Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:17:19.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A HIERARCHICAL EXPLORATION OF HOW DESIGN MARGINS ENABLE ADAPTABILITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Lindsey Jacobson  and
Scott Ferguson
Lindsey Jacobson
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Scott Ferguson*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
*
Ferguson, Scott, North Carolina State University, United States of America, scott_ferguson@ncsu.edu

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.

Our society is built on engineered systems. Engineers are becoming increasingly concerned with the sustainability of systems, particularly their ability to adapt to a changing world. Recently, there has been increased interest in exploring how design margins provide opportunities for a system change. There have been great developments in determining how design margins can absorb change at a system level, but it is still not clear how design margins might provide change opportunities at a decision variable level. In this paper, we show how system-level margins could be deconstructed to explore what change opportunities they may provide at a decision variable level. We also investigate how the coupling of functional requirements limits how system-level margins can be operationalized. Our analysis suggests that design margins can provide meaningful change opportunities at the decision variable level, but the mechanisms that produce these opportunities are complex. These insights lay the groundwork for future research on mapping and representing design margins in the context of system adaptability.

Keywords

Product architectureLarge-scale engineering systemsRequirementsSystem evolvabilityMargin
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 191 - 200
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), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ahmad, N., Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J. (2013), “Change Impact on a Product and its Redesign Process: A Tool for Knowledge Capture and Reuse”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 219–244.Google Scholar
Allen, J.D., Mattson, C.A., Thacker, K.S. and Ferguson, S.M. (2017), “Design for Excess Capability to Handle Uncertain Product Requirements in a Developing World Setting”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 4, available at:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0253-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Beek, T.J. and Tomiyama, T. (2012), “Structured Workflow Approach to Support Evolvability”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brahma, A. and Wynn, D.C. (2020), “Margin Value Method for Engineering Design Improvement”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 353–381.Google Scholar
Browning, T.R., Co, L. and Worth, F. (2001), “Applying the Design Structure Matrix to System Decomposition and Integration Problems: A Review and New Directions”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 48(3): 292-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cansler, E.Z.E.Z., White, S.B.S.B., Ferguson, S.M.S.M. and Mattson, C.A.C.A. (2016), “Excess Identification and Mapping in Engineered Systems”, Journal of Mechanical Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 138 No. 8, p. 81103.Google Scholar
Chalupnik, M.J., Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J. (2013), “Comparison of Ilities for Protection Against Uncertainty in System Design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 814–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. and Isaksson, O. (2017), “Safety Margins and Design Margins: A Differentiation between Interconnected Concepts”, Procedia CIRP, available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Isaksson, O. and Earl, C. (2019), “Design Margins: A Hidden Issue in Industry”, Design Science, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 5, p. e9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ElMaraghy, H. and AlGeddawy, T. (2015), “A Methodology for Modular and Changeable Design Architecture and Application in Automotive Framing Systems”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 137 No. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, A. and Browning, T.R. (2008), “Designing Systems for Adaptability by Means of Architecture Options”, Systems Engineering, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar
Engel, A. and Reich, Y. (2015), “Advancing Architecture Options Theory: Six Industrial Case Studies”, Systems Engineering, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 396–414.Google Scholar
Fassi, El, Guenov, S., and Riaz, M.D., A. (2020), “An Assumption Network-based Approach To Support Margin Allocation And Management”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 1, pp. 2275–2284.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S., Lewis, K., Siddiqi, A. and de Weck, O.L. (2007), “Flexible and Reconfigurable Systems: Nomenclature and Review”, ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, September 4-7, pp. DETC2007-35745, pp. 249–263.Google Scholar
Hu, J. and Cardin, M.-A. (2015), “Generating Flexibility in the Design of Engineering Systems to Enable Better Sustainability and Lifecycle Performance”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 121–143.Google Scholar
Jacobson, L. and Ferguson, S. (2022), “Requirements Mapping of a High-Powered Rocket System to Explain Solution Similarities Across Generations”, Volume 3B: 48th Design Automation Conference (DAC), Vol. 3-B, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, available at:https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2022-91348.Google Scholar
Keese, D.A., Takawale, N.P., Seepersad, C.C. and Wood, K.L. (2006), “An Enhanced Change Modes and Effects Analysis (CMEA) Tool for Measureing Product Flexibility with Application to Consumer Products”, Proceedings of IDETC/CIE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, J.T., Collette, M.D. and Singer, D.J. (2015), “Design for Flexibility: Evaluating the Option to Extend Service Life in Preliminary Structural Design”, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 96, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.12.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, J. (2015), “A Simulation-Based Method to Evaluate the Impact of Product Architecture on Product Evolvability”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 355–371.Google Scholar
Madni, A.M. (2012), “Adaptable Platform-Based Engineering: Key Enablers and Outlook for the Future”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 1, available at:https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakkanen, J., Juuti, T. and Lehtonen, T. (2016), “Brownfield Process: A method for Modular Product Family Development Aiming for Product Configuration”, Design Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 210–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasqual, M.C. and de Weck, O.L. (2012), “Multilayer Network Model for Analysis and Management of Change Propagation”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 305–328.Google Scholar
Ross, A.M., Rhodes, D.H. and Hastings, D.E. (2008), “Defining Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, Modifiability, and Robustness for Maintaining System Lifecycle Value”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saleh, J.H., Hastings, D.E. and Newman, D.J. (2003), “Flexibility in System Design and Implications for Aerospace Systems”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 53 No. 12, pp. 927–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sapol, S.J. and Szajnfarber, Z. (2020), “Revisiting Flexibility in Design: An Analysis of the Impact of Implementation Uncertainty on the Value of Real Options”, Journal of Mechanical Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, Vol. 142 No. 12, available at:https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4047682.Google Scholar
Schulz, A.P., Fricke, E. and Igenbergs, E. (2000), “Enabling Changes in Systems throughout the Entire Life-Cycle – Key to Success?”, Proceedings of the 10th Annual INCOSE Conference, Vol. 10, Minneapolis, MN, July 16-20, pp. 565–573.Google Scholar
Tilstra, A.H., Backlund, P.B., Seepersad, C.C.C. and Wood, K.L. (2015), “Principles for Designing Products with Flexibility for Future Evolution”, International Journal of Mass Customisation, Inderscience Publishers (IEL), Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22–54.Google Scholar
Touboul, A., Barbedienne, R. and Edaliti, J.M. (2019), “Models of Margin: From the Mathematical Formulation to an Operational Implementation”, 2019 4th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety, ICSRS 2019, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar