Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-30T10:46:27.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tracing Paths and Connecting Multiple Design Domains: An Information Visualisation Approach to Product Architecture Modelling

Part of: Product Architecture and Modularization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Agzam Idrissov ,
Pedro Parraguez  and
Anja M. Maier

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Visual representation of product architecture models is crucial in complex engineering systems design. However, when the number of entities in a model is large and when multiple levels of hierarchies are included, visual representations currently in use need to be more intuitive. As such, improved visual representations that enable better system overview and better communication of essential product- related information among design participants are needed. This paper uses interactive information visualisation techniques – collapsible hierarchical tree, edge bundling and alluvial diagram – and provides the foundations of a computerised tool that improves the traceability of connections between design domains, including stakeholders, requirements, functions, behaviours and structure. The case of a cleaning robot is used as an illustrative example. The approach supports designers by providing an enhanced overview during the development of complex product architecture models, in particular in the communication with external stakeholders, in the identification of change propagation paths across several design domains, and in capturing the design rationale of previous design decisions.

Keywords

VisualisationProduct architectureProduct modelling / modelsLarge-scale engineering systemsRequirements
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3021 - 3030
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Ahmad, N., Wynn, D. and Clarkson, P. (2010), “Development and Evaluation of a Tool to Estimate the Impact of Design Change”, Design 2010, pp. 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0583-2Google Scholar
Akao, Y., King, B. and Mazur, G. (1990), “Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design”, Productivity press., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Alvarez Cabrera, A.A., Woestenenk, K. and Tomiyama, T. (2011), “An architecture model to support cooperative design for mechatronic products: A control design case”, Mechatronics, Pergamon, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MECHATRONICS.2011.01.009Google Scholar
Aurisicchio, M. and Bracewell, R. (2013), “Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram-based approach”, Journal of Engineering Design, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 397–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.757693Google Scholar
Van Beek, T.J., Erden, M.S. and Tomiyama, T. (2010), “Modular design of mechatronic systems with function modeling”, Mechatronics, Pergamon, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.02.002Google Scholar
Van Beek, T.J. and Tomiyama, T. (2008), “Connecting views in mechatronic systems design, a function modeling approach”, 2008 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronics and Embedded Systems and Applications, MESA 2008, Vol. 31, pp. 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/MESA.2008.4735676Google Scholar
Van Beek, T.J. and Tomiyama, T. (2012), “Structured workflow approach to support evolvability”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2012.05.003Google Scholar
Booch, G., Jacobson, I. and Rumbaugh, J. (1999), “The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual”, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Google Scholar
Bracewell, R., Wallace, K., Moss, M. and Knott, D. (2009), “Capturing design rationale”, CAD Computer Aided Design, Elsevier, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.10.005Google Scholar
Bruun, H.P.L. and Mortensen, N.H. (2012), “Visual product architecture modelling for structuring data in a PLM system”, IFIP AICT - Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 388, pp. 598–611. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35758-9_54Google Scholar
Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J. and Shneiderman, B. (1999), “Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Chandrasegaran, S.K., Ramani, K., Sriram, R.D., Horváth, I., Bernard, A., Harik, R.F. and Gao, W. (2013), “The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems”, CAD Computer Aided Design, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2012.08.006Google Scholar
Clarkson, J., Simons, C. and Eckert, C. (2004), “Predicting change propagation in complex design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 788–797.Google Scholar
Crawley, E., Cameron, B. and Selva, D. (2015), “System Architecture: Strategy and Product Development for Complex Systems”, Prentice Hall Press.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2008), “Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design”, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3069(89)90020-4Google Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012), “Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications”, Vol. 1, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Rotini, F. and Rissone, P. (2016), “A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional decomposition and morphology”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 438–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1160275Google Scholar
Furnas, G.W. (1986), “Generalized Fisheye Views”, CHI, https://doi.org/10.1145/22627.22342Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function-behaviour-structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010Google Scholar
Ghoniem, M., Fekete, J.D. and Castagliola, P. (1997), “On the readability of graphs using node-link and matrix-based representations: A controlled experiment and statistical analysis”, Information Visualization, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500092Google Scholar
Gu, X. (2010), “Toyota Recalls : Revealing the Value of Secure Supply Chain”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Habib, T. and Komoto, H. (2014), “Comparative analysis of design concepts of mechatronics systems with a CAD tool for system architecting”, Mechatronics, Pergamon, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2014.03.003Google Scholar
Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N.H.M. and John Clarkson, P. (2012), “A Multidomain Engineering Change Propagation Model to Support Uncertainty Reduction and Risk Management in Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 10, pp. 100905–100905–14, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007397.Google Scholar
Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N.H.M., Ridgman, T.W. and Clarkson, P.J. (2014), “FBS Linkage ontology and technique to support engineering change management”, Research in Engineering Design, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-014-0181-9Google Scholar
Hansen, C.T. and Andreasen, M.M. (2002), “Two approaches to synthesis based on the domain theory”, Engineering Design Synthesis, Springer London, London, pp. 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3717-7_6Google Scholar
Heer, J. and Card, K.S. (2004), “DOITrees Revisited: Scalable, Space-Constrained Visualization of Hierarchical Data”, Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 421–424. https://doi.org/10.1145/989863.989941Google Scholar
Hehenberger, P. (2014), “Perspectives on hierarchical modeling in mechatronic design”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Elsevier, 1 August, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2014.06.005Google Scholar
Holten, D. and Van Wijk, J.J. (2009), “Force-Directed edge bundling for graph visualization”, Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01450.xGoogle Scholar
Keller, R., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2005), “Multiple views to support engineering change management for complex products”, CMV 2005, Vol. 2005, IEEE, pp. 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/CMV.2005.11Google Scholar
Keller, R., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2009), “Using an engineering change methodology to support conceptual design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802086988Google Scholar
Koh, E.C.Y. (2017), “A study on the Requirements to Support the Accurate Prediction of Engineering Change Propagation”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21385Google Scholar
Komoto, H. and Tomiyama, T. (2010), “A system architecting tool for mechatronic systems design”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.104Google Scholar
Maier, A.M., Baltsen, N., Christoffersen, H. and Störrle, H. (2014), “Towards Diagram Understanding: A Pilot-Study Measuring Cognitive Workload Through Eye-Tracking”, Proceedings of International Conference on Human Behaviour in Design 2014, No. October, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Maier, M. and Rechtin, E. (2000), “The Art of Systems Architecting”, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Martinec, T. and Pavković, N. (2014), “Visualization of information traceability in product development”, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, Vol. 2014–Janua, pp. 1831–1842.Google Scholar
Maurer, M. and Lindemann, U. (2008), “The application of the Multiple-Domain Matrix: Considering multiple domains and dependency types in complex product design”, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE, pp. 2487–2493. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811669Google Scholar
Mortensen, N.H., Hvam, L., Pedersen, R. and Kvist, M. (2008), “Modelling and visualising modular product architectures for mass customisation”, Int. J. Mass Customisation, Vol. 2, pp. 216–239.Google Scholar
Novick, L.R. and Hurley, S.M. (2001), “To Matrix, Network, or Hierarchy: That Is the Question”, Cognitive Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12083Google Scholar
Pavković, N., Štorga, M., Bojčetić, N. and Marjanović, D. (2013), “Facilitating design communication through engineering information traceability”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060413000012Google Scholar
Peak, R.S., Burkhart, R.M., Friedenthal, S.A., Wilson, M.W., Bajaj, M. and Kim, I. (2007), “Simulation-Based Design Using SysML - Part 1: A Parametrics Primer”, INCOSE Intl. Symposium.Google Scholar
Pimmler, T.U. and Eppinger, S.D. (1994), “Integration analysis of product decompositions”, ASME 6th Design Theory and Methodology Conference, pp. 343–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.023.Google Scholar
Plaisant, C., Grosjean, J. and Bederson, B.B. (2002), “SpaceTree: Supporting exploration in large node link tree, design evolution and empirical evaluation”, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, IEEE Comput. Soc, pp. 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2002.1173148Google Scholar
Qian, L. and Gero, J.S. (1996), “Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based design”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 04, p. 289, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060400001633Google Scholar
Rosvall, M. and Bergstrom, C.T. (2010), “Mapping change in large networks”, edited by Rapallo, F. PLoS ONE, Public Library of Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. e8694, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008694Google Scholar
Shannon, R. and Johannes, J.D. (1976), “Systems Simulation: The Art and Science”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1976.4309432Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1965), “The architecture of complexity”, General Systems, Vol. 10, pp. 63–76.Google Scholar
Steward, D. V. (1981), “Design Structure System: a Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems.”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-28 No. 3, pp. 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1981.6448589Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990), “The principles of design”, Oxford University Press on Demand, Vol. 6.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y. and Tomiyama, T. (1996), “Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 04, p. 275, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060400001621Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T. and Yoshikawa, H. (1990), “Function, behaviour, and structure”, Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering V, Vol. 1, pp. 177–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/1235767Google Scholar
Zhou, H., Xu, P., Yuan, X. and Qu, H. (2013), “Edge bundling in information visualization”, Tsinghua Science and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1109/TST.2013.6509098Google Scholar