Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:10:09.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge-based support for management of concurrent, multidisciplinary design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Raymond E. Levitt ,
Yan Jin  and
Clive L. Dym
Raymond E. Levitt
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, U.S.A.
Yan Jin
Affiliation:
Civil Engingeering Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, U.S.A.
Clive L. Dym
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications to design have tended to focus on modeling and automating aspects of single discipline design tasks. Relatively little attention has thus far been devoted to representing the kinds of design ‘metaknowledge’ needed to manage the important interface issues that arise in concurrent design, that is, multidisciplinary design decision-making. This paper provides a view of the process and management of concurrent design and evaluates the potential of two AI approaches—blackboard architectures and co-operative distributed problem-solving (CDPS)—to model and support the concurrent design of complex artifacts. A discussion of the process of multidisciplinary design highlights elements of both sequential and concurrent design decision-making. We identify several kinds of design metaknowledge used by expert managers to: partition the design task for efficient execution by specialists; set appropriate levels of design conservatism for key subsystem specifications; evaluate, limit and selectively communicate design changes across discipline boundaries; and control the sequence and timing of the key (highly constrained and constraining) design decisions for a given type of artifact. We explore the extent to which blackboard and CDPS architectures can provide valid models of and potential decision support for concurrent design by (1) representing design management metaknowledge, and (2) using it to enhance both horizontal (interdisciplinary) and vertical (project life cycle) integration among product design, manufacturing and operations specialists.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1991 , pp. 77 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Amarel, S. 1968. On representations of problems of reasoning about actions. In Mitchie, D. (ed.), Machine Intelligence 3. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Asimow, W. 1962. Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Gasser, L., eds 1988. Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekaran, B. 1989. Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies. London: Pitman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, S., McArthur, D. and Steeb, R. 1983. Strategies of cooperation in distributed problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 767–770. [Also in Bond (1988), pp. 102–105].Google Scholar
Cohen, G. and Levitt, R. E. 1991. The virtual design team. ASCE Construction Congress 91, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Conry, S. E., Meyer, R. A. and Lesser, V. R. 1988. Multistage negotiation in distributed planning. In Bond, A. H. and Gasser, L. (eds) Readings in Distribution Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Corkill, D. D. 1979. Hierarchical planning in a distributed environment. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Tiblisi, Georgia, USSR, August 1979. (An extended version was published as Technical Report 79–13, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, February 1979.)Google Scholar
Corkill, D. D. and Lesser, V. R. 1983. Coordination in a distributed problem-solving network. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Oakland University, Rochester, MI.Google Scholar
Corkill, D. D., Corkill, D.D., Gallagher, K.Q. and Murray, K. E. 1986. GBB: A generic blackboard development system. Proceedings of AAAI-86, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Corkill, D. D., Gallagher, K. Q. and Johnson, P. M. 1986. From prototype to product: evolutionary development within the blackboard paradigm. Technical Report 86–46, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Darwiche, A., Levitt, R. E. and Hayes-Roth, B. 1989. OARPLAN: generating project plans by reasoning about objects, actions and resources. (AIEDAM) 2, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. and Smith, R. G. 1983. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 20 (1), 63–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durfee, E. H. 1986. An approach to cooperation: planning and communication in a distributed problem solving network. Technical Report No. 86–09, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Durfee, E. H. and Lesser, V. R. 1986. Incremental planning to control a blackboard-based problem solver. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Durfee, E. H. and Lesser, V. R. 1987. Using partial global plans to coordinate distributed problem solvers. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan, Italy. [Also in (Bond, 1988) pp. 285–293].Google Scholar
Durfee, E. H., Lesser, V. R. and Corkill, D. D. 1989. Trends in cooperative distributed problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, KDE-1 (1), 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. L. 1990. Representation and problem solving: the foundations of engineering design. Report 05–50–90, Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Dym, C. L. and Levitt, R. E. 1990. Knowledge-Based Systems in Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dym, C. L. and Levitt, R. E. 1991. Towards the integration of knowledge for engineering modeling and computation. Engineering with Computers, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmore, W. and Morgan, T. 1988 (eds) Blackboard Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Erman, L. D., Hayes-Roth, F., Lesser, V. R. and Reddy, D. R. 1980. The hearsay—II speech understanding system: integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. ACM Computing Survey 12(2), 213–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenbaum, E. A. 1977. The art of artificial intelligence: themes and case studies of knowledge engineering. Proceedings of IJCAI 77, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fox, M. S. 1981. An organizational view of distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 11(1), 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, L. and Huhns, M. N. (eds) 1989. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume II. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B. and Hayes-Roth, F. 1979. Modeling planning as an incremental opportunistic process. In Proceedings of the 1979 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B. 1985. A blackboard architecture for control. Artificial Intelligence 26, 251–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B., Hewett, M., Washington, R., Hewett, R. and Seiver, A. 1989. Distributed intelligence within an individual. In Gasser, L. and Huhns, M. (eds), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. II. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Howard, H. C. and Rehak, D. R. 1989. KADBASE: Interfacing Expert Systems with Databases. IEEE Expert 4(4), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, H. C, Wang, J., Daube, F. and Rafio, T. 1989. Applying design-dependent knowledge in structural engineering design. (AlEDAM) 3, 111–123.Google Scholar
Huhns, M. N. (ed) 1987. Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
IJCAI 1989. Proceedings of the 1989 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
Jin, Y. and Koyama, T. 1990. Multiagent planning through expectation based negotiation. In Proceedings of the 10th AAAI International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Klein, M. 1990. Supporting conflict resolution in cooperative design systems. In Proceedings of the 10th AAAI International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Laasri, B., Laasri, H. and Lesser, V. R. 1990. Negotiation and its role in cooperative distributed problem solving. In Proceedings of the 10th AAAI International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Lander, S. and Lesser, V. R. 1989. A framework for the integration of cooperative knowledge-based systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
Lesser, V. R., Fennell, R. D., Erman, L. F. and Reddy, D. R. 1975. Organization of the HEARSAY II speech understanding system. In IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing ASSP-23(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesser, V. R. 1981. AI and brain-theory research at Computer and Information Science Department University of Massachusetts. Al Magazine, 3(1), 16–20.Google Scholar
Lesser, V. R. and Corkill, D. D. 1981. Functionally accurate, cooperative distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 11(1), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, R. E. 1984. Superprojects and superheadaches: balancing technical economies of scale against management diseconomies of size and complexity. Project Management Journal, 15(4), 82–90.Google Scholar
Levitt, R. E. and Kunz, J. C. 1987. Using artificial intelligence techniques to support project management. (AIEDAM)1, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, R. E., Tommelein, I. D., Hayes-Roth, B. and Confrey, T. 1989. SightPlan: A blackboard expert system for constraint based spatial reasoning about construction site layout. Technical Report No. 020, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Logcher, R. D. and Levitt, R. E. 1979. Organization and control of engineering design firms. ASCE Engineering Issues, 105 (EI1), 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M. L. 1984. HI-RISE: a knowledge based expert system for the preliminary design of high rise buildings. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Mittal, S., Dym, C. L. and Morjaria, M., 1986. PRIDE: an expert system for the design of paper handling systems. Computer 19(7), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nii, H. P., Feigenbaum, A., Anton, J. J. and Rockmore, A. J. 1982. Signal-to-symbol transformation: HASP/SIAP case study. AI Magazine 3(2), 23–35.Google Scholar
Nii, H. P. 1986. Blackboard systems: Part I and Part II. AI Magazine, 7.Google Scholar
Pohl, J. and Cotton, J. 1990. ICADS Working Model Version I: A Responsive CAD Environment. Proceedings of the Symposium on Knowledge-Based Systems in Building Design, Baden-Baden, Germany.Google Scholar
Riitahuhta, A. 1988. Systematic engineering design and use of an expert system in boiler plant design. Proceedings of the ICED International Conference on Engineering Design, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Roos, D. 1967. ICES System Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Special Interest Group on Manufacturing (SIGMAN). 1989. Workshop on Concurrent Engineering Design, Working Notes, International Joint Congress on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1975. Style in design. In Eastman, C.M. (ed), Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Building Design, pp. 287–309. Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Davis, R. 1981. Frameworks for cooperation in distributed problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-11(1), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowa, J. C. 1984. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sriram, D., Logcher, R. and Fukuda, S. (eds) 1989. Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Stankovic, J. A. 1984. A perspective on distributed computer systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-33(12), 1102–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonebraker, M. and Rowe, L. 1986. The design of POSTGRES. Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sycara, K. 1988. Resolving goal conflicts via negotiation. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, St Paul, MN.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. 1989. Multiagent compromise via negotiation. In Gasser, L. and Huhns, M. (eds) Distributed Artificial Intelligence II. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tommelein, I. D. 1989. SightPlan: an expert system that models and augments human decision-making for designing construction site layouts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Tommelein, I. D. 1989. Comparing design strategies of agents with limited resources. MS Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Werkman, K. 1990. Knowledge-based model of negotiation using shareable perspectives. Proceedings of the 10th AAA1 International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar