Regular Paper

Application of Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix to the Decomposition of Engineering Systems
M. D. Guenov* and S. G. Barker
Department of Power, Propulsion and Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Wharley End, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, United Kingdom

Received 25 February 2004; Accepted 1 August 2004, after one or more revisions Published online in Wiley InterScience ( DOI 10.1002/sys.20015

A design decomposition-integration model, named COPE, is proposed in which Axiomatic Design Matrices (DM) map Functional Requirements to Design Parameters while Design Structure Matrices (DSM) provide structured representation of the system development context. In COPE, the DM and the DSM co-evolve. Traversing between the two types of matrices allows for some control in the application of the system knowledge which surrounds the decision making process and the definition of the system architecture. It is argued that this approach describes better the design process of complex products which is constrained by the need to utilise existing manufacturing processes, to apply discrete technological innovations and to accommodate work-share and supply chain agreements. Presented is an industrial case study which demonstrated the feasibility of the model. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 8: 29–40, 2005 Key words: axiomatic design, design structure matrix, systems decomposition, systems integration

*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed (e-mail: Contract grant sponsor: UK EPSRC Research Grant GR/R37067 under the Systems Integration Initiative. Systems Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005 © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Standards for the engineering of systems such as EIA 632 and ISO/IEC 15288 support a seamless process of converting customer needs into systems/technical requirements, which are subsequently transformed into logical representations (architectural design) and fi29

and the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) approach [Steward. High-level view of the systems engineering process (adapted from ANSI/EIA-632-1998). There are also other methods of structuring the design process. in practice. The conjecture is that ADT and DSM are complementary parts of the decomposition–integration problem. would only produce results which reflect the experience of those using it. 2001. AXIOMATIC DESIGN THEORY (ADT) The underlying hypothesis of the Axiomatic Design [Suh. Observations made during the industrial case study suggest that. even experienced systems designers are too quick to follow a particular solution path. but also allows the designer to attach constraints and text fragments to each item within each layer of the system decomposition.. However. The foundation axioms are: Figure 1. Finally conclusions are drawn and future work outlined. ideally representing different phases of the product lifecycle to ensure that the design process will consider. 1979]. These include DeMAID [Rogers. IPTs are now a common practice in industries such as the defense and aerospace.30 GUENOV AND BARKER nally into physical solution representations. SLATE. . hierarchies. 1994a. The main objective of the work is to investigate to what extent those two methods can be integrated and to evaluate the approach in a realistic industrial setting. however. now part of the EDS Team Center suite of software. 2. 1977. which was developed by NASA to facilitate the decomposition and sequencing of design activities. relying heavily on existing knowledge and past concepts. The potential value of this work is that it provides a means of relating component integration to system functionality. Section 4 outlines the Methodology. The process is iterative (see Fig. such as the N2 chart [Lano. on the other hand [Talbott et al. all relevant requirements and constraints. Axiomatic Design Software Inc. as early as possible. 1981]. while Section 5 describes the industrial case study undertaken to test and evaluate the approach. SLATE. while the latter is better suited to modeling the interactions and the integration of the design parameters. The following two sections present a brief summary of ADT and DSM. There are software tools available which are based on the DSM. 1967. The systems approach of tackling the problem includes the deployment of Integrated Product Teams (IPT). “Acclaro” [Suh. PlanWeaver (ADePT [Adept Management website]) which has been applied mainly in the construction industry. which fulfill only partially this need. and also provides a good level of traceability of nonfunctional requirements throughout the design decomposition. is a good example of a powerful requirements management system. where the former is more concerned with mapping of functional requirements to design parameters. 1) due to the incomplete information available at the outset of the project and also the large number of constraints involved—technical. What seems to be lacking. economic and even political. however. and not with explicit constraint mitigation and control. and design axioms. These are composed of a variety of specialists from different functional disciplines. Acclaro is concerned primarily with functional decomposition. 1990. respectively. The main distinguishable components of the ADT are domains. and to decompose and map those in two tree hierarchies and associated design matrices. It provides constructs not only to build requirements and product hierarchies. 2001] is that there exist fundamental principles that govern good design practice. 1994b]. For instance. The latter approach provides the ability to group related design elements. 1999]. This paper presents work which has concentrated particularly on the integration of ADT and DSM. which otherwise is not available but is essential during the early stages of the design process. Currently there exist a number of requirements management tools. and more recently. website] is designed to evolve the systems design in accordance with the rules of Axiomatic Design Theory (ADT). The software allows the systems designer to enter the top-level Functional Requirements (FRs) and Design Parameters (DPs). are high-level support tools which could help the systems teams and architects draw together consistently a vast amount of information needed for the requirements and the design decomposition of the system.

while “over-specified” requirements could virtually prohibit the discovery of feasible design solutions. A coupled design can be decoupled. i. the relations (the dependencies) between the FRs and the DPs can be represented in an equation of the form: FR = [A]DP. Physical and Process. and the design remains as uncomplicated as possible. Functional. Functional Requirements can be defined as “a minimum set of independent requirements that completely characterises the functional needs of the product in the functional domain”. three types of designs exist: uncoupled. 2001. The decomposition process starts with the decomposition of the overall functional requirement—in practice this should correspond to the top system requirement. Axiom 1. the FRs can be satisfied. adapted from Tate [1999] and Suh [2001]): Customer. 1974: 139]. the design process takes place in four domains (Fig. When the design matrix is lower triangular. be determined for the same hierarchical level in the physical domain.…. the functional requirement does not depend on the particular design parameter). .” This is required by Axiom 1 (Independence). or otherwise X. Decomposition by zigzagging. n). Zigzagging also involves the other domains since manufacturing considerations may constrain design decisions. and the design equation has an exact solution.….. (1) where each element of the design matrix [A] can be expressed as Aij = ∂FRi/∂DPj (i = 1.e. Depending on the type of resulting design matrix [A]. Myers. the design process converts customer’s needs (CNs) into Functional Requirements (FRs) and constraints (Cs). Each element Aij is represented as a partial derivative to indicate dependency of a FRi on a DPj.1 Axiom 2. and Constantine. this comes at a price. which enables each FR to be satisfied without affecting any of the other FRs. for example. Thus there is no coupling of function where it can be avoided. where by adjusting DPs in a certain order. which in turn are embodied into Design Parameters (DPs). Equation (1) is called the design equation and can be interpreted as “choosing the right set of DPs to satisfy given FRs. This is explained in more detail later in this section. Axiom 1 requires that Functional Requirements (FRs) be independent of one another. The resulting matrix is diagonal. the corresponding DP must 1 It appears that software engineers realized this earlier. the resulting design is decoupled. while learning from some bad designs in the automotive industry [see Stevens. According to the ADT. and thus it is useful in selecting the best among the designs which satisfy axiom one [Suh. Axiom 1 is satisfied. 3).e. decoupled and coupled (Fig. Axiom 2 provides a quantitative measure of the merits of a given design. Generally. For simplicity the value of an element Aij can be expressed as 0 (i. 2. p 14]. At each level of the design hierarchy. Design Parameters are “the key physical variables in the physical domain that characterise the design that specifies the FRs” [Suh.. Minimize the information content of the design. 2001]. and thus the FRs cannot be satisfied independently. The design matrix of a coupled design contains mostly nonzero elements. Through a series of iterations. DPs determine (but also can be affected by) the manufacturing or Process Variables (PVs). This iterative process is called zigzagging (see also Tate [1999] for a more thorough treatment of the decomposition problem). which means that a sequence exists. by adding components to carry out specific functions—however. Uncoupled design occurs when each FR is satisfied by exactly one DP. m and j = 1. Before decomposing a FR at a particular hierarchical level in the functional domain. Maintain the independence of the functional requirements. the design that uses the least information is superior.DECOMPOSITION OF ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 31 Figure 2.

Jahangir. The solid line represents uniform distribution. 2001. Ben-Asher. which are formalized into theorems and corollaries. common range is the overlap between design and system ranges. If m > n. There is no exact method for computing the information content of coupled designs. The DSM has become increasingly popular as a means of planning product development. in which the design . and specifies the range within which the FR(s) can be met [Suh. There are three different configurations of the matrix (Fig. Frey.) In addition to the design axioms. relative to the number of DPs. and Coupled Design. the design solution given by the original DPs cannot satisfy the new set of FRs. then the design is either coupled or the FRs cannot be satisfied. That is. (Note that in both cases the design matrix [A] is not square. which other tasks within the matrix utilize the output information [Design Structure Matrix website]. 1977. and Engelhard [2000] proved that simple summation cannot be performed for decoupled designs and offered a method for computing information content. systems engineering. what information pieces (parameters) are required to start a certain activity and where does the information generated by the activity feed into—i. One additional factor that affects coupling is the number of FRs. ADT is governed by a set of rules. system range is the capability of the (manufacturing) system. 3. Probability distribution of a design parameter. 2001]. 1979. 1981]. which was used for some years by the Systems Engineering community. The information content of a system can be computed by summation of the individual information contents of all DPs only if the latter are probabilistically independent. before the introduction of the DSM. project planning and management. then the design is redundant. The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is a compact. The matrix contains a list of all constituent subsystems/activities and the corresponding information exchange and dependency patterns. Of particularly relevance to this research are Corollary 3 and Theorem 5 which originate from the first axiom (Independence): • Corollary 3 states: “Integrate design features in a single physical part if the functional requirements (FRs) can be independently satisfied in the proposed solution.e. by substituting one of the FRs with a new one. The information content is defined by the equation system range  I = log  (2)  common range  . Consequently. DESIGN STRUCTURE MATRIX (DSM) The DSM can be seen as a successor to the N2 chart [Lano. m. and organizational development [Browning. If m < n.” • Theorem 5 states: “When a given set of FRs is changed by the addition of a new FR. matrix representation of a system/project. 2002].32 GUENOV AND BARKER Figure 4. Becker. The concept dates back to the 1960s and was not actually published until 1981 [Steward. 2000]. the dotted line a nonuniform distribution (adapted from Suh [1990]). From top to bottom: Uncoupled. Examples of design types. 5).   In Figure 4 design range is the tolerance within which the DP can vary. Figure 3.” The Second Design Axiom states that minimizing the information content of a DP increases the probability of success of satisfying a function. and Ackerman. parallel configuration. or by selection of a completely different set of FRs. Decoupled. n. a new design solution must be sought. The simple..

6b). and the fully coupled configuration. design decomposition and modu- larization. which are either mutually exclusive.DECOMPOSITION OF ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 33 Figure 5. used for the representation of systems design architecture interface. to minimize feedback loops (Fig. Figure 6 shows how a DSM may be used. DSM configurations. (c) Clustered. it is not possible to “obtain a DSM for a new product that has never been designed before. by “tearing” them from the matrix—in practice this means producing a set of assumptions for the (as yet) unknown information.g. over time This research is concerned with the use of DSM to model the integration and connectivity (logical and physical) between design embodiments of system architectures. or minimally interacting. while those above the diagonal depict a feedback loop. elements (e. the sequential. and planning of organizational topologies • The temporal DSM. 2004]. although the DSM captures the interactions between elements within a system. Dong and Whitney maintain that.” Additionally. This absorbs any (remaining) iteration within the system. design parameters or activities) are fully independent of each other. essentially a square matrix. “decoupled” configuration. 2002]. to render the matrix as “lower-triangular” as possible. There are two types of DSM in terms of application: • The static DSM. . The crosses below the diagonal in figure 6a represent a forward flow of information. which is primarily used for mapping of design processes and for scheduling and management of activities. The DSM must then be repartitioned. it appears to be less effective in innovative design. Examples of DSM forms: (a) Basic. in which parameters are interdependent upon each other. The DSM can be used to reorder. in which the second parameter is dependent upon the output of the first.. or “partition” design elements. Sets of feedback loops can also be removed. While DSM provides a powerful technique for the analysis of design interactions within a complex development program. This is shown in Figure 6c. DECOMPOSITION-INTEGRATION PROCESS USING ADT AND DSM ADT postulates that a zigzagging process for FR-DP mapping that takes place in a “solution neutral” envi- Figure 6. This is achieved by a process of “triangularization” [Browning. p 11] point out. it fails to record explicitly the reasons for these interactions. (b) Partitioned. As Dong and Whitney [2001. and to trace the effects of this integration on the functionality of the system. DSMs can also be used to create and sequence modules or clusters [Sharman and Yassine. 4.

DSM is a mature method capable of capturing the interaction between design parameters. The authors show that choosing the dominant entries is important as it ensures the convergence of the design process. knowledge bases. In addition. particularly in complex product environments. These considerations led us to the idea that the decomposition integration problem would be better modeled as a co-evolution of ADT matrices and DSMs. spatial layout. 2002]. riskier aspects of the product. Corollary 3 of ADT may be violated or requirements may need to be added or changed at a higher level. company’s own design standards. Permute the matrix by exchanging rows and columns so that all dominant entries appear on the main diagonal. In each row of the DM choose the dominant (the largest) entry. As the decomposition progresses.g. can rarely happen in practice. and so forth. essential design studies must be performed. DSMs of past designs (also processes). Technology “bricks” is a generic term which encompasses chunks of new technology which is mature enough to be applied in the new product with potential competitive advantage. 3.34 GUENOV AND BARKER ronment ensures better design. The first step to linking ADT and DSM was made by Dong and Whitney [2001].. performance and capacity constraints checks. which would require a repetition of the decomposition phase (see Theorem 5 of ADT). the design process must capture the interactions among the design parameters. 2. where economic considerations dictate maximum possible utilization of mature designs and existing manufacturing processes [Guenov. who showed that if the Axiomatic design matrix (DM) can be expressed analytically and one design parameter (DP) is dominant in satisfying a particular functional requirement (FR). and so forth. and/or more detailed design of particular. logical and physical connectivity). Construct the Design Matrix (DM). including geometry. This. . however. then the triangulated design matrix is equivalent to the DSM of the design parameters.g. At each decomposition level various knowledge sources are consulted in order to take into consideration constraints originating from all stakeholders. Examples of the latter include government regulations. The generic representation of the process which we named COPE (decomposition-integration of COmplex Product Environments) is depicted in Figure 7. Figure 7. The algorithm consists of three major steps: 1. but by definition. As a consequence. including spatial layout. interfaces (e. ADT is used to map the decomposition of functional requirements to design parameters (FR-DP).. In COPE. synthetic and analytical models. Schematic representation of the COPE Decomposition-Integration process. it is fully known only for products that have already been designed. resulting in more interactions between the design parameters. employees’ tacit knowledge and various unpublished documents) as well as structured/coded sources. As discussed in the previous section. The knowledge sources include unstructured ones (e.

that is. which are taken into account by applying the knowledge sources. The resulting design may affect the functionality of the systems. requirements may need to change or more design parameters may need to be added.” on the main diagonal. The DM is manipulated [see Dong and Whitney. 2001] so that it becomes lower triangular with dominant entries. 4). The procedure starts with the construction of the DM of the FR-DP hierarchy. If that is the case. This means that the design decompo- Figure 8. including possible integration of components. as discussed above (see also Fig. 8) in which the design and structure matrices co-evolve. At this stage a certain amount of layout/spatial design may need to be done.DECOMPOSITION OF ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 35 Unfortunately. when designing complex (physical or software) systems the FRs are satisfied by modules or other (sub)systems or components and therefore the design matrix cannot be represented analytically. In order to overcome this restriction. weight. At this level the dominant DPs are identified. This will be subjected to considerations regarding innovation. “X. The result is the “Architectural” DSM. COPE decomposition–integration procedure. and it may not necessarily be square either. a DSM derived only from the functional view of the product. we have devised a decomposition procedure (Fig. . for example. capacity and other constraints. grouping components together may couple functions. cost.

one may need to know if a particular material can be used before continuing further with the decomposition since this particular material may affect performance constraints or interfaces with other components. Thus we see our approach as compliant with the deeper localized studies that need to be preformed in practice at the conceptual and preliminary design stages before proceeding further with the development process. For example. given that the chosen design utilized two sensors. with the outgoing missile potentially being able to be seen by both sensors simultaneously. initially at least. A parallel analysis was conducted to determine how the system could have been designed. further decomposition will change the subject of the requirement. had ADT [Suh. For example. our case study research discovered elements of the system design and its context which required integration to provide a successful design solution. Furthermore. The design of the system was forced down specific avenues. meant that the requirements were not decomposed fully. and therefore the relation of requirements to design was not fully analyzed. In terms of systems engineering standards (see. were studied to model their effect on the process of system design. 1996]. ANSI/EIA632). the DSM offered a potential solution to the problem of tracing the effect of contextual issues such as project scheduling. Additionally. 1990. The primary form taken by our research was a series of interviews with key members of the project. This was known as the “As Is” solution. In the context of this case study. cost considerations at the outset of the project which result in targets on reusability of components and manufacturing processes from previous products and /or targets on commonality of components with other existing product lines. subsequently. and event sequencing. The work breakdown was described as being intuitive. and based largely on previous experience. through the prime contractor. CASE STUDY In order to test our approach regarding ADT (and. a leaf node can be approximately described as a specified/assigned requirement. indeed. we expected that the comparison would identify a set of potentially useful features that have not yet been addressed by the existing systems engineering tools. and how each impacted the other. both within the system of design. an ongoing process. 1999). This has the potential for delay in the form of extended or unnecessary rework or iteration—the need for which the Project admitted was not accounted for. a case study was undertaken in conjunction with COPE Project sponsor BAE SYSTEMS.36 GUENOV AND BARKER sition has to be reconsidered from the highest level (see Theorem 5). has also placed certain restraints upon the system design process. and the structure of the design. 2001] and engineering design standards been applied. or constraints. e. It was intended that the comparison between “As Is” and “As Could Be” would indicate any areas where the existing design could have been improved. and of an organizational nature. Ulrich and Eppinger. also applied certain constraints.. could be seen as an integration issue which requires the application of . to be planned in conjunction with two specific suppliers. 5. that is. The need to trace and analyze design decisions and changes has been a central requirement in the design of complex products for quite some time [Guenov. This is justified by the fact that in practice one can be very restricted in performing the entire decomposition in a “solution neutral” environment (as advocated by ADT)—there are. DSM). the other to track an outgoing missile. the analysis of requirements by the BAE SYSTEMS Project appears to have been relatively unstructured—and. Perhaps it is worth emphasising that the COPE procedure aims to retrace the AD-DSM connection at each level of the decomposition rather than at reaching a leaf node of the DP hierarchy. The chosen study concerns the upgrading of an air defense system. 1994. However. for example. the fact that certain data was provided much later than scheduled. and that any design was therefore constrained by what already existed. This was validated with the BAE SYSTEMS Project. The findings of the study noted that possibly the key constraint was that this was an update rather than a new system. Thus work appeared to be assigned to teams without consideration of how all of the modules could be integrated together successfully. Furthermore. upon the system design (Pimmler and Eppinger. thus confirming (or not) our initial hypothesis. These ascertained the nature of the requirements. one sometimes needs to decompose much deeper one branch of the FR-DP hierarchy relative to other branches in order to de-risk the solution. This. The decomposition ends when a leaf node is encountered. The organizational need requiring the design. when coupled to a predominantly “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” analysis technique. This information was then decomposed using axiomatic design techniques to identify connectivity between requirements and design. Impacting factors. Through the application of ADT and DSM. one to track the position of incoming targets.g. This was mainly because it was time constrained and there was a history of rival bids. This became the “As Could Be” solution. which. led to decisions regarding the design being taken that were beyond the control of the BAE SYSTEMS team.

2001] to create a design independently of the existing “As Is” model. and the “Architectural” DSM is the result.2. modeled in Figs.DECOMPOSITION OF ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 37 Figure 9. This stage of the case study analysis revealed a problem with the design solution. that of comparing successive outputs to enhance reliability of Figure 11.2. capacity. these feedback loops had not been anticipated in the design. This raised an issue with the “As Is” model (this being the existing solution. For the purposes of demonstrating the approach. if more than one design parameter is used to satisfy a requirement. (a) 2nd-level “As Could Be” Design Matrix.2.2. while secondary relationships could be depicted with small x’s. which is shown in Figure 11a.3 and 2. The “Architectural” DSM is created through a combination of a method proposed by Dong and Whitney [2001]. the effects of decisions relating to the system such as cost. However. However. A sample of the 2nd-level BAE SYSTEMS DM is shown in Figure 9.4 and 2. (b) 2nd-level “As Could Be” “Architectural” DSM. The first step is to construct the Design Matrix (DM). Figure 10. As a result. stating the need to verify the output of processing tasks. The design appears to be a redundant one as the number of design parameters is greater than the number of functional requirements.” is added to make the matrix square.e. identify the dominant one. and triangulation. The approach for deriving the DSM from the DM is “leveled” so that each hierarchical level of the FR-DP decomposition hierarchy is evaluated in turn. This is step two of the approach. and where appropriate.3. 1990. secondary relationships if they exist (they do not in this example). This attempted to use axiomatic design method [Suh. Thus the rows and columns are permuted to produce a (predominantly) lower triangular matrix.2. The next step of the approach concerns the derivation of an “Architectural” DSM.2. and provides the interface between the DM and DSM. and an additional DP which enables a further verification task. and a second between 2. At this stage it is important to identify the primary relationships between requirements and design—i. A review of the requirements then led to the creation of an “As Could Be” solution. Asterisks are used to denote blank cells on the diagonal. The vertical axis is renumbered according to the DP order. a DSM structure can be generated to accommodate these issues. The DM now describes the functional linkages between the Functional Requirements (FRs) and the Design Parameters (DPs). both ADT and DSM. in DSM form. 2nd-level Design Matrix (DM). a 2nd-level abstraction of the ADT decomposition hierarchy will be concentrated upon. But the corresponding FR for this DP occurs at a lower level of decomposition in the DM. This serves to define the manner in which the DPs will satisfy the FRs. 9 and 10). to see if improvements were theoretically possible to the design. This is the equivalent of the DM. 2nd-level “Architectural” DSM. This is illustrated in Figure 10. denoted by “?. A “dummy” FR. Analysis of the model revealed that the likely reason for their appearance in the structural DSM was a leveling issue: DP 2. An example of such an application is described below. . The main changes (the original FR/DP nomenclature has been retained for ease of comparison) are an additional FR.4 verifies that the output of previous DPs is correct. Figure 10 shows a feedback loop between DPs 2. and physical integration are not dealt with particularly well.. The primary relationships are marked with large X’s.

to give the system engineer a filtered view of how each of the design elements interacts with each other in regard to a different design perspective. It can be seen in Figure 11b that this has resolved the feedback issue.4 and 2. 2nd-level interaction between processor cards. If. it is also necessary to be able to understand how the nature of the design is affected by these issues. and 2. stationed on card 3. A further example of this is that an FR specified the need to detect objects a. is described by numbers. So far. numbers separated by a comma indicates that two DPs communicate over separate Figure 13. with both passing information to the output channel (DP 2.2. This is illustrated in Figure 14.2. being in accordance with corollary three of axiomatic design [Suh. The design solution remains uncompromised as the DPs can be scheduled to cater for the newly “compressed” FR. while 2.1. the need exists to combine software functionality onto processor cards. a DP provides the required capability.3).2. The physical connectivity of the design and the interaction of the functions across the processors are therefore relevant.3. To provide an example.2. depending on the technology used to implement it.2. the capacity and speed constraints of the processor cards dictated that they be positioned on the same card.2.2. b. This completes an operational cycle. The alternative is a DP which. physical and logical connectivity. 2. Using the “As Is” solution as a basis. 12 and 13). The DSM can be separated out into layers (shown by Figs. 2. bringing about a coupling.2. and software or hardware integration.1 and 2. This may incur a cost overhead. The first number denotes the card from which the communication is initiated. 2001].1 of the “As Is” solution (Fig.3 operates independently. FR 2. This is indicated by the dotted arrow to the right hand side of Figure 14. The integration between software cards.2. which appears on card 2. These have therefore been combined into one.1.1 and 2. as indicated by the dashed arrow and letter A.2. However. it can be seen that of the “processing” DPs (2. we have shown that the model can highlight the effect of integration issues of a system design. the processing is verified prior to output. The decisions can regard a range of criteria. This simplifies the FR-DP relationship—whereas.2.2. cost and capability constraints applied to the DSM mean that it is not possible to use the DP. which currently appear on processor cards two and three. and altering the structural DSM/DM.1. however. Figure 12. then new physical connectivity would appear on the appropriate DSM. 9) perform the same operation. The verification DPs (2. . DPs 2.2. as shown in Figure 13. 2nd-level physical connectivity between design parameters.6) on completion of the verification task.5) also operate independently. An example is that DP 2.4).2 had been satisfied by three DPs which embodied the verification algorithms at a lower level of decomposition. In the BAE SYSTEMS case. to understand changes which may have been caused to the original FR-DP relationship. This is shown by the unbroken arrow in Figure 14.5 and 2.38 GUENOV AND BARKER missile/target detection. For the physical connectivity (denoted by 0’s). Thereafter. This necessitates backtracking from the layered DSM to the DM. such as constraints. and the second number indicates which card receives the communication. but is representative of the ADT design philosophy. previously. The numbers on the diagonal indicate which of three processors the DP is assigned to. However. This in turn would dictate a new sequence in which the two DPs could be executed.2.2.2. This involves two DPs (2. and c at range x in climate condition y. The effects of decision-making on the matrices now need to be modeled. To meet this requirement.3 then feed 2. 1990.2.2. as both DPs would now be linked via the same processor card. shown in Figure 13.2. up from a lower level of the decomposition. the creation of these DSM can be demonstrated by Figures 12 and 13. FRs 2. Finally. the requirement can now be met independently of processing operations. currently. processors.5.2 provides data to 2.5. communicates with DP 2. This is denoted by the shaded area upon the layered DSM in Figure 14. illustrating how the effect of a constraint or decision regarding integration may alter the balance between FRs and DPs on the original DM.

IEEE Trans Eng Management 48 (2001). Browning. We are indebted to BAE SYSTEMS for their help with the Case Study. as well as a specification of the requirements for a decomposition tool form the scope of our future work. as dictated by theorem five of ADT [Suh.cfm O. it is a part of the de-risking process. and their effects has now revealed that the FR on the original DM cannot be met. Arlington. Government Electronics and Information Technology Association. We thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. standards implementation is company dependent. and allows groups of design parameters to be explored in greater detail. Layered DSM and its effect upon the DM. VA (approved January 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is funded by UK EPSRC Research Grant GR/R37067 under the Systems Integration Initiative. It combines Axiomatic Design with Design Structure Matrix to accommodate the iterative nature of the decomposition-integration process. and to understand how any such change(s) may produce a knock-on effect throughout the design solution.adeptmanagement. J. further development. Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. CONCLUSIONS A novel design decomposition model for complex product environments (COPE) is presented. com/ ANSI/EIA-632-1998. Engineering Department. can only detect objects a and c at range x. 27–37. unfortunately. Becker. 2001]. In this view. 1990. 2004]. Electronic Industries Alliance. and this changes the design. Thus the FR must be changed to accommodate the DSM constraints. 3. and I. Syst Eng 3(1) (2000). DSM. It can be seen that the process of deriving the DSM to study constraints etc. the decomposition process forms only a subset of the engi- neering life cycle and therefore COPE must be evaluated in a wider context. has shown that the DM-DSM arrangement can be used to identify the existence of potential conflicts in the design solution. A method for system interface reduction using N2 charts. Axiomatic Design Software Incorporated website: http://www. T. This approach also appears to provide a level of control and transparency to the systems design process.R. Consequently. 292–306. and not in condition y. Processes for engineering a system. So far we have consulted and tried to take into account the established standards for engineering of systems. we have not yet solved completely the problem of mixing various levels of details during the decomposition process. Ben-Asher. The research to date has demonstrated that this approach can bring significant benefits. Despite the potential which COPE has demonstrated so far. 1999).axiomaticdesign. Currently we are experimenting with the integration of ADT. a new design solution must be sought. conducted as part of the research and reported here. Secondly. and gives the systems architect the opportunity to study proposed changes before they are made. REFERENCES Adept Management website: http://www. This is important since deeper localized design studies cannot be avoided in practical situations. An industrial Case Study. and Requirements Management tools [Guenov and Barker. . evaluation and validation of the method.DECOMPOSITION OF ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 39 Figure 14. Ackerman. however.

Eppinger. September 9–12. PA. 1994(a).W. Guenov and S. Barker has previously worked as a lecturer and tutor in the fields of Network Communications and Operations Management. General Electric. K. Guenov. April 9–10. Browning.0. to appear.D. New York. R. MA. and tools for system design. 455–466. Stevens.440. Oxford University Press.J. Currently Dr. New York. Computer Model Simulation Eng 1 (1996). M. Process integration using the design structure matrix. 71–74. Document 67APE6.K. Tate.D. Design Structure Matrix website: http://www. M. Pimmler and S. Downing College. A roadmap for decomposition: Activities. which investigates “DecompositionIntegration” issues within Complex Product Development programs. Bsi. Currently. Tools and techniques for decomposing and managing complex design projects. Structured design. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. 5. Guenov. Amundsen. No. Proc 13th Int Conf Des Theory Methodol (DTM 2001). Cambridge. J. and infrastructures for collaborative design. Frey. Dr. Method and Apparatus for Aiding System Design. N.T. 343–351. (Hons. Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. 115–139. Salt Lake City. ISO/IEC 15288 (System Life Cycle Processes). 2nd D. 1990. R. Requirements-driven design decomposition: A method for exploring complex system architecture.D. Steward. Version 6. Yassine. October 11. Engelhard. J Aircraft 36(1) (1999). Schenectady.D. Minneapolis. R. 3 (August 1981). Marin D.P. 1977. Thesis. McGraw-Hill Education (ISE Editions). ASME Des Theory Methodol Conf. DPC: 01/647707. D. MA. modeling and simulation for synthetic environments. October 18. September 1967.V.40 GUENOV AND BARKER T. MIT Sloan School of Management.P. 1994(b). 2004.S.V. Guenov leads national and international multidisciplinary research projects supported by the European aerospace industry in the areas of design of complex systems.L.D. K.355. 180–193. Strasburg. in Materials Handling Systems and Operational Research. 353–367.D. IBM Syst J 13(2) (1974). Hutchison. September 28–October 2. McCord and S. UK. M. U. Working Paper 359493-MSA. and D. D. Syst Eng 5(3) (2002).U.K. Proc ASME 2004 Int Des Eng Tech Conf Comput Inform Eng Conf (DETC’04). Eppinger. Stephen G. D. The principles of design. Constantine. Oxford University Press. 1979. . Syst Eng 7(1) (2004).R. H.M. Dr. Burks. Rogers. E. Ulrich and S. California.P. and D. Talbott.dsmweb. 2001. NY. N. 11–20. Burks.S. North-Holland. Lano.W. U. Designing a requirement driven product development process. theories. Product design and development. MN. Guenov is a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society and The Association of Cost Engineers and is a Charted Engineer. Amsterdam. M. Whitney.D.R. Ph.D. Steward. K. R. Pat.317. D.357. Integration analysis of product decompositions. The design structure system. M. Amundsen. TRW.L. Shaw. IEEE Trans Eng Management EM-28. Sharman and A. Managing the integration problem in concurrent engineering. T. 2001. Cambridge. and L. Suh. Lano. 90–102. K. Pat. Complexity and cost effectiveness measures for systems design. No. H. G. Barker is part of the COPE (COmplex Product Environment) research team. Computing the information content of decoupled designs. February 1999. UK. 1993. Guenov is a Senior Lecturer (Advanced Engineering Methods) in the School of Engineering. Res Eng Des 12 (2000). Department of Power Propulsion and Aerospace Engineering at Cranfield University. Myers. M. Pittsburgh. A technique for software and systems design. London. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Qi Dong and D. 1999. Hutchison. Strasburg. He holds an MEng in Mechanical Engineering and a Ph.J. Eppinger. Informational Report. W. 2001. Cambridge. Method and Apparatus for System Design.D.L. M. September 1994. Jahangir.J.T. UT. and F.D. multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization. Suh. Barker is a Research Officer in the School of Engineering. 266–274. Characterizing complex product architectures. Dr.D.D. Manufacturing Complexity Network Conf. Dr. Department of Power Propulsion and Aerospace Engineering at Cranfield University.L. 5. Barker. Shaw. UK.) in Computer Studies. 2002. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Modelling design change propagation in an integrated design environment. and researched Applied Engineering Process Management for his Ph. Talbott. 35–60.T. Barker holds a BSc. New York. The N2 Chart.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful