Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:47:06.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict management in an interdisciplinary design environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Vincent Oh  and
John Sharpe
Vincent Oh
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YR, United Kingdom
John Sharpe
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YR, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is now becoming increasingly common for products to be designed via an interdisciplinary approach, particularly when an engineering enterprise adopts the concurrent engineering approach. Essentially, this implies that several heterogeneous sources of knowledge are simultaneously involved during the design phase of the product. The benefits often cited as a result of such an approach are increased quality and innovation, decreased time-to-market, and lower manufacturing costs. However, the approach also accentuates the problem of how to handle and manage conflicts, which frequently arise due to several factors as discussed in this paper. This paper also describes a system called Schemebuilder, which is an integrated design workbench aimed at supporting the conceptual and embodiment phases of interdisciplinary systems design, and its mechanisms for handling and resolving conflicts.

Keywords

Conflict ResolutionIntegrated DesignInterdisciplinary Design
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , September 1995 , pp. 247 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bahler, D., Dupont, C, & Bowen, J. (1994). An axiomatic approach that supports negotiated resolution of design conflicts in concurrent engineering. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '94, (Gero, J. and Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 363–379. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1994). Computer aided methodology for qualitative development of schemes from first principles. In Computer Aided Conceptual Design (Sharpe, J.E.E. and Oh, V., Eds.), pp. 79–94. Lancaster EDC, Lancaster.Google Scholar
Bradley, D.A., Dawson, D., Burd, N.C., & Loader, A.J. (1991). Mechatronics: Electronics in products and processes. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design problem solving: Knowledge structures and control strategies. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
Dearbon, D.C., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the department identifications of executives. Sociometry 140–144.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, S., Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., & Nuseibeh, B. (1994). Coordinating conflicting viewpoints by managing inconsistency. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '94 Workshop on Conflict Management in Design. Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Filman, R.E. (1988). Reasoning with worlds and truth maintenance in a knowledge-based programming environment. Communications of the ACM 31(4), 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galliers, J.R. (1990). The positive role of conflict in cooperative multi-agent systems. In Decentralized AI, (Demazeau, Y. and Muller, J.P., Eds.), pp. 33–46. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Haroud, D., Boulanger, S., Gelle, E., & Smith, I. (1994). Strategies for conflict management in preliminary engineering design. In AI Design '94 Workshop on Conflict Management in Design. Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kannapan, S.M., & Marshek, K.M. (1992). In Intelligent Computer Aided Design, (Brown, D.C., Waldron, M.B. and Yoshikawa, H., Eds.), pp. 1–25. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Karnopp, D.C., Margolis, D.L., & Rosenberg, R.C. (1990). System dynamics: A unified approach 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Klein, M. (1993). Supporting conflict management in cooperative design teams. Group Decision and Negotiation 2(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M., & Lu, S.C.Y. (1989). Conflict resolution in cooperative design. Artif. Intell. Eng. 4(4), 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, S.E., Lesser, V.R., & Connell, M.E. (1991). Knowledge-based conflict resolution for cooperation among expert agents. In Computer-Aided Cooperative Product Development, (Sriram, D., Logcher, R., and Fukuda, S., Eds.), pp. 269–297. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Langdon, P. (1993). Software for Schemebuilder: An aid for design creativity. Tech. Rep. EDC 1993/01. Engineering Design Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster.Google Scholar
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Organizations 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Oh, V., Taleb-Bendiab, A., Sommerville, I., & French, M. (1993). Incorporating a cooperative design model in a computer-aided design improvement system. In Prospects for Artificial Intelligence, (Sloman, A., Hogg, D., Humphreys, G., Ramsay, A. and Partridge, D., Eds.), pp. 101–110. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Oh, V., Langdon, P., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1994a). Schemebuilder: An integrated environment for product design. In Computer Aided Conceptual Design, (Sharpe, J.E.E. and Oh, V., Eds.), pp. 339–362. Lancaster EDC, Lancaster.Google Scholar
Oh, V., Chaplin, R.V., Yan, X.T., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1994b). A generic framework for the description of components in the design & simulation of mechatronic products. In Mechatronics: The Basis for New Industrial Development, (Acar, M., Makra, J. and Penney, E., Eds.), pp. 515–520. Computational Mechanics, Southampton.Google Scholar
Petrie, C, Cutkosky, M., Webster, T., Conru, A., & Park, H. (1994). Next-Link: An experiment in coordination of distributed agents. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '94 Workshop on Conflict Management in Design. Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Polat, F., Shekhar, S., & Guvenir, H.A. (1993). A negotiation platform for cooperating multi-agent systems. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 1(3), 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Putnam, L.L., & Poole, M.S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, (Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Lyman, W.P., Eds.), pp. 549–599. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Rahim, M.A. (1986). Managing conflict in organizations. Praegar, New York.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. (1991). Cooperative negotiation in concurrent engineering design. In Computer-Aided Cooperative Product Development, (Sriram, D., Logcher, R. and Fukuda, S., Eds.), pp. 269–297. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkman, K.J. (1990). Multiagent cooperative problem solving through negotiation and perspective sharing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University.Google Scholar