Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:03:51.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the effectiveness of parallel systems in distributed design processes subjected to stochastic disruptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2014

Sourobh Ghosh ,
Erich Devendorf  and
Kemper Lewis
Sourobh Ghosh
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Erich Devendorf
Affiliation:
Information Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, New York, USA
Kemper Lewis*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, New York, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Kemper Lewis, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 207 Bell Hall, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the design of complex systems, a design process may be subjected to stochastic disruptions, interruptions, and changes, which can be described broadly as “design impulses.” These impulses can have a significant impact on the transient response and converged equilibrium for the design system. We distinguish this research by focusing on the interactions between local and architectural impulses in the form of designer mistakes and dissolution, division, and combination impulses, respectively, for a distributed design case study. We provide statistical support for the “parallel character hypothesis,” which asserts that parallel arrangements generally best mitigate dissolution and division impulses. We find that local impulses tend to slow convergence, but systems also subjected to dissolution or division impulses still favor parallel arrangements. We statistically uphold the conclusion that the strategy to mitigate combination impulses is unaffected by the presence of local impulses.

Keywords

Collaborative EngineeringComplex SystemsDesign ArchitectureDistributed DesignImpulsesProcess Modeling
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 28 , Issue 4: Design of Complex Engineered Systems , November 2014 , pp. 399 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Bloebaum, C.L., Hajela, P., & Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. (1992). Non-hierarchic system decomposition in structural optimization. Engineering Optimization 19(3), 171–186. doi:10.1080/03052159208941227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, T.R. (2001). 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. doi:10.1109/17.946528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanron, V., & Lewis, K. (2004). Convergence and stability in distributed design of large systems. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Confs., Paper No. DETC2004/57344, Chicago, September 2–6.Google Scholar
Chanron, V., & Lewis, K. (2006). A study of convergence in decentralized design processes. Research in Engineering Design 16(3), 133–145. doi:10.1007/s00163-005-0009-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanron, V., Singh, T., & Lewis, K. (2005). Equilibrium stability in decentralized design systems. International Journal of Systems Science 36(10), 651–662. doi:10.1080/00207720500219963Google Scholar
Denker, S., Steward, D.V., & Browning, T.R. (2001). Planning concurrency and managing iteration in projects. Project Management Journal 32(3), 31–38.Google Scholar
Devendorf, E., Devendorf, M., & Lewis, K. (2010). Using network theory to model distributed design systems. Proc. 13th AIAA ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conf., Paper No. AIAA-2010-9027, Fort Worth, TX, September 13–15.Google Scholar
Devendorf, E., & Lewis, K. (2010). Examining interactions between solution architecture and designer mistakes. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Confs., Paper No. DETC2010/28872, Montreal, August 15–18.Google Scholar
Devendorf, E., & Lewis, K. (2011). The impact of process architecture on equilibrium stability in distributed design. Journal of Mechanical Design 133(10), 101001–101011. doi:10.1115/1.4004463Google Scholar
Devendorf, E., & Lewis, K. (2013). Characterization of the transient response of coupled optimization in multidisciplinary design. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. doi:10.1155/2013/910209Google Scholar
Engardio, P., & Einhorn, B. (2005, March 20). Outsourcing Innovation. Bloomberg Businessweek.Google Scholar
Ghosh, S., Lewis, K., & Devendorf, E. (2012). Examining interactions between process architecture and architectural impulses. Proc. 14th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conf., Paper No. AIAA2012/5666, Indianapolis, IN, September 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, S., Lewis, K., & Devendorf, E. (2013). Examining the impact of aggregated design impulses on process architecture in distributed design. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Confs., Paper No. DETC2013-13315, Portland, OR, August 15–17.Google Scholar
Gurnani, A., & Lewis, K. (2008). Using bounded rationality to improve decentralized design. AIAA Journal 46(12), 3049–3059. doi:10.2514/1.35776Google Scholar
Martins, J.R.R.A., & Lambe, A.B. (2013). Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA Journal 51(9), 2049–2075. doi:10.2514/1.J051895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogata, K. (2005). Modern Control Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Rogers, J.L. (1996). DeMAID/GA: an enhanced design manager's aid for intelligent decomposition. Proc. 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symp. Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Paper No. AIAA96/4157, Seattle, WA, September 4–6.Google Scholar
Smith, R.P., & Eppinger, S.D. (1997). Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Journal of Management Science 43(3), 176–193. doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.3.276Google Scholar
Thurston, D. (2001). Real and perceived limitations to decision based design with utility analysis. Journal of Mechanical Design 123(2), 176–182. doi:10.1115/1.1363610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2012). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Vincent, T.L. (1983). Game theory as a design tool. Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions and Automation in Design 105(2), 165–170. doi:10.1115/1.3258503Google Scholar
Ward, A., Liker, J.K., Cristiano, J.J., & Sobek, D.K. (1995). The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review 36(3), 43–61. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(95)94306-JGoogle Scholar
Wernz, C., & Deshmuk, A. (2010). Multiscale decision-making: bridging organizational scales in systems with distributed decision-makers. European Journal of Operational Research 202(3), 828–840. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.06.022Google Scholar
Wiecek, M.M., & Reneke, J.A. (2005). Complex system design decomposition under uncertainty and risk. Proc. 6th World Congr. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Rio de Janeiro, May 30–June 3.Google Scholar
Yang, M., & Jin, Y. (2008). An examination of team effectiveness in distributed and co-located engineering teams. International Journal of Engineering Education 24(2), 400–408.Google Scholar