Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T10:21:28.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODELING COMPLEXITY IN THE STRUCTURE OF DESIGN REGULATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

David Myles Robinson  and
Andy Dong
David Myles Robinson*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
Andy Dong
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
*
Robinson, David Myles, Oregon State University, United States of America, robinsd3@oregonstate.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Government regulation shapes many aspects of the design of a product. This paper addresses the effect of the complexity of a regulation on product architecture through the structure of the regulation itself. The structure of a regulation derives from dependencies among requirements and parameters in the regulation that are ipso facto design elements. Since design elements such as requirements and parameters have no formal definition in regulation, it is difficult to identify them accurately and consistently. We apply two approaches to defining and coding requirements and parameters in the context of washing machine regulation. The two coding approaches generate networks of design elements that are analyzed to measure the complexity of the regulation and by extension the product. We find significant differences in the complexity of the regulation when coded in different ways and note deficiencies and strengths of each approach. These findings will support future research to measure the impact of regulatory complexity on product architecture.

Keywords

Design regulationComplexityProduct architectureDesign structure matrixDesign theory
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2685 - 2694
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Colliard, J.E. and Georg, C.P. (2022), “Measuring regulatory complexity”, HEC Paris Research Paper No. FIN- 2020-1358, http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3523824.Google Scholar
Csardi, G. and Nepusz, T. (2006), “The igraph software package for complex network research”, InterJournal Complex Systems, Vol. 1695.Google Scholar
ElMaraghy, W., ElMaraghy, H., Tomiyama, T. and Monostori, L. (2012), “Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing”, CIRP annals, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 793–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S. and Browning, T. (2012), Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications, Engineering systems, MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission and Legal service (2016), Joint practical guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of European Union legislation, Publications Office, http://doi.org/10.2880/5575.Google Scholar
Hayes, A.F. and Krippendorff, K. (2007), “Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data”, Communication methods and measures, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277–1288, http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurka, S. and Haag, M. (2020), “Policy complexity and legislative duration in the European Union”, European Union Politics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 87–108, http://doi.org/10.1177/1465116519859431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Reliability in content analysis”, Human communication research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 411–433.Google Scholar
Leeuwen, G.V. and Mohnen, P. (2017), “Revisiting the porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of green innovation for the netherlands”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 26 No. 1-2, pp. 63–77, http://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. (1991), “America's green strategy”, Scientific American, Vol. 264, p. 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemler, S.E. (2015), “Content Analysis”, in: Scott, R.A. and Kosslyn, S.M. (Editors), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Wiley, 1 edition, pp. 1–14, http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772. etrds0053.Google Scholar
The European Commission (2019), “Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 laying down ecodesign require¬ments for household washing machines and household washer-dryers”, Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. 315, p. 285–312. OJ L 315, 5.12.2019, p. 285-312.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar