Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:47:04.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SIMULATION OF FEEDBACK LOOPS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Francisco Tapia ,
Alison McKay  and
Mark Robinson
Francisco Tapia*
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Alison McKay
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Mark Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
*
Tapia, Francisco, University of Leeds, iDRO, Institute of Design, Robotics and Optimisation. United Kingdom, mnftl@leeds.ac.uk

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.

Feedback loops are a key characteristic of engineering design processes that increase complexity, time to market, and costs. However, some feedback loops, due to design iteration, have a positive impact on design outcomes (i.e., the quality of the final design), so are worth the time and costs incurred. Other loops, resulting from rework, also have a positive impact on the final design but their impact on current projects, in terms of their urgency and so interruption, is high. Thus, overall, and drawing on socio-technical systems literature, some feedback loops are virtuous circles with a positive impact whereas others are vicious circles with a negative impact. In this paper, we report early work exploring these interplays between rework and design iteration through the development of process simulation models.

Keywords

SimulationProcess modellingDecision making
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2661 - 2670
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Artmann, C. 2009. The value of information updating in new product development (Vol. 620). Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundachawat, P., Roy, R., Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E. 2009. Design rework prediction in concurrent design environment: current trends and future research directions. In Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference–Competitive Design. Cranfield University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, Soo-Haeng, and Eppinger, Steven D.. “Product development process modeling using advanced simulation.” In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 80258, pp. 85–94. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2001.Google Scholar
Clegg, C.W., Robinson, M.A., Davis, M.C., Bolton, L., Pieniazek, R., & McKay, A. (2017). Applying organizational psychology as a design science: A method for predicting malfunctions in socio-technical systems (PreMiSTS). Design Science, 3, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder, R.M., Robinson, M.A., Hughes, H.P.N., Sim, Y.W. 2012. The development of an agent-based modeling framework for simulating engineering team work. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 42(6), pp.1425–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djanatliev, A. and German, R., 2013, December. Prospective healthcare decision-making by combined system dynamics, discrete-event and agent-based simulation. In 2013 Winter Simulations Conference (WSC) (pp. 270-281). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R., 2012. Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, J.V., Henriques, E., Silva, A., Pimentel, C. 2017. Modelling the dynamics of complex early design processes: an agent-based approach. Design Science, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassenezhad, M., Cantamessa, M., Montagna, F., Clarkson, P.J. 2019. Managing Sociotechnical Complexity in Engineering Design Projects. Journal of Mechanical Design, 141(8).Google Scholar
Le, H.N., Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J., 2010. Evaluating the positive and negative impact of iteration in engineering processes. In Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes (pp. 89–100). Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P.E., Edwards, D.J. and Smith, J., 2016. Rework causation: Emergent theoretical insights and implications for research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(6), p.04016010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuch, M. 1985. Vicious Circles in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolic, I. and Ghorbani, A., 2011, April. A method for developing agent-based models of socio-technical systems. In 2011 International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (pp. 44-49). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mykoniatis, K. and Angelopoulou, A., 2020. A modeling framework for the application of multi-paradigm simulation methods. Simulation, 96(1), pp.55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccolo, S. A., Maier, A. M., Lehmann, S., McMahon, C.A. 2018. Iterations as the result of social and technical factors: empirical evidence from a large-scale design project. Research in Engineering Design, 30(2), pp. 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M.A., 2016. Quantitative research principles and methods for human-focused research in engineering design. In Experimental design research (pp. 41–64). Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, S. 2008. Conceptual modelling for simulation Part II: A framework for conceptual modelling. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(3), pp.291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RP, Eppinger, S.D. 1997. Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Management Science 43(3):276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H., e Cunha, M.P., 2017. On organizational circularity. The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions, and contradictions, pp.393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D.C. and Eckert, C.M., 2017. Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Research in Engineering Design, 28(2), pp.153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J., 2007. Modelling iteration in engineering design. In DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28.-31.07. 2007 (pp. 693–694).Google Scholar
Yassine, A., 2018, June. A Three-Dimensional View of Complex Product Development Management. In 2018 IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar