Engineering design complexity: an investigation of methods and measures

In this paper, two measures are proposed for valuation of size and coupling complexities of design products as abstracted by three distinct representations. The proposed size complexity measure is based on the information theoretic definition of complexity that connects the complexity of a design to the level of entropy, or uncertainty, inherent in the design product. The proposed coupling complexity measure evaluates the decomposability of the graph-based representation of design products. To validate the proposed measures, an experiment is conducted to calculate the complexities of three consumer products based on three product representations, namely, function structure, connectivity graph, and parametric associativity graph. The findings indicate that coupling and size are independent measures of a product’s complexity. Thus, it is recommended that both measures should be used. Further, the complexity of a product is not independent of the choice of representation model used to describe the product. This suggests that the complexity of a product will vary with the selected view. Finally, it is shown that the two approaches for measuring complexity of a product are generalizable and can be applied to different representations.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[2]  A. N. Kolmogorov.  Combinatorial foundations of information theory and the calculus of probabilities , 1983 .

[3]  Wolfgang Beitz,et al.  Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , 1984 .

[4]  Nam P. Suh,et al.  principles in design , 1990 .

[5]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 1992 .

[6]  Patrick A. Fitzhorn,et al.  Engineering design is a computable function , 1994, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[7]  Michael C. Loui.  Computational complexity theory , 1996, CSUR.

[8]  Oded Maimon,et al.  The measurement of a design structural and functional complexity , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[9]  Oded Maimon,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Design: Foundations, Algorithms and Applications , 1998 .

[10]  Kai Yang,et al.  The components of complexity in engineering design , 1999 .

[11]  Gérard P. Cachon,et al.  Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science , 1999, Organization Science.

[12]  David C. Brown,et al.  Design Simplification by Analogical Reasoning , 2000, Knowledge Intensive CAD.

[13]  D. Du,et al.  Theory of Computational Complexity , 2000 .

[14]  Nam P. Suh,et al.  Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications , 2001 .

[15]  Hamdi A. Bashir,et al.  Models for estimating design effort and time , 2001 .

[16]  A. Vulpiani,et al.  Predictability: a way to characterize complexity , 2001, nlin/0101029.

[17]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Case-Based Design Facilitated by the Design Exemplar , 2002, AID.

[18]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[19]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Developing Measures of Complexity for Engineering Design , 2003 .

[20]  Graham Jared,et al.  Complexity metrics for design (simplicity + simplicity = complexity) , 2003 .

[21]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[22]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Design Shell for Parametric Design at Embodiment Stage , 2003, DAC 2003.

[23]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Development of a domain and solver independent method for mechanical engineering embodiment design , 2004 .

[24]  Joshua D. Summers,et al.  A driver for selection of functionally inequivalent concepts at varying levels of abstraction , 2007 .