THE REPEATABILITY OF HIGH DEFINITION DESIGN STRUCTURE MATRIX (HDDSM) MODELS FOR REPRESENTING PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE

Product architecture has implications for product success that go beyond meeting basic customer needs or performance requirements. The mapping of functions to components and the interactions between them impacts the potential for using all or part of the product to build a family of products, the ease with which the product can be redesigned to meet previously unanticipated customer needs, and the way in which engineering design changes propagate during the design process. For practical applications of design theory, it would be beneficial to have a comprehensive and robust model that captures product architecture and can be used for multiple purposes. Some fields of design research have used variations of a Design Structure Matrix (DSM) to record the interactions between elements of a system. The High Definition Design Structure Matrix (HDDSM) has been proposed as a model that limits the subjectivity required from designers by capturing the existence of very specific types of interactions between product components. This work evaluates the repeatability of HDDSM models created by different examiners for a set of electromechanical products. The inter-rater agreement between HDDSM models created by pairs of examiners is determined by calculating the kappa agreement index for each type of component interaction. The results of this initial study demonstrate very encouraging levels of repeatabili ty across examiners for different types of products. Based on these results, recommendations are provided for creating objective models of product architecture and using such models for a number of exploratory research tasks, such as automated analysis of design guidelines.

[1]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  An Approach to Quantifying Design Flexibility for Mass Customization in Early Design Stages , 2008 .

[2]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Integration analysis of product decompositions , 1994 .

[3]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  Distributed modeling of component DSM , 2009 .

[4]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Experimental studies assessing the repeatability of a functional modeling derivation method , 2003 .

[5]  Darren A. Keese,et al.  Empirically-Derived Principles for Designing Products With Flexibility for Future Evolution , 2007 .

[6]  Kevin Otto,et al.  An empirical foundation for product flexibility , 2005 .

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

[8]  Seung Ki Moon,et al.  Three Dimensional Design Structure Matrix With Cross-Module and Cross-Interface Analyses , 2007, DAC 2007.

[9]  Elim Liu,et al.  A structural component-based approach for designing product family , 2005, Comput. Ind..

[10]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms , 2007 .

[11]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design , 2007, Syst. Eng..

[12]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Product platform design: method and application , 2001 .

[13]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options , 2008 .

[14]  Simon Szykman,et al.  Enhancing Virtual Product Representations for Advanced Design Repository Systems , 2005, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[15]  Robert Stone,et al.  Creation of Assembly Models to Support Automated Concept Generation , 2005 .

[16]  D. Weiss,et al.  Interrater reliability and agreement. , 2000 .

[17]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  Analysis of Product Flexibility for Future Evolution Based on Design Guidelines and a High-Definition Design Structure Matrix , 2009, DAC 2009.

[18]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Development of a Product Model to Support Engineering Change Management , 2004 .

[19]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[20]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[21]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDIES IN PRODUCT FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE EVOLUTION: AN APPLICATION AND EVALUATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES , 2008 .

[22]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Tradeoff between Modularity and Performance for Engineered Systems and Products , 2005 .

[23]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[24]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Flexible product platforms: framework and case study , 2007 .