Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:11:17.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facilitating design communication through engineering information traceability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2013

Neven Pavković ,
Mario Štorga ,
Nenad Bojčetić  and
Dorian Marjanović
Neven Pavković*
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia
Mario Štorga
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia
Nenad Bojčetić
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia
Dorian Marjanović
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia
*
Reprint requests to: Neven Pavković, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Ivana Lucica 5, Zagreb 10000, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traceability of information provides the basis for assessing the credibility of engineering information, better understanding it, and making judgments about the appropriateness of its use for a particular design task. The presented research attempts to answer how the proposed traceability methodology and framework could help designers to improve communication, eventually create new channels of communication, and contribute to the creation of shared understanding in collaborative design processes. The discussion of these issues is based on a literature review, empirical research, observations of industrial practice, and feedback from initial implementation. The research is focused on information objects (IOs), archetypically represented in the engineering domain as technical documents that are often complex structures constituted of textual, numerical, and graphical fragments. The presented approach is based on an abstraction of IOs' relationships organized around specific contexts that are defined by a subset of product development ontology. Each IO could be repeatedly represented in various contexts that may contain different subsets of objects and their relationships. Such a representation also acts as a container in which the ontology concept instances are associated with IOs being developed and traced during the design episode. The usage of the proposed traceability methodology is discussed with examples of implementation and possible utilization situations. The paper is focused on explaining how the developed functionalities could help to resolve manifestations of inadequate information flow, which cause communication barriers in engineering companies. In addition, the proposed traceability methodology offers the possibility to record the detailed history of actions and events associated with IOs in the usage process of the product life cycle management systems. Based on the research findings, this paper argues that such a network of the traceability links and relationships may be viewed as a novel design communication channel.

Keywords

Collaborative DesignDesign CommunicationEngineering InformationProduct Development OntologyShared UnderstandingTraceabilityTraceability of Engineering Information Project
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 2: Studying and Supporting Design Communication , May 2013 , pp. 105 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agouridas, V., & Simons, P. (2008). Antecedence and consequence in design rationale systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S., & Storga, M. (2009). Merged ontology for engineering design: contrasting an empirical and a theoretical approach to develop engineering ontology. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(4), 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S., & Wallace, K. (2003). Indexing design knowledge based upon descriptions of design processes. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '03, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R., Gourtovaia, M., Wallace, K., & Clarkson, J. (2007). Extending design rationale to capture an integrated design information space. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '07, Paris.Google Scholar
Brandt, S.C., Morbach, J., Miatidis, M., Theiÿen, M., Jarke, M., & Marquardt, W. (2008). An ontology-based approach to knowledge management in design processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 32(1–2), 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., & Hamilton, J.R. (2000). “Signposting,” a parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Research in Engineering Design 12, 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., & Stacey, M. (2001). Information flow in engineering companies: problems and their causes. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '01, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Maier, A.M., & McMahon, C. (2005). Communication in design. In Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice (Clarkson, P.J., & Eckert, C.M., Eds.), pp. 232–261. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, T.L., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2003). Parameter trails. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '03, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Flanagan, T., Eckert, C., & Clarkson, P.J. (2007). Externalizing tacit overview knowledge: a model-based approach to supporting design teams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, B.J., Culley, S.J., Allen, R.D., & Mullineux, G. (2002). A framework for the requirements of capturing, storing and reusing information and knowledge in engineering design. International Journal of Information Management 22, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, J., & Kaufman, M. (2007). Leveraging information for innovation and competitive advantage. Hurwitz & Associates White Paper. Accessed at www.hurwitz.comGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., Bracewell, R., & Wallace, K. (2007). Improving design reuse using context. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '07, Paris.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., Buijs, J., & Valkenburg, R. (2010). Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies 29(4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Raskin, V., & Ramani, K. (2008). Developing engineering ontology for information retrieval. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 8(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, R.A., & Corlett, J. (Eds.). (2005). Information Sources in Engineering (4th ed.). München: K.G. Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M., Dönmez, D., Hepperle, C., Kreimeyer, M., Lindemann, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2011). Improving communication in design: recommendations from the literature. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '11, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Maier, A.M., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2006). Identifying requirements for communication support: a maturity grid-inspired approach. Expert Systems With Applications 31(4), 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M., Kreimeyer, M., Hepperle, C., Eckert, C.M., Lindeman, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2008). Exploration of correlations between factors influencing communication in complex product development. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 16, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, A.M., Kreimeyer, M., Lindeman, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2009). Reflecting communication: a key factor for successful collaboration between embodiment design and simulation. Journal of Engineering Design 20(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marjanovic, D., Storga, M., Bojčetic, N., Pavkovic, N., & Stankovic, T. (2011 a). EUREKA E4911 TRENIN Project Final Report. Accessed at www.trenin.orgGoogle Scholar
Marjanovic, D., Storga, M., Bojčetic, N., Pavkovic, N., & Stankovic, T. (2011 b). EUREKA E4911 TRENIN Report on Stakeholder Perspectives on Traceability. Accessed at www.trenin.orgGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C., Crossland, R., Lowe, A., Shah, T., Williams, J.S., & Culley, S. (2002). No zero-match browsing of hierarchically categorized information entities. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(3), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohan, K., & Ramesh, B. (2007). Traceability-based knowledge integration in group decision and negotiation activities. Decision Support System 43, 968–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohan, K., Xu, P., Cao, L., & Ramesh, B. (2008). Improving change management in software development: integrating traceability and software configuration management. Decision Support Systems 45, 922–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouertani, M.Z., Baina, S., Gzara, L., & Morel, G. (2010). Traceability and management of dispersed product knowledge during design and manufacturing. Computer-Aided Design 43(5), 546–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavkovic, N., Bojcetic, N., Franic, L., & Marjanovic, D. (2011). Case studies to explore indexing issues in product design traceability framework. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design 6, ICED '11, pp. 131–140, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Jeon, D.K., Urban, S.D., Bliznakov, P., & Rogers, M. (1996). Database infrastructure for supporting engineering design histories. Computer-Aided Design 28(6), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipman, F. M., & McCall, R. J. (1997). Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smulders, F. (2006). Get synchronized! Bridging the gap between design & volume production. PhD Thesis. University of Delft.Google Scholar
Storga, M. (2004). Traceability in product development. Proc. Int. Design Conf., DESIGN 2004 2, pp. 911–918, Dubrovnik.Google Scholar
Storga, M., Andreasen, M.M., & Marjanovic, D. (2010). The design ontology: foundation for the design knowledge exchange and management. Journal of Engineering Design 21(4), 427–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storga, M., Darlington, M., Culley, S.J., & Marjanovic, D. (2009 a). Traceability of the development of “information objects” in the engineering design process. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Research Design, ICoRD '09, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
Storga, M., Darlington, M., Culley, S.J., & Marjanovic, D. (2009 b). Toward a process and method for tracing the development of information objects used in engineering design. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design, ICED '09, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Storga, M., Marjanovic, D., & Savsek, T. (2011). Reference model for traceability records implementation in engineering design environment. Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Design 6, ICED '11, pp. 173–182, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Storga, M., Pavkovic, N., Bojčetic, N., & Stankovic, T. (2011). Traceability of engineering information development in PLM framework. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Product Life cycle Management, PLM'11, Technical University of Eindhoven.Google Scholar