SIG Workshop at DESIGN 2010, Dubrovnik, Croatia - May 2010

From DSMwebWiki

Conference Information: http://www.designconference.org

Workshop information: http://www.designconference.org/?menu=140&subMenu=8

Abstract

The interest of the SIG is to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the currently available methods for the management of structural complexity. To generate a roadmap that determines the perspective thereof, the current state of the art of different means of dependency modelling, the application of such models in research and industry, and the existing pool of methods to analyze such models are in focus to build a vision about how dependencies in technical systems can be better managed. The workshop is intended to generate a common understanding of a frame of reference to order different models, methods and tools for managing structural complexity. To do so, a simple common framework will be established as part of the workshop that will be filled with current methods as collected in the previous workshops and during this workshop. From this collection, different foci of future developments will be deduced during the group discussion to find "hot topics". The goal is to establish workgroups that follow-up on these topics as part of the SIG activities.

The workshop is the follow-up of a first workshop held at the ICED Conference 2009 in Stanford, CA.

Agenda of workshop

9:00 Opening and motivation (Udo Lindemann, Steven Eppinger) (documentation)
9:10 Introduction of participants

9:20 Facets of complexity and a possible framework (Maik Maurer) (documentation)
9:50 Discussion and group work - systematization of models for managing dependencies in an overall framework or "map"

11:00 Coffee break

11:20 Presentation and discussion of group work
12:00 Collection of gaps and necessary future developments
12:30 Identification of work groups and discussion of further work in these groups

12:50 Feedback and organizational issues
13:00 End

Participants

Participating persons

Fredrik Borjesson, Royan Institute of Technology (Stockholm), Department of Mechanical Design
Catherine Decouttere, Flanders InShape
Mark DeLessio, Engineering Design Center, University of Cambridge
Katharina Eben, TU München, Institute of Product Development
Peter Edholm, Chalmers University of Technology
Fatos Elezi, TU München, Institute of Product Development
Fredrik Elgh, University of Jönköping
Steven Eppinger, MIT
Martin Follmer, Johannes Kepler University, Linz
Niklas Halfmann, Hamburg University of Technology, Institute for Product Development & Engineering Design
Clemens Hepperle, TU München, Institute of Product Development
Vincent Holley, Ecole Centrale Paris
Tom Howard, Innovative Design and Manufacturing Centre, University of Bath
Morija Jankovic, Ecole Centrale Paris
Thomas Jun, Engineering Design Center, University of Cambridge
Vinicius Kaster Marini, TU Denmark
Hermann Klinger, Festo
Sebastian Kortler, TU München, Institute of Product Development
Dieter Krause, Hamburg University of Technology
Matthias Kreimeyer, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge Gruppe
Udo Lindemann, TU München, Institute of Product Development
Maik Maurer, TU München, Institute of Product Development
Kresimir Osman, FMENA, University of Zagreb, Chair of Design and Product Development
Manuela Parvan, TU München, Institute of Product Development
George Platanitis, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology
Thomas Sander, Chair of Engineering Design, Uni Erlangen-Nuremberg
Christina Stöber, Chair of Engineering Design, Uni Erlangen-Nuremberg
Andreas Stockinger, Chair of Engineering Design, Uni Erlangen-Nuremberg
Julia Stuppy, Chair of Engineering Design, Uni Erlangen-Nuremberg

Overview of research interests of participants

Industrial focus
Relate behavior, measurement of behavior to structure of physical system
Risk management
Complexity in education and learning
Project support tools for product and process complexity
Multiphysical relations among different domains in a product (functions, components,...)
Lifecycle modeling and planning
Company planning
Students' design project organization
Set based engineering
Design automation, engineer-to-order (process and product modeling)
Modularization
Tolerancing and dimensional management
Product family management

Discussion and results

Discussion

Discussion on the presentation: Managing Structural Complexity – Challenges and Research (Maik Maurer) (available here)

Enablers discern whether a system is complex or not
Further points
- Architecting – reduce inherent complexity of designed system (“everything is connected to everything”)
  - Architecting processes and organizations to support product architectures
  - Scope and granularity of exploring problems in complexity (e.g. functions, components, and parameters)
Differentiation of complexity and complicated-ness (various definitions prevail)

Discussion on SIG core topics

Structure defines behavior
Representations of complex systems (matrix, graph,...)
x - Data acquision, updating and upkeeping dependency models
Interpretation of analyses
Linking analysis methods and practical applications
How to manage the solution space of product and process models (change impact across domains)?
Architecting systems
- Emergence of (industry) standards and standard interfaces to help with complexity (e.g. USB)
Necessary granularity of models
- related to interpretation (what can be drawn from it?) and to architecting (what do we need to
Collect examples for structural complexity

Discussion on possible work groups to progress SIG topics more coherently

Information acquisition
Architecting and granularity
Interpretation
- Collecting models and means of visualization
Focus of work groups
- key problems
- ways to tackle them
- possible future works

Results of work groups

Work groups

Architecting and granularity
Information acquisition
Representation

Results of group work on architecting (facilitated by S. Eppinger) (documentation 1) (documentation 2)

overall goal: reduce complexity
- limited methods for systems architecture
- little appreciated in industry
- DSM good for visualization, within limits for system architecting
- transition from sparse DSMs (novel) to dense DSM (experienced) to clustered DSMs (mature)
- current rules: “decompose to understand” but there must be others
- architectures of product and organization and process need to be aligned
focus a) modularity and interfaces
- standardization of components and interfaces where possible and necessary
- defining modules and platforms
- concept / system-level design
focus b) risks
- robust architectures – risk awareness
- communicating and managing about complexity and risk
- what risks to take?
- thinking strategically about risks

Results of group work on information acquistion (facilitated by M. Maurer) (documentation)

situation
- demanding
- no existing research
problem
- lack of standardization
- experience-based
- expensive, time- and ressource-demanding
objectives
- pareto acquisition?
- guidelines? best practices?
- quality & consistency
further work
- Mendeley
- communication

Results of group work on representation (facilitated by G. Platanidis) (documentation 1) (documentation 2) (documentation 3)

representation
- Matrix
- graphs - 2d, 3D
- user-centered
- what other methods?
- time needed to explain complex...
- visual methods?
- example: chemistry
- standards
- icons
- language (as standard for knowledge transfer)
- target groups (CEO vs. project leader)
- improve decision quality, lower iterations
- tangible vs intangible
- granularity (level of detail
- limits? how far to be useful?
- navigate, “signal-to-noise”
interpretation
- see from representation-obvious points
- calculations etc.
- capturing dimensions
- filter (navigate)
- zoom into special aspects
- what results do we want? (e.g. modules, parts, components)
- change propagation, modularity, iteration
- PLM
- easiest way to compile – make more levels available
- interpretation for which problem?
- impact of results
- indifferent domains
- interpret at end, beginning, etc.
- supporting creativity
- see fixed vs. open things
- capture new insights

Next steps

spread email addresses of participants among them
papers for workshops next ICED is possible – address SIG chairs to suggest papers
possible workshop at DSM Conference (22 & 23 July in Cambridge, UK)
participants are requested to participate in survey on complexity management - contact Matthias Kreimeyer of MAN Nutzfahrzeuge Gruppe or David Wynn of the Engineering Design Center or follow this link to the survey