3.1. Initial model selection

The first stage of the process requires the specification of the models to be analyzed. In this study, the CAD, CFD, FEA, WAVE, and OptimumK models were specified as potential candidates for the DSM. This is achieved by detecting the respective file extensions for the product models. In addition, the number of updates for each model is also used as a filter, and Figure 3 shows the distribution of model activity for the models in terms of the number of changes made to the model and the number of days the model has been actively worked upon (i.e., an update has to have been made on the day for it to be counted). It can be seen that there is a slight positive correlation with the number of days the model has been actively worked upon and the number of edits to the model. In addition, one model in particular appears to exist outside of the main group of model activity. Upon inspection of the file name, it was revealed that this model embodies the full CAD assembly of the car, and it is likely that the number of updates to this model reflects the number of model updates arising from the various subassemblies of the product.

Fig. 3.

Distribution of product model activity.

A closer inspection of the main groups model activity (Fig. 3) reveals that the CAD models embody a much greater activity and days of activity compared to the CFD, FEA, and WAVE models. This provides evidence to suggest that the CAD model plays a fundamental role in the Formula Student project with the CFD, FEA, and WAVE models used to support the development of the product rather than lead the design of the product.

To continue the analysis further, this stage requires the user to decide upon a suitable level of co-occurred activity given the context. In this case, models with an activity of greater than four updates have been selected. This includes the creation followed by three more updates. The aim is to remove the models that show little to no activity and, thus, may represent areas of the product that cannot be altered by the team (e.g., a bought in part such as the engine block and/or gearbox). Imposing a low threshold for the number of updates helps prevent an overreduction in the size of data set. For the case of the CAD models, the data set consists of 541 formally classified models reduced (cf. BAPs; Table 2) to 296 (55%) for further analysis while the unclassified CAD models are reduced from 891 to 17.

3.2. Co-occurrence matrix generation

Once the filtered data set has been defined, the generation of the DSM matrix can commence. This is achieved through the analysis of the co-occurrence of product model changes within the filtered data set. Figure 4 shows the process of identifying the co-occurrence of model changes. Taking Model A as the model of interest, the process identifies all the timestamps where the model has changed and generates a period in time where the occurrence of changes to and creation of other models are noted. Thus, if Model B has changed within this period, then this is defined as a co-occurrence and is a potential candidate for a dependency. The more often that this occurs, the greater the likelihood of the existence of a dependency. Currently, the impact of a change and the creation of a new model within the time period are treated equally. The maximum time period is defined by the user although the period can be shorter if model A changes again within its own time period as demonstrated by the 4, 3, and 2 h in Figure 4.

Fig. 4.

Determining co-occurrence of model activity.

Figure 4 also shows the three possible scenarios that can occur. Scenario (i) occurs where Model A has changed and within the time period, Model B has also changed. A co-occurrence of model activity is consequentially recorded. Scenario (ii) occurs where Model B changes again within the same time period. In this scenario, a co-occurrence has already been recorded, and therefore, further changes are not recorded because they exist within the same time period. Scenario (iii) occurs where Model B changes within a period of inactivity of Model A. In this case, there is no co-occurrence of model activity.

The analysis of co-occurrence results in a DSM as illustrated in Figure 5, where a change in the model in the row vector has a likelihood of leading to a change in the model in the column vector. As a result of the generation process, the DSM is inherently directed where Model A can result in a change in Model B, but Model B may not lead to a change in Model A. This forms the initial matrix that, in the example of the CAD DSM with a max time period of 1 h, has led to a DSM consisting of 296 models and 32,508 directed co-occurrences ranging from 1 to 77 in weight.

Fig. 5.

Illustration of the design structure matrix from the co-occurrence of model activity.

In creating this matrix, there is an inherent assumption that the dependencies are directed, and thus, there is a need to assess the truth of this assumption and whether an undirected matrix could be equally effective in representing the data set (Stage 3). There is currently a wider range of validated partitioning algorithms in relation to undirected matrices, while directed partitioning algorithms remains a maturing field of research. Therefore, it is argued that, where possible, an undirected matrix would be a preferred result.

In addition, with many co-occurrences having a weight of 1 also highlights the likelihood that a number of false positive dependencies have been captured. Therefore, there is a need to weight the resulting undirected/directed matrix so as to reduce the noise and help reveal key co-occurrences (Stage 4).

3.3. Evaluating the “directedness” of the matrix

Stage 3 assesses the directedness of the generated matrix. This involves examining the number of one-way co-occurrences (10,850; i.e., a co-occurrence has been indicated from Model A to B but not from Model B to A) and the number of two-way co-occurrences (10,829; i.e., co-occurrences have been detected for both directions from A to B and from Model B to A). This is examined through the pairwise comparison of the two-way co-occurrences (i.e., the weighting of the co-occurrence from Model A to B and B to A) and the distribution of the one-way co-occurrence values. The results are shown in Figure 6. The pairwise comparison of the two-way co-occurrences (Fig. 6a) reveals that there is little difference between the co-occurrence values. It can be seen that 72% of all the two-way co-occurrences have a difference of less than 2 (e.g., if the co-occurrence value for Model A to B is 10, then the co-occurrence value for Model B to A would be 8 or 12 for a difference to be 2). Similarly, Figure 6b shows that the one-way co-occurrence values have relatively low co-occurrence values, with 77% of one-way co-occurrences also having a value less than 2 (e.g., if the co-occurrence value for Model A to B is 2 with no co-occurrence detected in the direction of Model B to A). In both cases, it is argued that there is little directionality within the matrix, and the one-way co-occurrences are likely to be false positive dependencies because they have low co-occurrence values.

Fig. 6.

Analyzing directedness of the computer-aided design structure matrices matrix.

From these results, it is argued that an undirected matrix can be equally representative of the data as a directed matrix. Therefore, all DSMs in this paper have been translated from directed to undirected networks prior to weighting by combining the number of co-occurrences for both directions (i.e., the sum of the weights from Model A to B and Model B to A).

3.4. Matrix weighting

In order to further reduce the likelihood of false positives and reveal the strongest candidates for dependencies, a matrix weighting scheme has been applied. The aim of the scheme is to reduce the potential influence of two or more designers modifying one or more unrelated documents at the same time. Two schemes are available, and the selection depends on whether a directed or undirected matrix has been generated from Stage 4.

For a directed matrix, each row vector is normalized by dividing the vector by the total number of changes made to the model that the row represents; that is, the co-occurrence between Model A and Model B would be divided by the total number of changes to Model A. This gives the ratio of co-occurrence between the two models in relation to the total model activity of Model A.

For an undirected matrix, each cell is divided by the sum of the total number of changes made to both models that the cell represents, that is, the number of co-occurrences between Model A and B divided by the sum of the total number to changes made to Models A and B. The premise is that higher ratios highlight a greater likelihood of the existence of a dependency between the two models. The weighting scheme also normalizes the co-occurrence of models and, thus, enables comparison between the range of model activities observed.

In the case of the CAD DSM, the undirected weighting scheme has been applied, and Figure 7 shows the impact of the weighting scheme on the distribution of the model co-occurrence values. It is immediately apparent that the weighting scheme increases the relative importance of some of the co-occurrences, while in the original matrix, there is a sharp drop off due to the large variability in the model activity across the CAD models. Consequentially, it is argued that the weighting scheme has potentially highlighted more of the positive dependencies.

Fig. 7.

Distribution of weighted co-occurrences within the computer-aided design structure matrices.

3.5. Matrix pruning

Pruning is where the co-occurrences of given weights are removed from the DSM. In graph theory, this would be the removal of edges of a certain weighting from a network. The key objective of the pruning is to reduce the false positives in the matrix while maintaining the structure of the matrix and, in this case, revealing the candidate dependencies of higher likelihood. In this case, co-occurrences of a low weighting are removed because it is deemed that these are false positive candidates for dependency. The appropriate value at which to prune is determined later in Stage 7, where an optimization takes place in order to determine the most appropriate values for the time period and level of pruning.

Pruning the matrix also has the ability to disconnect models and groups of models from the rest of the matrix. In the first case, the process removes this model from the rest of the analysis, while in the second case, the group of models remain within the matrix as a separate group. These are commonly referred to as components in graph theory and can be considered to be a form of partitioning for the DSM. Even with a matrix that has been separated into a number of components, further partitioning can take place in order to uncover partitions within the components that remain.

In the case of the CAD DSM presented in this paper, the pruning level was set at 0.25, and this resulted in the matrix being reduced from 296 to 253 models due to disconnection and the number of co-occurrences being reduced from 21,679 to 613. The significant reduction in the number of co-occurrences further highlights the level of false positive that are introduced using this technique. In addition, the high number of remaining models in the matrix after pruning (85.4%) shows that the 613 remaining co-occurrences have the potential to reflect the main structural elements of the matrix. In addition, the pruning led to the creation of 13 components within the matrix. Components are akin to modules within engineering products, where the models within the component are highly connected and dependent from the rest of the product architecture. The number of components can be considered to be an indicator of how modular a product design is.

3.6. Matrix partitioning

Because the formation of the matrix involves the measurement of the co-occurrence of model activity and correspondingly results in potential false positive dependencies appearing, it is argued that typical DSM partitioning techniques may not be as suitable as other graph theory partitioning techniques. This is because DSM partitioning techniques are usually performed on data that is typically binary or ordinal, and there is an assumed confidence in the values attained from data capture because it is often through expert opinion.

In contrast, the co-occurrence measurements in this analysis are transactional and continuous, as well as having a chance of some of the candidate dependencies being false positives. Therefore, the structure of the data can be considered to be more akin to communication transactions such as e-mail and social media (Blondel et al., Reference Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte and Lefebvre2008; Pujol et al., Reference Pujol, Erramilli and Rodriguez2009). In this field, the Louvain community-partitioning algorithm has been shown to perform well in identifying partitions of communities. For these reasons, the Louvain method has been adopted in this DSM generation process.

The Louvain community algorithms' objective is to generate a set of partitions for the matrix that returns the highest modularity value. Modularity (Q) is an assessment of the quality of the matrix partition and is defined as (Newman, Reference Newman2004):

(1) $$Q = \displaystyle{1 \over {2m}} \sum \limits_{ij} \left[ {A_{ij} - \displaystyle{{k_i k_j} \over {2m}}} \right]{\rm \partial} \lpar {c_i\comma\; c_j} \rpar\comma $$

where $m = {(1/2)} \left(\sum \nolimits_{ij} A_{ij}\right) $ and is the number of co-occurrences within the matrix; ∂ is the Kronecker delta function, which is 1 if a co-occurrence exists between two models and 0 otherwise; (k _i k_j )/2m is the probability that a co-occurrence may exist between two models, where k _i is the number of models that have co-occurrences with model i and k _i is the number of models that have co-occurrences with model j; and A _ij is the weighted co-occurrence between the two models in the matrix.

In order to obtain the highest modularity partition, the algorithm iterates between two steps. The first assigns each model to its own partition. This is then followed by the algorithm sequentially moving one model to a different partition and calculating the change in modularity. From this, the maximum modularity change can be identified.

The second step merges the models together to form a partition of models and combines the co-occurrences of model activity to form single co-occurrence links to the rest of the matrix, and self-loops are used to identify internal co-occurrences between the models within the partition. The aim is to achieve a partitioning whereby each partition is highly connected internally and weakly connected to one another.

Thus, it can be considered a form of hierarchical clustering, and the algorithm iterates until the modularity can no longer be increased by partitioning the models. This paper uses the community application programming interface implementation of the Louvain community-partitioning algorithm within the NetworkX python package (Hagberg et al., Reference Hagberg, Schult and Swart2008).

In the case of the CAD DSM, with a time period of 1 h and pruning of 0.25, the partitioning achieves a modularity score of 0.851 with 26 partitions being generated. This value is comparatively high when compared to many other network data sets where a modularity greater than 0.3 has been considered to be a “good” level of partitioning (Newman, Reference Newman2004). Although modularity has been typically been used as an indicator of a “good” partition, it cannot provide complete confidence because random networks are able to attain a range of modularity scores (Newman, Reference Newman2006). In this study, the high score of 0.851 is expected given the typical hierarchical nature of product architectures that often have well-defined system and subsystem boundaries.

3.7. Sensitivity of DSM generation to time period and pruning values

As previously stated, one of the main challenges in automatically generating DSMs through the co-occurrence of model changes is determining the appropriate values for the time period in which co-occurrences are detected and the level of pruning. This is unlike a normal DSM approach, where there is an assumed confidence in the validity of the dependencies because they are typically elicited from a number of experts. The process therefore incorporates a stage to determine the most appropriate values and assess the sensitivity of the DSM to these parameters. This involves optimizing the matrix with respect to the following:

1. 1. the quality of the partitioning achieved (i.e., a “good” system and subsystem product architecture can be identified),

2. 2. the number of partitions detected (i.e., the level of subsystem granularity that can be attained),

3. 3. the remaining size of the matrix after pruning (i.e., how representative the DSM is to the entire product architecture), and

4. 4. the number of matrix components (i.e., how modular the product design is).

First, the quality of the partitioning achieved by the process is assessed by taking the modularity into consideration where a higher value is preferable because this highlights that the analysis is able to identify clear system and subsystem boundaries. Second, the number of partitions detected is also taken into consideration where the greatest number of partitions is sought because it provides the greatest granularity within the matrix. In terms of the CAD files, the greatest granularity would provide the lowest level of subsystem within the product architecture. Third, the effect of pruning is taken into account because increasing the pruning often leads to a greater loss of models due to disconnection from the rest of the matrix. Hence, it is desirable to ensure that a large proportion of the original matrix remains after pruning; thus, the DSM is as representative of the entire product architecture as possible. Fourth, the number of matrix components produced by the pruning is considered. Here, fewer components is preferable because components are disconnected from one another, and thus, there is a potential loss in understanding of the dependency between these components, yet it is also an indicator for the number of separate modules within a product's design.

To achieve this, a range of time periods and levels of pruning are considered exhaustively, and the modularity, number of communities, remaining network size, and number of components are determined. Figure 8 shows the results for each of these parameters where the dashed rectangles highlight the desired areas for each of the parameters. The effect of sensitivity with respect to the four matrix metrics are the following:

1. 1. The partition modularity (Fig. 8a) has a positive correlation between the time period and level of pruning in order to sustain a high modularity score.

2. 2. The optimum number of communities is more sensitive to both the level of pruning and time period with a maximum attained at 0.5 h and level of pruning of 0.3 (Fig. 8b).

3. 3. Beyond a pruning level of 0.35, the remaining number of models within the DSM decreases (Fig. 8c).

4. 4. The number of components (Fig. 8d) follows a similar pattern to the number of communities whereby it is both highly susceptible to changes in the time period and level of pruning.

Fig. 8.

Effect of time period and pruning on the community partition analysis.

Because the ideal time period and level of pruning differs for each of the parameters, it can be seen that a compromise must be made. In addition, black areas are a result of the entire removal of the matrix by pruning.

To achieve this, the four metrics are combined as shown in Equation (2) to determine an overall measure O, where M is the modularity of the matrix partition, N _p is the number of matrix partitions, R is ratio of the network that remains after pruning, and N _c is the number of matrix components. The aim is to achieve the highest O, given a range of time periods and pruning levels.

(2) $$O = \displaystyle{{MN_{\rm p} R} \over {N_{\rm c}}}.$$

Figure 9 shows the result of this search for an optimal set of parameters and reveals a number of regions, such as 1 h and a 0.25 level of pruning and 6.5 h and a 0.35 level of pruning. In this paper, it has been decided that 1 h and a pruning level of 0.25 is the most suitable parameter set. For the purpose of this study, the four matrix assessment metrics have not been weighted, but it may be desirable to do so.

Fig. 9.

Determining the appropriate time period and pruning values.

3.8. Summary

The previous sections have presented a detailed description of the seven-stage process undertaken to generate the DSMs alongside an example of generating a DSM for the CAD models from the Formula Student data set. Although much of the process can be automated, a number of decisions have to be made given the context of the data set that is to be analyzed. First, the initial model filtering was based upon activity. In this paper, this was specified as a minimum of four updates. Second, it is also necessary to decide whether to continue with a directed or undirected co-occurrence matrix. Through investigation of the one- and two-way co-occurrence values, an undirected matrix was chosen. Third, this decision concerns the time period and level of pruning of the matrix. In order to make a reasoned decision on these values, the process introduces a search stage where these values can be chosen based on four measures: the modularity, the number of partitions, the number of components, and the remaining matrix size. The sensitivity of these parameters has been discussed based on equal weightings of the four measures. This revealed a suitable time of 1 h and pruning level of 0.25.

4.1. CAD DSM

The properties of the CAD DSM are summarized in Table 3. The table shows that a high proportion of the models remain after the pruning stage (85.5%) with a core number of co-occurrences remaining (2.83%). This highlights that a significant number of candidate dependencies are likely to have been false positives. The modularity score of 0.85 highlights that a high level of structure exists within the matrix and suggests that the product architecture can be clearly separated into a number of subsystems. In addition, the high number of components (13) demonstrates that the products design is also highly modular in parts, an insight that would be difficult to ascertain through the existing hierarchical structure of the CAD models as the dependencies could span system and subsystem boundaries. However, a total of 12 additional partitions were generated through Louvain partitioning, which highlights that there are a number of highly integrative subsystems within the product architecture.

Table 3.

Summary of CAD analysis

Figure 10 shows the impact of the partitioning on the DSM structure. Initially, it appears that there is no structure to the DSM (Fig. 10a), but postpartitioning, a high-level of structure is shown to exist (cf. Fig. 10b). This high level of structure within the generated DSM is comparable to the DSMs generated by Sosa et al. (Reference Sosa, Eppinger and Rowles2003) and Gorbea et al. (Reference Gorbea, Spielmannleitner, Lindemann and Fricke2008) for a jet engine and hybrid vehicle, respectively. This result is also in line with manually curated DSMs that have been produced by Van Beek et al. (Reference Van Beek, Erden and Tomiyama2010) and Maurer (Reference Maurer2007) within the Formula Student context.

Fig. 10.

Community partitioning on the co-occurrence of computer-aided design models.

Fig. 11.

Comparison of bath automated parts system and design structure matrices structures.

It has been noted by Eppinger and Browning (Reference Eppinger and Browning2012) that one of the key benefits of DSM is the ability to visualizse and interrogate subsystem dependencies through figures such as Figure 10b. However, it is also noted that this DSM can be considered very large in terms of the number of elements being visualized when compared to more traditional DSMs, which commonly feature between 10 and 100 matrix elements (Eppinger & Browning, Reference Eppinger and Browning2012) Consequentially, such a matrix might require additional support in terms of navigation in order for an engineer to comprehend all the dependencies but also demonstrates the greater level of granularity afforded by the automatic process.

It is immediately apparent that the partitions generated from the co-occurrence of file activity have identified many dependencies that are cross system and subsystem. Therefore, it is argued that the analysis provides further insights into the design of the Formula Student car that the current CAD management system does not provide. While BAPs manage and monitor the product architecture, the automatic DSM process offers potential for identifying dependencies beyond purely architectural (Figure 11). These partitions could relate to functional, structural, and/or process dependencies.

Focusing on the partitions generated by the automated DSM process, four key insights can be drawn. A more complete overview of the partition breakdown is presented in Table 4.

1. 1. Areas of the product exist that are highly interdependent across all the team-defined subsystems. Hence, a change in one of these models could require significant rework across many subsystems and might be an area that requires careful monitoring, particularly in later stage design.

2. 2. There are a number of smaller partitions that consist of only one team-defined subsystem. Thus, a change in one of these partitions may only require changes to a small subset of parts in the product and potentially an engineer from a single discipline.

3. 3. There are a number of partitions that arise from one subsystem, and this may indicate that the subsystem can be further decomposed. For example, further decomposition might be useful for the purpose of resource allocation.

4. 4. The partitioning has identified distinct subsystem dependencies. Partition 3 is one such example, where specific models of the Engine & Drivetrain are related to models of the Frame & Body. This is a logical outcome because the engine fixtures are located to specific areas of the frame.

Table 4.

Summary of CAD analysis

From this evaluation, it is argued that the DSM provides insights that are consistent with the known structure of the Formula Student vehicle, and the results are consistent with DSMs generated from more traditional approaches. In addition, a number of additional benefits have been revealed by using an automatic DSM generation process. Therefore, this provides confidence in the proposed approach to produce DSMs.

The partitioning of the matrix also enables the models to be meaningfully grouped by the intensity of the dependencies. This is in effect moving up a level in the hierarchy of the product architecture, and the results are shown in Figure 12. The rows and columns represent the partitions from the previous matrix (Fig. 10), and the color provides a visual indication of the level of dependency between the partitions. The matrix is symmetric as it remains undirected.

Fig. 12.

Induced matrix from grouping the partitioned computer-aided design models.

It can be seen in Figure 12 that partitions beyond 15 appear to not have dependencies with the other partitions, and this is due to the fact that these are small components that were generated by the pruning of the matrix, and the potential dependencies were removed as false positives. Partitions 1 to 9 do show dependencies between one another, and in particular, there appears to be a high dependency between Partitions 3 and 5, and 5 and 9. This suggests, that Partition 5 is a fundamental integrating partition of CAD models and, hence, likely to be a core subsystem of the product, which in this case is the Frame & Body. A change in this partition is likely to have a substantial impact across many other partitions within the DSM.

4.2. Product model DSM

Similarly to the CAD DSM, the properties of the product model DSM are given in Table 5. Consistent with the CAD DSM, the pruning of the matrix achieved a greatly reduced number of dependency candidates (80%) while maintaining a high proportion of the original matrix (75%). Again, the modularity value of 0.769 is comparable with the CAD DSM with 30 components being generated and 45 partitions.

Table 5.

Summary of CAD, CFD, FEA, and WAVE DSM

Figure 13 shows the results from the partitioning of the matrix using the DSM process. Similar to results shown in the CAD DSM (Fig. 10), Figure 13a shows a seemingly random matrix while the partitioning result in Figure 13b reveals that there is a significant level of structure within the product model DSM. However, in contrast to the CAD DSM, there appears to be greater interdependency between the partitions, which is shown by an increase in co-occurrences that exist outside the partitions denoted by the blue squares.

Fig. 13.

Community partitioning on the co-occurrence of product models.

To investigate this result further, the model types have been mapped to the partitions generated from the DSM. Figure 11 shows the results of this mapping with four interesting features being exposed.

1. 1. Each model type has a partition that consists solely of its respective model. This is a logical output because many of the components within the product may not require an in-depth analysis in relation to CFD, FEA, or WAVE modeling.

2. 2. The existence of a single WAVE model partition is unrelated to the rest of the other modeling types. Because WAVE models involve the analysis of the internal combustion parameters of the internal combustion engine, the modeling looks to optimize the engine mapping rather then look to change the design of the engine itself. Therefore, this is confirmation that the DSM has the ability to detect this as a separate partition and further provides evidence of the technique's validity. This is may also be the case for some of the CFD models where they may be testing new components that did not become part of the final Formula Student car.

3. 3. Identification of dependencies between areas of the CAD model and the FEA and CFD models in this analysis highlights that a change in any of these models may require further FEA and CFD analysis to be performed.

4. 4. It is argued that a single partition consisting of CAD, CFD, and FEA models may be an area that will require monitoring by project management because any change with these models may lead to considerable rework across multiple engineering disciplines

As with the CAD DSM, the product model DSM can use the partitions to group the models and form a secondary matrix of these partitions. Figure 14 shows the results of this induced product model matrix, and the result is similar to that of the CAD DSM induced matrix. Above Partition 16, there are no dependencies observed between the partitions because these are the components that have been generated from Pruning 16, and below Partition 16 show the inner partitions of the larger components within the network, and it can be seen that there exists potential dependencies between these partitions. In particular, Partition 16 shows the greatest number of dependencies between the other partitions, and looking back to Figure 15, it can be seen that this partition is the largest in terms of number of models, and this may highlight the key interfacing components within the product.

Fig. 14.

Induced matrix from grouping the partitioned product model design structure matrices.

Fig. 15.

Composition of product model design structure matrices partitions based on model type.

4.3. Dynamic network analysis of models

The final aspect that has been investigated is the potential of automatically generating DSMs during the engineering project. This has been achieved through the generation of product model DSMs based on the weekly model activity during the Formula Student project.

Figure 16 provides a summary of the matrix statistics and how they evolve throughout the weeks of the project. It is immediately apparent that a gap exists within the updates of the product models between Weeks 7 and 8, and this is due to the students going for Easter vacation and work ceasing on the project. Figure 16a shows that there is a consistency in the level of work being performed on the CAD, CFD, and FEA models, while the WAVE model activity only appears between Weeks 4 and 6. Figure 16b shows the statistics for the DSMs created for each week. An interesting feature of the DSMs is the variability in the size of the matrix between the weeks and modularity score for the partitioning. It appears that there is a limit in generating “good” partitions with low model activity. This is a logical result, and the lack of model co-occurrence activity makes the identification and distinction between positive and false positive dependencies more challenging. It could also be more difficult to detect subsystem structures on a weekly basis because the team are focusing on different elements of the product architecture. Thus, the partitions may be more reflective of the areas of work rather than identifying a particular product subsystem as with the previous CAD and product model DSMs.

Fig. 16.

Model activity and design structure matrices statistics for the dynamic design structure matrices.

Figure 17 shows the DSMs for Weeks 2 to 7 of the Formula Student project. The challenges of low model activity and the ability to generate a DSM is more apparent when one compares Figures 17c and 17d. Figure 17c clearly has fewer active models, and if it were to be compared to the entire DSM from Section 4.2, this may show the mode of working of the team as well as the specific area of work. In addition, comparing these DSMs to the previous CAD and product model DSMs, it can be seen that there appears to be a great deal more interdependencies between the partitions that are generated. This may be because the analysis is focusing upon a week of activity where it is suggested that the team are focusing on integrating models within a few areas of the product at a time. Because the analysis has used the same time period and pruning for the consistency across the analysis, it may be the case that these values may not be suitable for the analysis of individual weeks, and hence, there may be more false positive within these DSMs.

Fig. 17.

Partitioning results for Weeks 2 and 7 of the formula student project.

Figure 18 provides further details on the composition of the partitions from Weeks 2 to 7 of the Formula Student project. From comparison of these weekly compositions, four interesting features emerge.

1. 1. Week 2 (Fig. 18a) reveals partitions consisting of models from all the subsystems in the product. In particular, Partition 1 focuses on the Suspension, Frame & Body and Steering System, so it is suggested that these components are forming the initial chassis for the car. Moving to Partition 2, this solely consists of standard parts and parts that could not be classified through their naming convention. This provides evidence to suggest that the nonclassified parts are part of the standard library of parts of the car. Partition 2 consists of parts from the rest of the subsystems for the car, and this could be the initial placeholders for the arrangement of the subsystems within the car.

2. 2. Concentrated working on particular subsystems has been identified in Week 3 (Fig. 18b) and Week 4 (Fig. 18c) though the majority of the partitions consist of one model type. This may also indicate that these subsystems require a certain level of maturity before being introduced to the rest of the product architecture.

3. 3. Partition 1 in Week 4 (Fig. 18c) highlights a particular area of multidisciplinary collaboration between the Frame & Body development of the CAD alongside the associated CFD and CFD and FEA analysis.

4. 4. A change in the mode of working within the team emerges after Week 4. Weeks 3 and 4 (Fig. 18b,c) focused on specific areas alongside CFD and FEA analysis; Weeks 4–7 (Fig. 18d–f) show a high-level of integrative working between the various subsystems of the car. Initially, the majority of partitions within Weeks 4 and 5 (Fig. 18c,d) consist of either two or three different subsystems, which could be used to identify specific dependencies between subsystems. The level of integrative working continues to grow in Week 7 where both the number of partitions and number of subsystems within each partition increase. This shows that as the project and product develop, the more integrative the work becomes.

These results highlight the potential of automatically generating DSMs as engineering projects progress and the potential insights that they could provide to support engineering project management and the design process. In addition, a better understanding of how the multitude of dependencies evolve and develop within a product could also be produced, and having a library of DSMs from past product developments could be used to support and monitor the development and progression of new products.

Fig. 18.

Partitioning composition for Weeks 2 and 7 of the formula student project.

4.3. Summary

The results from DSMs generated from the Formula Student project has provided considerable evidence to suggest that the process of generating DSMs through the co-occurrence of product model updates provides valid and useful information for engineering project management. In addition, the results show the potential for this process to produce dynamic product model DSMs, which would have previously been a time consuming and potentially costly endeavor. Table 6 provides a summary of the key features that have been identified through the generation of the CAD, product model, and dynamic product model DSMs.

Table 6.

Summary of CAD, CFD, FEA, and WAVE DSM