Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T22:37:27.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONCEPT COMPARISON: A FUNCTION INTEGRITY INDICATOR

Part of: Design Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

R. L. Wichmann ,
B. Eisenbart ,
K. Gericke  and
B. Lux
R. L. Wichmann*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
B. Eisenbart
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
K. Gericke
Affiliation:
University of Rostock, Germany
B. Lux
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Comparing the propensity for risk in concepts with little commonality, such as different working principles, different number of functions and components, is challenging to achieve in a systematic and traceable manner. This paper builds on the Function Integrity Diagnosis and Documentation method to introduce a Function Integrity indicator as a means to quantitatively compare dissimilar design concepts based on risk assessment. The proposed indicator is intended to support designers converge on a suitable design concept based on considerations of risk to concept functions.

Keywords

risk managementconceptual designfunctional modelling
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1155 - 1164
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Andreasen, M.M. and Hein, L. (2000), Integrated Product Development, Institute for Product Development.Google Scholar
Bassler, D. et al. (2011), “A comparison of the integration of risk management principles in product development”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED11), Vol. 3 No. January 2016, pp. 306–316.Google Scholar
Bowles, J. (2015), “An Assessment of RPN Prioritization in a Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis”, Journal of the IEST, IEEE, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 51–56. https://doi.org/10.17764/jiet.47.1.y576m26127157313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buur, J. and Andreasen, M.M. (1989), “Design models in mechatronic product development”, Design Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(89)90033-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., Simons, C. and Eckert, C. (2004), “Predicting Change Propagation in Complex Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 126 No. 5, p. 788. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1765117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbart, B. et al. (2017), “A DSM-based framework for integrated function modelling: concept, application and evaluation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0228-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbart, B. and Kleinsmann, M. (2017), “Implementing shared function modelling in practice: experiences in six companies developing mechatronic products and PSS”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 10–12, pp. 765–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1395395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbart, B. et al. (2015), “Integrated function modelling: Comparing the IFM framework with SYSML”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 5 No. DS 80-05, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012), Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricke, E. et al. (2000), “Coping with changes: Causes, findings, and strategies”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6858(2000)3:4<169::AID-SYS1>3.0.CO;2-W3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, K. and Eisenbart, B. (2017), “The integrated function modeling framework and its relation to function structures”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 436–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041700049XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, L.J. et al. (2005), Brief Calculus and Its Applications, 11th ed., Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Gries, B. and Gericke, K. (2009), “A method for identifying improvement potentials within product development processes”, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’09), Vol. 1 No. August, pp. 291–298.Google Scholar
Hazelrigg, G.A. (1998), “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 120 No. 4, p. 653. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2829328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO. (2017), ISO/IEC 15939 Systems and Software Engineering — Measurement Process, International Organization for Standardisation, Geneva, available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec-ieee:15939:ed-1:v1:enGoogle Scholar
ISO. (2018), ISO 31000 Risk Management, International Organization for Standardisation, Geneva.Google Scholar
Jarratt, T.A.W. et al. (2011), “Engineering change: An overview and perspective on the literature”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0097-yGoogle Scholar
Lie Arntsen, V. (2007), Summation of Risk: Assessment of Total System Risk for Complex Systems, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
López Mesa, B. and Bylund, N. (2011), “A study of the use of concept selection methods from inside a company”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0093-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, M. and Kesper, H. (2011), “eFMEA – Raising Efficiency of FMEA by Matrix-Based Function and Failure Networks”, Research into Design – Supporting Sustainable Product Development, pp. 179–186.Google Scholar
McManus, H.L. (2005), “Product Development Value Stream Mapping”, Lean Aerospace Initiative, No. September.Google Scholar
Müller, J.M., Buliga, O. and Voigt, K.I. (2018), “Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, Vol. 132 No. December 2017, pp. 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019ssCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. et al. (2007), Engineering Design a Systematic Approach, 3rd ed.Google Scholar
Pfitzer, T. (2015), Risk Summation, International System Safety Conference, San Diego.Google Scholar
Roth, M., Gehrlicher, S. and Lindemann, U. (2015), “Safety of individual products perspectives in the context of current practices and challenges”, Preceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED. No. July, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
Wichmann, R.L. et al. (2018), “A method for Function Integrity Diagnosis and Documentation: FIDD”, DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, The Design Society, pp. 1429–1440. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0211CrossRefGoogle Scholar