Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:03:24.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Architecture decisions in different product classes for complex products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Marija Jankovic  and
Claudia Eckert
Marija Jankovic*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Génie Industriel, Centrale Supéléc, Université de Paris Saclay, Chatenay Malabry, France
Claudia Eckert
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering and Innovation, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Marija Jankovic, Laboratoire de Génie Industriel, Centrale Supéléc, Université de Paris Saclay, Grande Voie des Vignes, 92290 Chatenay Malabry, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many of the most fundamental decisions about a product are made during the system architecture design process. However, how system architecture is designed in practice is not well understood. This paper draws on several research studies related to system architecture design to develop a categorization of system architecture design processes to support the adaptation design methodologies and tools to specific situations. The paper reviews different definitions of system architecture and comments on the relevance of the different perspectives taken in the literature on system architecture to different types of system architecture. The research highlights the need for further empirical research on system architecture design processes as well as on tools to support the engineers creating the system architecture.

Keywords

Complex SystemDecision MakingSystem Architecture
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 30 , Special Issue 3: System Architecture Design , August 2016 , pp. 217 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Albarello, N., Welcomme, J.-B., & Reyterou, C. (2012). A formal design synthesis and optimization method for systems architectures. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Modeling, Optimization and Simulation MOSIM'12, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Albers, A., Braun, A., Sadowski, E., Wynn, D., Wyatt, D., & Clarkson, J. (2011). System architecture modeling in a software tool based on a contact and channel approach (C&C-A). Journal of Mechanical Design 133(10), 101001–101008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J., Azarm, S., & Simpson, T. (2011). Designing complex engineered systems. Journal of Mechanical Design 133(10), 100301–100301.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, E., & Silverman, S.J. (2007). Dynamic DoDAF and executable architectures. Proc. Military Communications Conf., MILCOM 2007, Orlando, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Hamida, S., Jankovic, M., Callot, M., Monceaux, A., & Eckert, C. (2015). Towards a system architecture design decision support framework. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Bloebaum, C.L., & McGowan, A.-M.R. (2010). Design of complex engineered systems. Journal of Mechanical Design 132(12), 120301–120301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, E., Deniaud, S., Dulmet, M., & Harmel, G. (2009). A fuzzy method for propagating functional architecture constraints to physical architecture. Journal of Mechanical Design 131(6), 061002.Google Scholar
Browning, T.R. (2009). Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(3), 292–306.Google Scholar
Brussel, F.F., & Bonnema, G.M. (2015). Interactive A3 architecture overviews: intuitive functionalities for effective communication. Procedia Computer Science 44, 204–213.Google Scholar
Bryant, C., Mcadams, D.A., & Stone, R.B. (2005). A computational technique for concept generation. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf./Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Long Beach, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagan, J., Campbell, M.I., Finger, S., & Tomiyama, T. (2005). A framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 5(3), 171–181.Google Scholar
Cardin, M.-A. (2013). Enabling flexibility in engineering systems: a taxonomy of procedures and a design framework. Journal of Mechanical Design 136(1), 011005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chepko, A., De Weck, O., Crossley, W., & Linne, D. (2008). A modeling framework for applying discrete optimization to system architecture selection and application to in-situ resource utilization. Proc. 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conf., Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, E.F. (2007). ESD.34 Systems Architecting—Lecture Notes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Engineering Systems Division.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2013). Function propagation through nested systems. Design Studies 34(2), 216–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNeufville, R., de Weck, O., Frey, D., Hastings, D., Larson, R., Simchi-Levi, D., Oye, K., Weigel, A., & Welsch, R. (2004). Uncertainty Management for Engineering Systems Planning and Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, C. (2013). That which is not form: the practical challenges in using functional concepts in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 217–231.Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design 15(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., & Stacey, M.K. (2014). Constraints and conditions: drivers for design processes. In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design (Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L.T.M., Eds.), pp. 395–415. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Eger, T., Eckert, C., & Clarkson, J.P. (2005). The role of design freeze in product development. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S.D., & Browning, T.R. (2012). Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fixson, S.K. (2005). Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4), 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S., & Okudan, G.E. (2008). Computer-aided generation of modularised conceptual designs with assembly and variety considerations. Journal of Engineering Design 19(6), 533–551.Google Scholar
Hellenbrand, D., Kain, A., & Lindemann, U. (2009). Systematic identification of representative solutions to support the concept selection phase Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED 09, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Hellenbrand, D., & Lindemann, U. (2008). Using the DSM to support the selection of product concepts. Proc. 10th Int. Design Structure Matrix Conf., Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Helms, B., & Shea, K. (2012). Computational synthesis of product architectures based on object-oriented graph grammars. Journal of Mechanical Design 134(2), 021008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IEEE. (2000). Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
International Council on Systems Engineering. (2007). Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Isaksson, O., Lindroth, P., & Eckert, C.M. (2014). Optimisation of products versus optimisation of product platforms: an engineering, change margin perspective, Design 2014. Proc. 13th Int. Design Conf., Cavtat, Croatia.Google Scholar
Jankovic, M. (2006). Collaborative decision making in new product development: application to the car industry. PhD Thesis, Ecole Centrale Paris.Google Scholar
Jarratt, T., Eckert, C., & John, C. (2004). Development of a product model to support engineering change management. Proc. Theory and Methods of Competitive Engineering Conf., pp. 331–342.Google Scholar
Kalyanasundaram, V., & Lewis, K. (2014). A function based approach for product integration. Journal of Mechanical Design 136(4), 041002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerley, W., Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C., & Clarkson, J. (2011). Redesigning the design process through interactive simulation: a case study of life-cycle engineering in jet engine conceptual design. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 10(1), 30–51.Google Scholar
Kurtoglu, T., & Campbell, M.I. (2009). Automated synthesis of electromechanical design configurations from empirical analysis of function to form mapping. Journal of Engineering Design 20(1), 83–104.Google Scholar
Lee, E.A. (2014). Constructive models of discrete and continuous physical phenomena. Proc. Summer Simulation Multi-Conf., Monterey, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, M.W. (1996). Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. INCOSE International Symposium 6(1), 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minai, A.A., Braha, D., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2006). Complex engineered systems: a new paradigm. In Complex Engineered Systems (Braha, D., Minai, A.A., & Bar-Yam, Y., Eds.), pp. 1–21. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Moullec, M.-L., Bouissou, M., Jankovic, M., Bocquet, J.-C., Réquillard, F., Maas, O., & Forgeot, O. (2013). Toward system architecture generation and performances assessment under uncertainty using Bayesian networks. Journal of Mechanical Design 135(4), 041001–041002.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2006). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Rosenstein, D., & Reich, Y. (2011). Hierarchical concept generation by SOS. Proc. ICED'11, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Sharman, D.M., & Yassine, A.A. (2004). Characterizing complex product architectures. Systems Engineering 7(1), 35–60.Google Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (1999). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359–370.Google Scholar
Strawbridge, Z., McAdams, D.A., & Stone, R.B. (2002). A computational approach to conceptual design. Proc. ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conf., Montreal.Google Scholar
Suh, N. (1990). The Principles of Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suh, N. (2001). Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3), 419–440.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S.D. (1995). Product Design and Development. New York: Irwin McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K., & Seering, W. (1989). Synthesis of schematic descriptions in mechanical design. Research in Engineering Design 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishiia, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeller. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 275–288.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 191–202.Google Scholar
Wyatt, D., Wynn, D., & Clarkson, J. (2008). Synthseis of product architecture using a DSM/DMM based approach. Proc. 10th Int. Design Structure Matrix Conf., Stockholm.Google Scholar
Wyatt, D., Wynn, D., Jarrett, J., & Clarkson, P. (2012). Supporting product architecture design using computational design synthesis with network structure constraints. Research in Engineering Design 23(1), 17–52.Google Scholar
Wyatt, D.F., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2009). Design of product architectures in incrementally developed complex products. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Engineering Design ICED'09, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Ziv-Av, A., & Reich, Y. (2005). SOS—subjective objective system for generating optimal product concepts. Design Studies 26(5), 509–533.Google Scholar