-N. et al. (2017), “Change mode and effects analysis by enhanced grey relational analysis under subjective environments”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060417000099Google Scholar