Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:21:39.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Virtual Design Team: Modeling organizational behavior of concurrent design teams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Yan Jin ,
Raymond E. Levitt ,
Tore R. Christiansen  and
John C. Kunz
Yan Jin
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, U.S.A.
Raymond E. Levitt
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, U.S.A.
Tore R. Christiansen
Affiliation:
Det Norske Veritas Research AS, Vertasveien 1, N-1322 Hovik, Norway.
John C. Kunz
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concurrent engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and the related processes of manufacturing and support. This approach is intended to cause the developers, from the outset, to consider all elements of the product life cycle from concept through disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements. To achieve successful concurrent-engineering design, one needs an integrated framework, a well-organized design team, and adequate design tools. The research on concurrent engineering to date has focused on developing communication infrastructure, design tools, and product data representations. Little attention has been paid to developing tools to address the organizational issues involved in concurrent engineering. The authors’ research on the Virtual Design Team (VDT) attempts to develop a computerized analysis tool to sup-port the systematic design of organization structures for concurrent engineering projects. VDT is a computer simulation system. It takes descriptions of design tasks, actors (i.e., designers and managers), and organization structure as input, and produces predicted historical records of the actors’ design and coordination behavior, project du-ration, cost, and design process quality as output. VDT has been applied to model more than ten realistic engineering projects, and the results are qualitatively consistent with the predictions from theory and project managers. The VDT framework for modeling concurrent-engineering teams is described, and examples of VDT applications are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Virtual Design Team approach to modeling the organizational behavior of concurrent design teams.

Keywords

Concurrent DesignCoordinationOrganization DesignSimulation
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 145 - 158
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

Adachi, T., Shih, L.C., & Enkawa, T. (1994). Strategy for supporting organization and structuring of development teams in concurrent engineering. Int. J. Human Factors Manuf. 4(2), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K., Kjaer-Hansen, J., Newell, A., & Prietula, M. (1992). Plural-Soar: A prolegomenon to artificial agents and organizational behavior. In Artificial Intelligence in Organization and Management Theory (Masuch, M. and Warglien, M., Eds.), pp. 87–118. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Carter, D.E., & Baker, B.S. (1992). Concurrent Engineering—The Product Development Environment for the 1990s. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Christiansen, R.T. (1993). Modeling efficiency and effectiveness of co-ordination in engineering design teams. Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of organizational choice. Administrative Sci. Quart. 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.P. (1992). The Virtual Design Team: An information processing model of the design team management. Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1965). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Davis, S.M., & Lawrence, P.R. (1977). Matrix. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J.R. (1977). Organization Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Gasser, L., & Huhns, M.N., (Eds. 1989). Distributed Artificial Intelligence II. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
Gebala, D., & Eppinger, S.D. (1991). Methods for analyzing design procedures. Third Intnl. ASME Conf. on Design Theory and Methodology, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
Hauser, J., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Rev. May-June.Google Scholar
Jin, Y., & Levitt, R.E. (1993). i-AGENTS: Modeling organizational problem solving in multiagent teams. Int. J. Intel. Sys. Accoun. Fin. Mgmt. 2(4), 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karandikar, H.M., Fotta, M.E., Lawson, M., & Wood, R.T. (1993). Assessing organizational readiness for implementing concurrent engineering practices and collaborative technologies. Proc. Second Workshop on Enabling Technologies Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprise, pp. 83–93. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, New York.Google Scholar
Levitt, R.E., Jin, Y., & Dym, C.L. (1991). Knowledge-based support for management of concurrent, multidisciplinary design. J. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. (5)2, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
March, J.G. (1988). Decisions and Organizations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Masuch, M., & LaPotin, P. (1989). Beyond Garbage Cans: An AI model of organizational choice. Admin. Sci. Quart. 34, 38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1993). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociology, 343–63.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structuring in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Moder, J.J., Phillips, C.R., & Davis, E.W. (1983). Project Management with CPM, PERT and Precedence Diagramming. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1988). Strategic Organization Design-Concepts, Tools and Processes. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.Google Scholar
Scott, W.R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases in Administrative Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Willems, P. (1988). A functional network for product modeling. Technical Report PLI-88–16, IBBC-TNO, Rijkswijk, Netherlands.Google Scholar