Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Model granularity in engineering design – concepts and framework

  • Jakob F. Maier (a1), Claudia M. Eckert (a2) and P. John Clarkson (a1)
Abstract

In many engineering design contexts models are indispensable. They offer decision support and help tackle complex and interconnected design projects, capturing the underlying structure of development processes or resulting products. Because managers and engineers base many decisions on models, it is crucial to understand their properties and how these might influence their behaviour. The level of detail, or granularity, of a model is a key attribute that results from how reality is abstracted in the modelling process. Despite the direct impact granularity has on the use of a model, the general topic has so far only received limited attention and is therefore not well understood or documented. This article provides background on model theory, explores relevant terminology from a range of fields and discusses the implications for engineering design. Based on this, a classification framework is synthesised, which outlines the main manifestations of model granularity. This research contributes to theory by scrutinising the nature of model granularity. It also illustrates how this may manifest in engineering design models, using Design Structure Matrices as an example, and discusses associated challenges to provide a resource for modellers navigating decisions regarding granularity.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Model granularity in engineering design – concepts and framework
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Model granularity in engineering design – concepts and framework
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Model granularity in engineering design – concepts and framework
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Corresponding author
Email address for correspondence: jfm45@cam.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Alfaris , A. Siddiqi , C. Rizk , O. de Weck  & D. Svetinovic 2010 Hierarchical decomposition and multidomain formulation for the design of complex sustainable systems. Journal of Mechanical Design 132 (9), 091003.

T. AlGeddawy 2014 A DSM Cladistics model for product family architecture design. Procedia CIRP 21, 8792.

T. AlGeddawy  & H. ElMaraghy 2013 Optimum granularity level of modular product design architecture. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 62 (1), 151154.

T. AlGeddawy  & H. ElMaraghy 2015 Determining granularity of changeable manufacturing systems using changeable design structure matrix and cladistics. Journal of Mechanical Design 137 (4), 041702.

F. Ameri , J. D. Summers , G. M. Mocko  & M. Porter 2008 Engineering design complexity: an investigation of methods and measures. Research in Engineering Design 19 (2–3), 161179.

P. Benjamin , M. Erraguntla , D. Delen  & R. Mayer 1998 Simulation modeling at multiple levels of abstraction. In Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 391398.

P. Benjamin , M. Patki  & R. Mayer 2006 Using ontologies for simulation modeling. In Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference. Monterey, CA, pp. 11511159.

C. Bettini , C. E. Dyreson , W. S. Evans , R. T. Snodgrass  & X. S. Wang 1998 A glossary of time granularity concepts. Temporal Databases: Research and Practice (ed. O. Etzion , S. Jajodia  & S. Sripada ), pp. 406413. Springer.

R. J. Brachman 1983 What IS-A is and isn’t: an analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. Computer 16 (10), 3036.

R. J. Brooks  & A. M. Tobias 1996 Choosing the best model: level of detail, complexity, and model performance. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 24 (4), 114.

T. R. Browning 2001 Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48 (3), 292306.

T. R. Browning 2009 The many views of a process: toward a process architecture framework for product development processes. Systems Engineering 12 (1), 6990.

T. R. Browning 2010 On the alignment of the purposes and views of process models in project management. Journal of Operations Management 28 (4), 316332.

T. R. Browning , E. Fricke  & H. Negele 2006 Key concepts in modeling product development processes. Systems Engineering 9 (2), 104128.

T. R. Browning  & R. V. Ramasesh 2007 A survey of activity network-based process models for managing product development projects. Production and Operations Management 16 (2), 217240.

N. Cartwright 1999 The Dappled World. Cambridge University Press.

N. Chiriac , K. Hölttä-Otto , D. Lysy  & E. S. Suh 2011 Level of modularity and different levels of system granularity. Journal of Mechanical Design 133 (10), 101007.

S. H. Cho  & S. D. Eppinger 2005 A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52 (3), 316328.

P. J. Clarkson , C. Simons  & C. Eckert 2004 Predicting change propagation in complex design. Journal of Mechanical Design 126 (5), 788797.

R. C. Conant  & W. R. Ashby 1970 Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International Journal of Systems Science 1 (2), 8997.

J. Dai  & H. Tian 2013 Entropy measures and granularity measures for set-valued information systems. Information Sciences 240 (C), 7282.

C. M. Eckert  & P. J. Clarkson 2010 Planning development processes for complex products. Research in Engineering Design 21 (3), 153171.

C. M. Eckert  & M. K. Stacey 2010 What is a process model? Reflections on the epistemology of design process models. Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes (ed. P. Heisig , P. J. Clarkson  & S. Vajna ), pp. 314. Springer.

H. ElMaraghy , T. AlGeddawy  & A. Azab 2008 Modelling evolution in manufacturing: a biological analogy. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 57 (1), 467472.

S. D. Eppinger , N. R. Joglekar , A. Olechowski  & T. Teo 2014 Improving the systems engineering process with multilevel analysis of interactions. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 28 (04), 323337.

R. Eshuis  & P. Grefen 2008 Constructing customized process views. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64 (2), 419438.

N. Fenton 1994 Software measurement: a necessary scientific basis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20 (3), 199206.

P. A. Fishwick 1988 The role of process abstraction in simulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18 (1), 1839.

L. Floridi 2008 The method of levels of abstraction. Minds and Machines 18 (3), 303329.

F. K. Frantz 1995 A taxonomy of model abstraction techniques. Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington, DC. pp. 14131420.

R. Frigg 2009 Models and fiction. Synthese 172 (2), 251268.

R. N. Giere 2004 How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science 71 (5), 742752.

D. Grose 1994 Reengineering the aircraft design process. In 5th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Reston, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Y. Iwasaki  & H. A. Simon 1994 Causality and model abstraction. Artificial Intelligence 67 (1), 143194.

D. Kasperek , S. Maisenbacher , A. Kohn , U. Lindemann  & M. Maurer 2015 Increasing the reproducibility of structural modelling. Journal of Engineering Design 26 (7–9), 259281.

T. Knuuttila 2005 Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science 72 (5), 12601271.

A. Kusiak 2002 Integrated product and process design: a modularity perspective. Journal of Engineering Design 13 (3), 223231.

J. Ladyman , J. Lambert  & K. Wiesner 2013 What is a complex system? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1), 3367.

J. D. C. Little 1970 Models and managers: the concept of a decision calculus. Management Science 16 (8), 466485.

J. F. Maier , D. C. Wynn , W. Biedermann , U. Lindemann  & P. J. Clarkson 2014 Simulating progressive iteration, rework and change propagation to prioritise design tasks. Research in Engineering Design 25 (4), 283307.

M. Morrison  & M. S. Morgan 1999 Models as mediating instruments. In Models as Mediators (ed. M. Morrison  & M. S. Morgan ), pp. 1037. Cambridge University Press.

M. Newman 2003 The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45 (2), 167256.

M. Pidd 1999 Just modeling through: a rough guide to modeling. Interfaces 29 (2), 118132.

R. V. Ramasesh  & T. R. Browning 2014 A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. Journal of Operations Management 32 (4), 190204.

S. Robinson 2007 Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: definition and requirements. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (3), 278290.

S. L. Rosen , C. P. Saunders  & S. K. Guharay 2014 A structured approach for rapidly mapping multilevel system measures via simulation metamodeling. Systems Engineering 18 (1), 87101.

L. Saitta  & J.-D. Zucker 2013 Abstraction in Artificial Intelligence and Complex Systems. Springer Science & Business Media.

S. N. Samy , T. AlGeddawy  & H. ElMaraghy 2015 A granularity model for balancing the structural complexity of manufacturing systems equipment and layout. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 36, 719.

R. G. Sargent 2005 Verification and validation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 130143.

S. Smirnov , H. A. Reijers , M. Weske  & T. Nugteren 2012 Business process model abstraction: a definition, catalog, and survey. Distributed and Parallel Databases 30 (1), 6399.

E. S. Suh , N. Chiriac  & K. Hölttä-Otto 2015 Seeing complex system through different lenses: impact of decomposition perspective on system architecture analysis. Systems Engineering 18 (3), 229240.

J. D. Summers  & J. J. Shah 2010 Mechanical engineering design complexity metrics: size, coupling, and solvability. Journal of Mechanical Design 132 (2), 021004–11.

S. Tamaskar , K. Neema  & D. DeLaurentis 2014 Framework for measuring complexity of aerospace systems. Research in Engineering Design 25 (2), 125137.

A. H. Tilstra , C. C. Seepersad  & K. L. Wood 2012 A high-definition design structure matrix (HDDSM) for the quantitative assessment of product architecture. Journal of Engineering Design 23 (10–11), 767789.

A. Tolk  & C. Turnitsa 2012 Conceptual modeling with processes. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 113.

M. Weisberg 2007 Who is a modeler? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (2), 207233.

D. S. Weld 1992 Reasoning about model accuracy. Artificial Intelligence 56 (2–3), 255300.

D. C. Wynn , K. Grebici  & P. J. Clarkson 2011 Modelling the evolution of uncertainty levels during design. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 5 (3), 187202.

Y. Y. Yao 2001 Information granulation and rough set approximation. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 16 (1), 87104.

Y. Y. Yao 2003 Probabilistic approaches to rough sets. Expert Systems 20 (5), 287297.

Y. Yao  & L. Zhao 2012 A measurement theory view on the granularity of partitions. Information Sciences 213, 113.

T.-L. Yu , A. A. Yassine  & D. E. Goldberg 2007 An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms. Research in Engineering Design 18 (2), 91109.

L. A. Zadeh 1997 Toward a theory of fuzzy information granulation and its centrality in human reasoning and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (2), 111127.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Design Science
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2053-4701
  • URL: /core/journals/design-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 52
Total number of PDF views: 432 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 503 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 19th January 2017 - 20th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.