See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/47628157

Multidisciplinary product design teams with axiomatic design

Article · January 2010

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

0 650

2 authors:

Jaime Aguilar-Zambrano Maria Carmen González-Cruz

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Cali Universitat Politècnica de València
25 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   856 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANDAR Project View project

Miscellaneous View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Carmen González-Cruz on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Area: Product Engineering

MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRODUCT DESIGN TEAMS WITH AXIOMATIC

DESIGN

Jaime Aguilar-Zambrano
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Cali, Colombia
M ª Carmen González-Cruz
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Abstract
The analysis of product design process shows problems that result in inadequate user design
proposals: Industries are reluctant to use methods and techniques in the conceptual design;
designers use their own strategies for problem solving; and there is little integration between
different disciplines involved in the project. Additionally, there is a breakdown between the
product requirements that meet user needs and the development and manufacturing
requirements in the conceptual design phase. A strategy to reach synergy in the design teams
is required. This strategy must integrate all stakeholders from the beginning of the project to
consider the posterior conditions of the development, manufacturing and marketing of the
product. This article proposes a strategy of product design with multidisciplinary teams. It is
based on Axiomatic Design, which promotes integration of the needs of the user, requirements
of product, engineering design and manufacturing process. The proposed strategy provides a
continuous view of the design process to the industry, a design methodology respecting
creative thinking and an integration of all disciplines throughout the process.

Keywords: Product design, multidisciplinary teams, Axiomatic Design, Design Methods

1. Introduction
Designing products with the participation of multidisciplinary teams is seen as an appropriate
design strategy because of the expansion of the vision of the problem (Pugh 1991) and
because of the use of knowledge from various sources that favor invention (Salamatov 1999).
However, more empirical experiments are needed to validate its potential. (Peeters et al 2007,
Rafols and Meyer 2006). Several studies with multidisciplinary design teams have analyzed the
creative process in the preliminary stages of idea generation, and the results show that many of
the difficulties of the effectiveness of the work of design teams are due to communication
problems, the group decision making, and the lack of leadership. (Peeters et al 2007, González
et al 2008). New developments about concurrent engineering, a strategy for collective work in
product design, provide computer tools to present and avoid redundancy of information in the
established processes from design to manufacturing but the tools do not assure the synergy‘s
team nor the group decision making but the efficiency in the information management. (Xue
and Yang 2004). Some industries use Six Sigma in the development of their projects which is
particularly robust in the latter parts of the design process associated with the materialization
and production, but needs work on the conceptual design phase. Thus, it is important to say
that a poorly designed product can not be improved with successive quality improvement
strategies (Dickinson 2006).
In literature, several methods and techniques are reported to aid the product design process.
Many of these techniques are known by the industry but are rarely used as shown by surveys in
the United Kingdom, Japan and Sweden (Araujo et al 1996, Fujita and Matsuo 2005, Janhager
et al 2002). Some of the reasons why industries do not use some methods or techniques are
due to skepticism about the new strategies, the reluctance that causes giving up practices that
have cost them much effort to achieve instead of techniques that require less effort and

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
411
 Area: Product Engineering

because there isn‘t a rational process to involve them in project management. Furthermore,
although there are a set of theories, methods and techniques that produce good results, there
are personal styles of the designers that modify them, achieving good results too. In the same
way, some designers turn away from formal methods and techniques, use specific strategies
and also obtain good results; although it can not be said that these strategies work in any
design situation (Gonzalez et al 2007).
This article proposes a model for product design with the involvement of multidisciplinary teams
from the University, the long established Industry, the technology-based Industry and the user,
with the support of the Government. The analysis of these types of relationships, Sabato
triangle and the triple helix, have shown that tensions arise between the parties and that it is
required to further explore mechanisms for a genuine collaboration between these entities
(Etkowitz and Leydersdoff 2000). Thus, with the model of innovation management, it is
expected to obtain various results of interest for the parties, innovative products for the industry,
research work for the University and social impact studies for the Government. In the proposed
model, the convergence point is the social need from a multidisciplinary and multiorganizational
perspective, instead of the single market logic as traditionally product design has been seen.
The model of interaction of the actors takes as reference the Axiomatic Design theory in
combination with the TRIZ inventive problem-solving strategies and the use of techniques such
as fuzzy logic for handling subjective requirements of the product (Ulla 2004).
The article is organized as follows: the firsts sections analyze the process of product design
regarding the use of techniques, the influence of personal styles and the characteristics of
multidisciplinary work. The last two sections, based on the previous sections, present a model
for multidisciplinary action involving the University, the Industry, the Govern and the User taking
as reference axis Axiomatic Design.

2. Product design strategies used in Industry

There are different methods for the design of products, some prescriptive and others
descriptive (Cross 1998). Within the prescriptive models, Pugh‘s (1991) model proposes the
following phases: Identification of needs, definition of specifications, conceptual design, detailed
design, production and sale (Pugh 1991). Pahl and Beitz refer to the phases of Planning,
Conceptual Design, Realization and Detail (Pahl and Beitz 1995). Table 1 presents, under the
model of Pugh, a combination of a set of techniques and methods taken from surveys in Japan,
Sweden and England. It must be admitted that there is no rigid relationship between the phase
of the design process and the method or technique because the phases are not strict but have
a transition between them, and in turn, techniques may be useful in several process phases.
Although there are different methods and techniques for product development, industries do not
frequently use them as demonstrated by studies in England (Araujo et al 1996), Japan
(FUJITA, Matsu, 2005) and Sweden (JANHAGER et al, 2002). Both in the study of Japan and
England, it said that the use of those methods or techniques that require more effort in the
introduction (that actually get to the industries) is relatively low compared to the knowledge of
their existence. In the same way, it is said that although the effectiveness of certain technique
or method is recognized, its use can be low. Meanwhile, methods to facilitate team
communication, such as brainstorming, design review meetings, and methods for gathering
information such as patent review, literature review, benchmarking, and catalog design review
are widely used.

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
412
 Area: Product Engineering

Identifying needs Analysis of Needs

Definition of Competitor analysis, benchmarking, quality function deployment (QFD),

specifications Ishikawa diagram, patent searching, value analysis, functional analysis,
objective trees, product design specification, critical path analysis

Conceptual Design Rapid prototyping, 3D CAD, design review meetings, design mock up,
Literature Searching, Brainstorming, Software for optimal design, Taguchi
Method (Robust Design), Design of experiments, Pareto Analysis, Design
catalogues, optimal design bases on Mathematical Programming, Value
Analysis, Entropy Assessment, Evaluation Matrices, Life Cycle Analysis,
Function Structure Chart, KJ Method, System Engineering Approach,
Simulation, Morphological Chart, Engineering drawing, Objective analysis
Detailed design CAE, Numerical Analysis, simulation software, Statistical Quality Control,
Analysis of failure mode effect, fault tree analysis (FTA), Design for
assembly, cost accounting activity based, material selection,
Production 2D CAD (Computer Aids for Design), CADD (computer aids for Detailed
Design), PDM system, total quality control, total quality management (TQC /
TQM), Statistical Process Control, Bottleneck Analysis, Design for
Manufacturing

Table 1. Association of the phases of product design under Pugh‘s proposal with methods and
techniques to support them

3. Strategies of designers in problem solving

The process of problem solving in product design is one of the issues that have been widely
discussed in product design. One of the earliest theories, Asimow‘s (1968) considers that the
design process consists of the following stages: problem definition, analysis, idea generation,
synthesis, evaluation stage and last, the selection stage. (Asimow 1968) Although this
description states the general stages of the process, it does not correspond exactly to the one
designers go through in practice. Empirical studies have shown that the creative process takes
place in all stages of design and that these stages of analysis and evaluation are repeated
every time that design solutions arise (Maher and Poon 1996).
Several authors recognize the importance in the design process of Analysis and Synthesis.
Thus, some argue that the analysis is the basis of any creative process and that it is the
transition from one ill-structured problem to a well-structured one (Gonzalez 2007). Jones
(1978) states that the synthesis stage is the generation of possible solutions that meet the
specifications of the design problem and that for this purpose different methods are used, some
systematic (transparent box) and others creative (black box).
The design task, despite the various theories, methods and techniques, remains an activity in
which the designer is a key element as individual and independent cognitive agent, who
transforms this work in a creative process and often unpredictable. Several studies have
demonstrated the successful application of classical theories of design, but also, many others
have verified through empirical studies that personal styles affect the design process and
largely determine its effectiveness (Gonzalez et al 2007). In this sense, it is considered
important to analyze the reasons why designers adopt specific patterns of problem solving
which is analyzed from the stages of Analysis and Synthesis (Gonzalez et al 2007). For the
analysis, the factors affecting the adoption of specific patterns in problem solving are: the
accuracy of the formulation of the problem, the experience and unique resolution styles
(Gonzalez et al 2007).
For the synthesis, the factor affecting the adoption of specific mechanisms in the resolution of
problems is associated with creativity. Thus, there are designers who use for this process,
―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.
(Badajoz, July 2009)
413
 Area: Product Engineering

systematic methods as TRIZ (Savransky 2000 Salamatov 1999) and the matrix of Pahl and
Beitz (1995), or intuitive methods such as Brainstorming, Scamper, functional analysis, among
others (Gonzalez et al 2008), with adequate results with both strategies. In the process of
ideation, the research focus is on analyzing the creative process and creative product (Shah
2003). In the creative process, the interaction of the design teams (Peeters et al 2007), the
communication processes, the collective decision making, the effectiveness of multidisciplinary
teams and the personal characteristics for the formation of effective design teams are all
assessed.

4. Multidisciplinary working strategies for product design

From the engineering field, there are proposals for cooperative work such as Concurrent
Engineering (Xu et al 2007) and the Multidisciplinary Optimal Design (Tovar et al 2007). These
strategies are industry and mathematical approaches to the collective work within an
established process, primarily of engineering and production, to improve its efficiency, avoid
redundant activities, synchronize communication and improve the coordination of the agents of
the manufacturing system, among others. Concurrent engineering does not account for the
dynamics of interaction in teams and can't assure that there is a process of cooperative
decision making.
In design, the problem of collaboration requires the interaction of individuals, mediated or not
mediated by computing resources, but where points of views and criteria are established to
choose alternatives and collectively make decisions (Peeters et al.2007) without the need of
seeing the work of the participants as a competition strategy (that could be dalt from the game
theory), nor as a simple grouping of disciplines. From the point of view of innovation,
cooperative work is considered as desirable by all the organizations in order to learn, use and
share the logic of other sciences (Hosnedl and Dvorak 2008). Within this scenario, a lack of
analysis of the effectiveness of multidisciplinary design teams from empirical experiences that
account for the dynamics of the groups involved is detected (Peeters, M., 2007).

5. Characteristics of the relathionship University-Govern- Industry in product

design
Many authors have expressed the necessity of a partnership between University- Govern -
Industry, taking as reference both the Sábato model and the triple helix model (Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff 2000). The studies have analyzed the tensions posed by these relationships due
to the different interests of each of the actors, their differences in organization, working
mechanisms, promotion and tradition, among others. In product design, when looking into a
relationship University - Industry in terms of objectives, the disparity is obvious. The interest
for the first is knowledge and for the latter, the market, which brings difficulties for a relationship
based on these objectives. Thus, if the market becomes the focus of relationship between the
University and the Industry, it generates a rejection of the University because it reduces its
ability to act regarding wider horizons of knowledge; similarly, some authors claim that a
relationship based in the market exerts some kind of censorship towards the social sciences,
which seem not be associated directly with that objective. Moreover, when knowledge is at the
center of the relationship between the two entities, there are communication problems between
them due to different styles of language. The generation of commercial products based on
research is neither immediate nor easy and the management of the project becomes complex
given that the objectives can be little concrete.
The commercial characteristic has an impact on the relations between the University and the
Industry, being the larger companies more prone to this type of relationship but with low
intensity and in turn the medium-tech firms appear to have greater intensity in these
relationships even though the knowledge required is not the most advanced within research
development. A case worth mentioning is the new technology-based enterprises which appear

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
414
 Area: Product Engineering

in the business context placing in the market the new knowledge produced in the universities.
These organizations provide flexible forms of organization and a good relationship with the
long-established industries. Similarly, these organizations maintain smooth relations with the
University because they generally have emerged from the implementation of a research project
and can become boosting factors of the relationship between the University and the long-
established enterprise. One of the threats that this type of organizations has, as has been
observed in biotech companies, is their permanence in time since they are absorbed by larger
companies that learn from their development (Roijakkers and Hagedoom 2006).
For product design, universities have a potential which is its broad spectrum of disciplines and
professions that would allow to broaden the vision of the problem (Pugh 1991) and find
inventive solutions from different disciplines, which is where problems arise (Salamatov 1999).
On the other hand, the long-established enterprise has a current knowledge of the market,
knows the production processes, brand recognition and channels of supply and logistics, all of
which must be taken advantage in order to have a genuine process of innovation. However, as
mentioned before, some companies are reluctant to apply new knowledge or techniques,
overestimating what has been achieved with effort over the years in their activity, although this
knowledge is not rationally structured (Suh 2001) and their functional rigid administrative
structures do not favor multidisciplinary work. Please note that innovation processes must be
measured and it is not enough to have good ideas but they must be widespread and must
become true business operations which suggests a coordinated and effective relationship
within the entities without affecting their own institutional objectives.

6. A model of innovation management with the University, the Government and

the Industry in product design
This paper proposes a model for cooperative work, or Management of Innovation, between the
University, the Industry, the Government and the User for product development. With respect
to the actors within the model, the Industry has been explicitly separated into two types. First
there is the long-established enterprise and the other hand the new technology-based
enterprise. Additionally, the user is presented explicitly for a permanent participation along the
design process and thus avoids being only one element of consultation at the extremes of this
process. Figure 1 presents the proposed model.

Figure 1. Model of Innovation Management

As discussed in the previous section, a relationship based on institutional goals is not

conducive to dialogue among the parties involved, so in this model the point of convergence is

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
415
 Area: Product Engineering

the Social Need which is associated with the user. When the market is no longer the main point
of convergence of the relationship, the actors (University, Government, User and Industry) can
satisfy their own interests by engaging in the social need from their field and are not merely
extensions of the entity seeking to meet a sole objective. In this way, not only innovative
products are developed, but all actors gain in the relationship. This is, the Industry diversifies its
products; the University conducts critical analysis from a social point of view, identifies research
opportunities and provides expertise for the development of innovative products; the
Government benefits from the analysis for its policies and promotes the economy when it
supports these strategies; the User participates actively in the design process and obtains
better products than the traditional ones.
Multidisciplinary involvement, which is suggested by the model, broadens the product vision,
which in turn contributes to limit the searching space of solutions and the generation of better
design proposals. This, connected with the presence of the user, allows addressing the issues
of usability from the beginning of the design problem.
Table 2 shows the relation of the actor‘s potentialities who are involved in the model and the
advantages gained by each of them with the model proposed.

Actors Potentialities Advantages of cooperation in

product design with Social Need
as the point of convergence
University Research work in various areas of Contextualization of knowledge
knowledge.
Multidisciplinary participation
Technological infrastructure opportunity
Development of theories, methods and Use of research results, methods
techniques and techniques with the enterprise.
Long- Market knowledge Appropriation of new knowledge from
established various sources.
Production infrastructure
Enterprise
Use of new methods and techniques
Knowledge of the channels for production
and sales Broadening the range of products
Business Experience
Technology- Rapid implementation of research results Learning mass production processes
based
Flexible Organization Market knowledge
Company
Effective and smooth communication with Strengthening the organizational
the University structure
User Has the needs Knows and interacts during the
design process
Decides to acquire the product
Government It has resources to strengthen innovation Encourages the innovation process
strategies to improve productivity of the country
It has agencies for the development of Generates policies or actions for
policies and program implementation society from studies with
multidisciplinary teams
Table 2. Potentialities of University-Industry-Government and User actors and advantages of their
collaboration within a model of convergence in the social need

7. Axiomatic Design as a theoretical axis of convergence in the multidisciplinary

work in product design

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
416
 Area: Product Engineering

As described in previous sections, there are many methods and techniques that are used
partially by the enterprises and additionally, the personal styles adapt these methods with valid
results within the product design process. With all this, suggesting new methods should not be
the best strategy for the design of products, but the use of a general theory that is conceptually
understood by multidisciplinary team members. It is considered that the best theory is the
Axiomatic Design. Axiomatic Design, unlike prescriptive theories based on phases, has a
design problem approach based on the connection of four domains: Customer Domain,
Functional Domain, Physical Domain and Process Domain. The design process is based on
ongoing monitoring of the compliance of the Independence Axiom and the Axiom of information
through a process of relationship between functional and physical domains, as shown in Figure
2.

Figure 2. Domains of axiomatic design and relationship between the domains

In Axiomatic Design, the creative process is complemented by the analytical process in such a
way that the design proposals are continually being evaluated so that they meet the needs of
the user and verify the compliance of both axioms. Figure 3 shows the design process with the
stakeholders involved. The difference of this approach with the model originally proposed by
Suh, is that the social need is now observed from different points of view to broaden the vision
of the problem and not just from the market with the sole participation of the enterprise. An
additional advantage of working with a multidisciplinary design team is the quest for solutions
from different science fields since it is said that many of the inventive solutions in an area of
science come from others areas where the problem originated (Salamatov, 1999).
Axiomatic Design acts as the general structure of the design process. For the creative process,
it is suggested the use of the systematic theory of creativity TRIZ that allows to delimit the
search for solutions and to manage the processes of technical evolution of products. The
professions, with their theories, techniques and tools, are involved in the whole hierarchic
process of design. There are professions associated with industrial design and human and
social sciences that are more prevalent in the upper levels of the hierarchy and there are others

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
417
 Area: Product Engineering

such as engineering that are more prevalent in the lower levels of functional requirements. It is
suggested to ensure the presence of industrial designers and engineers in design teams since
the visions of the problem from each of these professions are complementary. The designers
visualize the context problem to the function, whereas engineers do it in the opposite direction
(Hosnedl and Dvorak 2008). From the Axiomatic Design, this forces the engineer to work
together at higher levels with the designer to clarify the design intent, and invites the designer
to know and propose strategies at lower levels of the functional requirements which are
generally of better domain of the engineer.

Figure 3. Model of Design with multidisciplinary teams

Additionally, an expansion of Axiomatic Design is suggested since in its original formulation,

(Suh 1990) it works specifically with the functional requirements of the product and considers
as restrictions all other requirements which are not functional. It is considered that the design
of a product based solely on functions does not guarantee acceptance of the product on the
market. Thus, in this proposed model of multidisciplinary work, it is suggested to manipulate the
other product requirements, which some authors call subjective requirements (Ullah 2004),
either as a representation as a Functional Requirement or as components influencing the
ranges of the product design, diminishing in this way the number of restrictions in order to have
intentional elements of design of a greater number of properties of the product. For this
purpose, starting from a design problem expressed in a natural language, the linguistic
expression will be taken as reference. Nouns will express functional requirements and
adjectives will be elements that define ranges of the design. On other occasions, the same
adjectives can be expressed as a functional requirement of the product and the range of design
will appear from the analysis of these requirements. Adverbs are elements that will influence
the design range of the functional requirement that is directly associated with verbs. Since the
expressions coming from adjectives and adverbs are qualitative, we will work with users and

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
418
 Area: Product Engineering

experts within the multidisciplinary design team to define the quantitative ranges of the ranges
of design. It is suggested the use of fuzzy logic for this process.
To illustrate the above situation the following example is presented: if the linguistic expression
for the requirement for a product is: "People from the city need a massive high-speed transport
system." The expression, in functional requirement format for Axiomatic Design would be:
Functional Requirement 1: To carry passengers with speed; Range of Design: Specification
through an expert of the expression (adjective-noun) high speed. The expert, in this case, is
associated with the person that knows the traffic rules who can set a range within the context of
use of the system, for example 40 - 60 Km/hour in an urban environment. Functional
Requirement 2: Accommodate people; Range of Design: Specify, through an expert, the
adjective ―massive‖ of the noun ―system‖. This range is established with the expert concept who
knows the road structure and characteristics of mass transit. Capacity can be divided into
standing and sitting people, with design ranges of for example 20-30 people sitting.

8. Work Strategy starting from the cooperative model with Axiomatic Design
The design strategy with the multidisciplinary teams includes the following stages
1. Identification of the social need involving Industry, User and University.
2. Conformation of the design team. Industrial designers, engineers and other
professionals must participate according to the problem.
3. Analysis of the state of evolution of the commercial technical system with TRIZ (laws of
evolution of technical systems).
4. Characterization of the user through the evaluation of the population with the social
need.
5. Review of patents.
6. Preparation and analysis of user survey the aspect of usability should be highlighted.
7. Carrying out market research.
8. Determination of general requirements of the product
9. Presentation of functional requirements of the product, transformation of qualitative
requirements in functional requirements.
10. Conceptual design based on Axiomatic Design, use of sketches in the hierarchical
description.
11. Realization of the design.
12. Drawings
13. Production strategy

9. Conclusions
Product design with multi-disciplinary teams is an adequate option to generate innovative
products because it widens the view of the problem, favors the generation of inventions using
knowledge from diverse areas of knowledge and reduces the search space of better solutions.
The multidisciplinary work in product design requires the use of management models that
involve the University, the Industry and the Government with a convergence point based on the
social need, maintaining the objectives of the entities involved. Namely, these are: knowledge
for the university, the market for the Industry and the constitutional functions for the
Government. This avoids the conflicts of working with the relationship based only on the market
and generates useful products for all actors.
―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.
(Badajoz, July 2009)
419
 Area: Product Engineering

The methods and design techniques that support the product design are rarely used in the
industry and the personal styles of designers affect the acceptance and application of this
methods. This situation allows us to say that a multidisciplinary relathionship must rely on a
simple yet rigorous structure of the design process as it is provided by Axiomatic Design.
For an adequate multidisciplinary work with Axiomatic Design that intentionally considers a
greater number of product requirements, we suggest a transformation, through fuzzy logic, of
the qualitative requirements of the product in order to involve them in the original formulation of
the proposal.

References
Araujo C., Benedetto net H., Campello C., Segre F. "The utilization of product development
methods: A survey of UK industry. " Journal of Engineering Design, Vol.7 (3), 1996, pp. 265-
277.
Asimow M. ―Introducción al Proyecto‖. Editorial Herrero Hermanos, México, 1968.
Cross N. ―Engineering Design Methods‖, Editorial John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
Dickinson A. ―Integrating Axiomatic Design into a Design For Six Sigma Deployment‖.
Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Axiomatic Design, Firenze, 2006, pp. 1-
6.
Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and
‗‗Mode 2‘‘ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations". Research Policy 29
2000, pp. 109–123.
Fujita K and Matsuo T. ―Utilization of product development tools and methods: Japanese survey
and international comparison‖. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on engineering
design,ICED05, Melbourne, 2005, pp. 274-275.
González-Cruz M, Aguilar-Zambrano J A, Aguilar-Zambrano J J and Gardoni M. ―La estrategia
de creatividad sistemática TRIZ con equipos multidisciplinares de diseño de producto‖. DYNA
Vol. 83(6), 2008, pp. 337-350.
Gonzalez-Cruz M., Mulet E., and Aguilar J. ―Analysis of individual styles of problem solving and
their relations with representations in design process‖. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design, 2007, Paris, pp. 339-340
Hayrinen-Alestalo M. and Peltola U. ―The problem of market-oriented university‖. Higher
Education. Vol 52(2), 2006, pp. 251-281.
Hosnedl S. and Dvorak J. ―Cooperation of engineering & industrial designers on industrial
projects‖. Proceedings of 10th International Design Conference - DESIGN2008, Dubrovnick,
Croacia. Vol. 2, 2008 pp.1227-1234.
Janhager J., Persson S. and Warell A.. ―Survey on product development methods, design
competences, and communication in swedish industry‖. Proceedings of the fourth international
symposium on tools and methods of competitive engineering. TMCE2002, pp. 189-199.
Jones J. "Métodos de Diseño", Editorial Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 1978.
Maher M and Poon J. ―Modelling Design Exploration as co-evolution‖. Microcomputers in Civil
engineering 11 (3), 1996, pp. 195-210.
Pahl G. and Beitz W. "Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach", Ed. Springer, 1995.
Peeters M., van Trujill H. and Reymen I. ―The development of a design behaviour questionnaire
for multidisciplinary teams‖. Design Studies, 28(6) , 2007, pp. 623-643.
Pugh S. ―Total Design‖, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham,1991.

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
420
 Area: Product Engineering

Rafols I. and Meyer M. ―Knowledge-sourcing strategies for cross-disciplinarity in

bionanotechnology‖. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series. University of Sussex, 2006., pp.
1-18.
Roijakkers N. and Hagedoom J. ―Inter-firm R&D parterning in pharmaceutical biotechnology
since 1975. Trends, pattern and networks‖. Research Policy, 35(3), 2006, pp. 431-446.
Salamatov Y. ―TRIZ: The right solution at the right time‖. Insytec B.V. 1999.
Savransky S. ―Engineering of Creativity‖ . CRC Press, 2000.
Suh N. ―Principles of Design‖, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990.
Suh N. ―Axiomatic Design. Advances and applications‖ , Oxford University Press, NewYork
2001.
Tovar A, Arbola N and Gómez A. ―Técnicas de diseño óptimo multidisciplinario‖. Revista
ingeniería e investigación, Vol. 27(1), 2007, pp. 84-92.
Ulla S. ―Handling design perceptions: an Axiomatic Design perspective‖. Research in
Engineering Design, Vol. 16(1), 2004, pp. 109-117.
Xu L., Li Z., Li S. and Tang, F. ―A decision support system for product design in concurrent
engineering‖. Decision Support Systems, Vol 42, 2007, pp. 2029-2042.
Xue D. and Yang H. ―A concurrent engineering-oriented design database representation
mode‖l. Computer-aided design, Vol 36, 2004, pp. 947-965.

Agradecimietos
Esta investigación cuenta con el apoyo del Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia,
Tecnología e Innovación, COLCIENCIAS, en Colombia. Contrato RC No. 652-2008

Correspondencia (Para más información contacte con):

Jaime Aguilar-Zambrano
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana- Cali
Calle 18 No. 118-250, Cali, Colombia
Teléfono: +57 2 3218200 ext. 665
jaguilar@javerianacali.edu.co

―Selected Proceedings from the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering‖.

(Badajoz, July 2009)
421

View publication stats