Design Sprint for Complex System Architecture Analysis

A rigorous, in-depth analysis is a common approach in complex system design. Elsewhere, however, more iterative and agile processes and open innovation have become commonplace. We experiment with an agile hackathon-type design sprint for solving industry-provided, complex system engineering problems. In a typical complex system project, significant domain expertise is expected and only one in-depth analysis is typically conducted to make recommendations for a given problem. The question we explore is whether a quick sprint with non-domain experts can result in useful insights for further analysis. We tasked seven teams in parallel to conduct analysis and suggest recommendations for a given company case in only a few hours. The industry challenge was to propose system changes that would mitigate risks due to the long lifecycle of the system and long time from order to delivery. The teams were given two a priori decomposed design structure matrices, representing the product architecture at two levels of granularity, as well as access to several analysis tools. The design sprint resulted in seven sets of recommendations, each with unique insights. The results and their variety highlighted the type of recommendations any given analysis direction would give if pursued further. It provided insights about the many different ways to potentially address the given challenge. As expected, it also highlighted the difficulty of analysis due to lack of detailed system knowledge. Nevertheless, the sprint was considered successful and meaningful as well as an effective means to augment traditional complex system analysis. INTRODUCTION Gaining an outside-in view on a problem is usually beneficial for any company. A fresh set of eyes can result in new ways of thinking and even new innovations. Consequently, various open innovation methods such as hackathons have become common in many industries. Hackathons are typically short-term challenges consisting of a large amount of data that are opened up to a wider audience to be used to discover novel solutions [1]. Hackathons are especially common in data-heavy software projects and digital innovation [1,2] but have become more commonplace in other areas as well. Hackathons can be quick, solutions-oriented events. Another similar trend is the use of agile methodologies that originate from software and digital service development. [3] A core feature of an agile approach is a design sprint [4] – a short-term, targeted design cycle with a clearly defined goal. Hackathons or design sprints, however, are not common in complex system development. Nevertheless, Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2018 August 26-29, 2018, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

[1]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Design Innovation: A Study of Integrated Practice , 2017 .

[2]  Beshoy Morkos,et al.  Exploring Requirement Change Propagation Through the Physical and Functional Domain , 2015 .

[3]  Alistair Cockburn,et al.  Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation , 2001, Computer.

[4]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  Improved Clustering Algorithm for Design Structure Matrix , 2012, DAC 2012.

[5]  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.

[6]  D. V. Steward,et al.  The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[7]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Designing Products for Adaptability: Insights from Four Industrial Cases , 2017, Decis. Sci..

[8]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Level of modularity and different levels of system granularity , 2011 .

[9]  Udo Lindemann,et al.  The Subjective Aspects of Design Structure Matrices – Analysis of Comprehension and Application and Means to Overcome Differences , 2006 .

[10]  Ivo Adan,et al.  Multi-level flow-based Markov clustering for design structure matrices , 2016 .

[11]  Gerard Briscoe,et al.  Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon , 2014 .

[12]  Kevin Otto,et al.  LINKING 10 YEARS OF MODULAR DESIGN RESEARCH: ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND TOOL CHAIN SEQUENCES TO SUPPORT PRODUCT PLATFORM DESIGN , 2013, DAC 2013.

[13]  P. Clarkson,et al.  Predicting change propagation in complex design , 2004 .

[14]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Design Structure Matrix Extensions and Innovations: A Survey and New Opportunities , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[15]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Technology Infusion: An Assessment Framework and Case Study , 2008 .

[16]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications , 2012 .

[17]  David J. Wagg,et al.  ASME 2007 International design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference , 2007 .

[18]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  How to Hackathon: Socio-technical Tradeoffs in Brief, Intensive Collocation , 2016, CSCW.

[19]  Richard Banfield,et al.  Design Sprint: A Practical Guidebook for Building Great Digital Products , 2015 .

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

[21]  Pj Clarkson,et al.  An introduction to the Cambridge advanced modeller , 2010 .

[22]  Kevin Otto,et al.  A rapid algorithm for multi-objective Pareto optimization of modular architecture , 2017 .

[23]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Product Family Redesign Using Commonality and Variety Metrics , 2015, DAC 2015.

[24]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Change Propagation Analysis in Complex Technical Systems , 2009 .

[25]  Zoe Szajnfarber,et al.  Exploring the Interaction Between Open Innovation Methods and System Complexity , 2014 .