Methods for the Domain-Spanning Conceptual Design

The development of self-optimizing systems is a highly interdisciplinary task, as several domains are involved. Existing design methodologies do not adress this issue, as they focus on the respective domain; a holistic domain-spanning consideration of the system occurs - if at all - only rudimentally. The partial solutions developed by the respective domains may be optimal from the point of view of this domain. However, it does not automatically mean, that the sum of the optimal domain-specific solutions forms the best possible overall solution: ”the whole is more than the sum of its parts”. This especially holds true for the early design phase, the conceptual design. Its result is the so-called principle solution, which is further refined in the domain-specific design and development. Thus, a great need for methods arises which support the domain-spanning conceptual design for self-optimizing systems in a holistic manner. In this chapter we will introduce such methods. In particular, we will explain the specification technique for the domain-spanning description of the principle solution of a self-optimizing system. Furthermore, methods are explained which support the creation of the principle solution. This includes a method to ensure the consistency of application scenarios, a method for the design of the system of objectives, which is crucial for a self-optimizing system, as well as a method for the re-use of proven solutions for recurring problems (solution patterns). Finally, some analysis methods are explained that are performed on the specification of the principle solution. These are: the early analysis of the reliability and the analysis of the economic efficiency.

[1]  Jürgen Gausemeier,et al.  COMPUTER-AIDED CROSS-DOMAIN MODELING OF MECHATRONIC SYSTEMS , 2010 .

[2]  U. Lindemann,et al.  Cost-Efficient Design , 2007 .

[3]  Bernd Bertsche,et al.  Reliability in Automotive and Mechanical Engineering: Determination of Component and System Reliability , 2008 .

[4]  Markus Völter,et al.  Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management , 2006 .

[5]  Rudolf Koller,et al.  Prinziplösungen zur Konstruktion technischer Produkte , 1994 .

[6]  Luigi Portinale,et al.  Bayesian networks in reliability , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[7]  R. Freeman Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[8]  J. Russell,et al.  An approach to environmental psychology , 1974 .

[9]  Tim Kelly,et al.  Functional hazard analysis for highly integrated aerospace systems , 1998 .

[10]  J. Gausemeier,et al.  Integrative conceptual design of products and production systems for mechatronic systems , 2012, 2012 9th France-Japan & 7th Europe-Asia Congress on Mechatronics (MECATRONICS) / 13th Int'l Workshop on Research and Education in Mechatronics (REM).

[11]  Günther Palm,et al.  Wörterbuch der Kognitionswissenschaft , 1996 .

[12]  Jens Geisler,et al.  Increasing the reliability of a self-optimizing railway guidance system , 2010, 2010 Proceedings - Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS).

[13]  Jürgen Gausemeier,et al.  Modeling and Analyzing Fault-Tolerant Mechatronic Systems , 2009 .

[14]  Jürgen Gausemeier,et al.  Zukunftsorientierte Unternehmensgestaltung , 2014 .

[15]  Walter Sextro,et al.  Dependability of Self-Optimizing Mechatronic Systems , 2014 .

[16]  Jürgen Gausemeier,et al.  FMEA von komplexen mechatronischen Systemen auf Basis der Spezifikation der Prinziplösung , 2009 .

[17]  R. Dorociak Early probabilistic reliability analysis of mechatronic systems , 2012, 2012 Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium.

[18]  U. Lindemann,et al.  Individualisierte Produkte - Komplexität beherrschen in Entwicklung und Produktion , 2006 .

[19]  Jay Lee,et al.  Intelligent prognostics tools and e-maintenance , 2006, Comput. Ind..

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

[21]  Thorsten Sauer Ein Konzept zur Nutzung von Lösungsobjekten für die Produktentwicklung in Lern- und Anwendungssystemen , 2006 .

[22]  Clifton A. Ericson,et al.  Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety , 2005 .

[23]  Alessandro Birolini Reliability Engineering: Theory and Practice , 1999 .

[24]  J. A. McDermid,et al.  Towards integrated safety analysis and design , 1994, SIAP.

[25]  Jürgen Gausemeier,et al.  Conceptual Design of Modularized Advanced Mechatronic Systems , 2009 .

[26]  David Harel,et al.  Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams , 2008, SCESM '06.

[27]  Sanford Friedenthal,et al.  A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language , 2008 .

[28]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[29]  Michael Blackenfelt On the development of modular mechatronic products , 1999 .

[30]  Clifton A. Ericson,et al.  Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety: Ericson/Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety , 2005 .

[31]  Murray Silverstein,et al.  A Pattern Language , 1977 .

[32]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  REQUIREMENTS FOR A FAILURE MODE TAXONOMY FOR USE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN , 2003 .

[33]  Ursula Frank,et al.  Specification technique for the description of self-optimizing mechatronic systems , 2009 .