Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T08:34:06.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONNECTING DESIGN ITERATIONS TO PERFORMANCE IN ENGINEERING DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Ademir-Paolo Vrolijk ,
Yuanzhe Deng  and
Alison Olechowski
Ademir-Paolo Vrolijk*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Yuanzhe Deng
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Alison Olechowski
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Vrolijk, Ademir-Paolo University of Toronto, Canada, a.vrolijk@utoronto.ca

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.

No matter a system's size, complexity, or domain, iterations are fundamental to its design process. However, there is a duality: iterations are both signs of usefully exploring the system's design space and failure to find an appropriate solution. This ambiguity means that we have not been able to connect teams’ iterating behavior to their design's performance, potentially obscuring a way to influence the design process.

As such, our exploratory study unpacks the relationship between design iterations and performance. We observed 88 teams in the 2020 Robots to the Rescue Competition in rich detail. Using logs of 7,956 iterations on a Computer-Aided Design platform, we analyzed how high- and low-performing teams revised their submissions, searching for consistent differences in their behavior. We found significant differences in the iterations’ number, scale, and cadence between these groups of teams. These findings emphasized the correlation between certain iteration patterns and the success of a design: the best teams will likely revise differently than the worst ones. It also showed the importance of a fine-grained, time- dependent view of the design process to resolve open questions in the literature.

Keywords

Design processDesign RevisionConceptual designComputer Aided Design (CAD)Multi-user CAD
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 1067 - 1076
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

Adams, R.S. and Atman, C. (2000), “Characterizing Engineering Student Design Processes An Illustration Of Iteration”, in: 2000 Annual Conference, pp. 5.143.1-5.143.11. Alexander, C. (1964), Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Atman, C.J., Chimka, J.R., Bursic, K.M. and Nachtmann, H.L. (1999), “A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes”, Design Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 131–152, http://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00031-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2000), Design Rules Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity., MIT Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballard, G. (2000), “Positive vs negative iteration in design”, in: 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Boudouh, T., Anghel, D.C. and Garro, O. (2006), “Design Iterations in a Geographically Distributed Design Process”, in: H.A. ElMaraghy and W.H. ElMaraghy (Editors), Advances in Design, Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing, Springer, London, pp. 377–385, http://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-210-1_31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catmull, E. and Wallace, A. (2014), Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration, Random House, New York, first edition.Google Scholar
Chua, D.K.H. and Hossain, M.A. (2012), “Predicting Change Propagation and Impact on Design Schedule Due to External Changes”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 483–493, http://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2011.2164082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chusilp, P. and Jin, Y. (2006), “Impact of Mental Iteration on Concept Generation”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 128 No. 1,pp. 14–25, http://doi.org/10.ni5/L2118707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), “A behavioral theory of the firm”, in: Organizational Behavior 2: Essential Theories of Process and Structure, Vol. 2, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, fourth edition, pp. 169–187.Google Scholar
Deng, Y., Mueller, M., Rogers, C. and Olechowski, A. (2022), “The multi-user computer-aided design collaborative learning framework”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 51, p. 101446, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D. (2000), “Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 113–137, http://doi.org/10.2307/2666981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopsill, J.A., Snider, C. and Hicks, B.J. (2019), “The emergent structures in digital engineering work: What can we learn from dynamic DSMs of near-identical systems design projects?”, Design Science, Vol. 5 No. e28, pp. 1–29, http://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, M., Lu, W., Stehn, L. and Jansson, G. (2015), “An indicator for superfluous iteration in offsite building design processes”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 360–375, http://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2014.937793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huberman, B.A. and Wilkinson, D.M. (2005), “Performance Variability and Project Dynamics”, Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 307–332, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-005-5587-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, R., Guler, I. and Nerkar, A. (2016), “Fail Often, Fail Big, and Fail Fast? Learning from Small Failures and R&d Performance in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 436–459, http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W.N., Seymour, S. and Biemer, S.M. (2011), Systems Engineering Principles and Practice, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, N.J, 2 edition edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Lebovitz, S. and Zalmanson, L. (2021), “Minimal and Adaptive Coordination: How Hackathons’ Projects Accelerate Innovation without Killing it”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 684–715, http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loch, C., Mihm, J. and Huchzermeier, A. (2003), “Concurrent Engineering and Design Oscillations in Complex Engineering Projects”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 187–199, http://doi.org/10.1177/106329303038030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loch, C.H. and Terwiesch, C. (2005), “Rush and Be Wrong or Wait and Be Late? A Model of Information in Collaborative Processes”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 331–343, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00028.x .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lottaz, C., Clement, D.E., Faltings, B.V. and Smith, I.F.C. (1999), “Constraint-Based Support for Collaboration in Design and Construction”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 23–35, http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1999)13:1(23).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P.E.D. (2002), “Influence of Project Type and Procurement Method on Rework Costs in Building Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 18–29, http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:1(18).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M. and Storrle, H. (2011), “What are the Characteristics of Engineering Design Processes?”, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 188–198.Google Scholar
Maier, M. and Rechtin, E. (2000), The Art of Systems Architecting, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, second edition.Google Scholar
McGrath, R.G. (2011), “Failing by design”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 76–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Mihm, J., Loch, C. and Huchzermeier, A. (2003), “Problem-Solving Oscillations in Complex Engineering Projects”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 733–750, http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.6.733.16021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nourimand, A. and Olechowski, A. (2020), “Prominence of Conceptual Design with Computer-Aided Design Tools for Junior and Senior Product Designers”, in: 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Online, http://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–35101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekta§, S.T. and Pultar, M. (2006), “Modelling detailed information flows in building design with the parameter- based design structure matrix”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 99–122, http://doi.org/10.1016Zj.destud.2005.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccolo, S.A., Maier, A.M., Lehmann, S. andMcMahon, C.A. (2019), “Iterations as the result of social and technical factors: Empirical evidence from a large-scale design project”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 251–270, http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0301-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, J. (2005), “Hondas in Space”, Fast Company.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 467–482.Google Scholar
Smith, R.P. and Tjandra, P. (1998), “Experimental observation of iteration in engineering design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 107–117, http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01616691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szajnfarber, Z., Zhang, L., Mukherjee, S., Crusan, J., Hennig, A. and Vrolijk, A. (2020), “Who Is in the Crowd? Characterizing the Capabilities of Prize Competition Competitors”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 1–15, http://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2991370.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. and Ford, D.N. (2006), “Tipping point failure and robustness in single development projects”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 51–71, http://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hippel, E. (1994), “Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation”, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 429–439, http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrolijk, A. and Szajnfarber, Z. (2023), “The Opportunists in Innovation Contests”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 30–40, http://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2132771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D.C. and Eckert, C.M. (2017), “Perspectives on iteration in design and development”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 153–184, http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yassine, A. and Braha, D. (2003), “Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Method”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 165–176, http://doi.org/10.1177/106329303034503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yassine, A., Joglekar, N., Braha, D., Eppinger, S. and Whitney, D. (2003), “Information hiding in product development: The design churn effect”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 145–161, http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0036-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H.Z., Xie, C. and Nourian, S. (2018), “Are their designs iterative or fixated? Investigating design patterns from student digital footprints in computer-aided design software”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 819–841, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9408-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar