Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:32:28.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COLLABORATION OF DESIGN AND SIMULATION - AN INDUSTRIAL MULTI-METHOD STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Sebastian Schweigert-Recksiek ,
Niklas Hagenow  and
Udo Lindemann
Sebastian Schweigert-Recksiek*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Niklas Hagenow
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Udo Lindemann
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
*
Schweigert-Recksiek, Sebastian, Technical University of Munich, Product Development and Lightweight Design, Germany, [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.

As mechanical simulations play an increasingly role in engineering projects, an appropriate integration of simulations into design-oriented product development processes is essential for efficient collaboration. To identify and overcome barriers between design and simulation departments, the BRIDGES approach was elaborated for barrier reduction in design engineering and simulation. This paper shows the industrial evaluation of the approach using a multi-method study of an online survey and focus group workshops. The experts' assessments were statistically analysed to build a connection matrix of barriers and recommendations. 59 participants from multiple industries with practical experience in the field contributed to the online survey, while 24 experts could be acquired for the focus group workshops. As a result of the workshops, both the data-based and the workshop-based part of the BRIDGES approach were assessed as beneficial to raise the efficiency of collaboration and practically applicable. This provides an empirically secured connection of barriers and suitable recommendations, allowing companies to identify and overcome collaboration barriers between design and simulation.

Keywords

CommunicationComplexitySimulationExpert WorkshopsStatistical Analysis
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1421 - 1430
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Blessing, L.T. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), A design research methodology, Heurista, 10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1.Google Scholar
Deubzer, F., Herfeld, U., Kreimeyer, M. and Lindemann, U. (2005), “A structured holistic approach for the integration of cad and cae environments”, ProSTEP iViP Science Days 2005.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012), Design structure matrix methods and applications, MIT press, 10.7551/mitpress/8896.001.0001.10.7551/mitpress/8896.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, M., Petersson, H., Bjärnemo, R. and Motte, D. (2014), “Interaction between computer-based design analysis activities and the engineering design process-an industrial survey”, in: Marjanović, D., Štorga, M., Pavković, N. and Bojčetić, N. (Editors), Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014, 13th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Vol. 3.Google Scholar
Fern, E.F. (1982), “The Use of Focus Groups for Idea Generation: The Effects of Group Size, Acquaintanceship, and Moderator on Response Quantity and Quality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1–13, 10.2307/3151525.10.1177/002224378201900101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamby, T. and Levine, D.S. (2016), “Response-Scale Formats and Psychological Distances Between Categories”, Applied psychological measurement, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 73–75, 10.1177/0146621615597961.10.1177/0146621615597961CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennink, M.M. (2014), Focus Group Discussions, Understanding qualitative research, Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199856169.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herfeld, U., Kreimeyer, M., Deubzer, F., Frank, T., Lindemann, U. and Knaust, U. (2006), “Verknüpfung von komponenten und funktionen zur integration von konstruktion und simulation in der karosserieentwicklung”, VDI-Berichte, No. 1967, pp. 259–276.Google Scholar
Kreimeyer, M., Deubzer, F., Herfeld, U. and Lindemann, U. (2005), “A survey on efficient collaboration of design and simulation in product development”, in: Proceedings 23rd CADFEM Users’ Meeting.Google Scholar
Norris, M. (2017), “How to succeed @ spdm”, in: International SPDM Conference, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Petersson, H., Eriksson, M. and Bjärnemo, R. (2013), “Integration of computer aided design analysis into the engineering design process for use by engineering designers”, in: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 10.1115/imece2013-62130.Google Scholar
Piccolo, S., Trauer, J., Wilberg, J. and Maier, A. (2018), “Understanding task execution time in relation to the multilayer project structure: Empirical evidence”, in: Leardi, C., Browning, T., Eppinger, S.D. and Becerril, L. (Editors), Proceedings of the 20th International Dependency and Structure Modeling (DSM) Conference, Trieste (Italy), pp. 129–138, 10.21278/idc.2018.0283.Google Scholar
Schönwald, J.R., Forsteneichner, C., Vahrenhorst, D. and Paetzold, K. (2019), “Improvement of collaboration between testing and simulation departments on the example of a motorcycle manufacturer”, in: Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, Cambridge university press, pp. 149–158, 10.1017/dsi.2019.18.Google Scholar
Schweigert, S., Luft, T., Wartzack, S. and Lindemann, U. (2017a), “Combination of matrix-based and graph-based modeling for product and organizational structures”, in: Hölttä-Otto, K., Browning, T., Eppinger, S. and Becerril, L. (Editors), Proceedings of the 19th International DSM Conference.Google Scholar
Schweigert, S., Xia, M. and Lindemann, U. (2017b), “An empirical survey on efficiency improvement for the collaboration between design and simulation departments”, in: Maier, A. (Editor), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. Vol 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation and Management, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S., Idrissov, A., Bharadwaj, T. and Lindemann, U. (2020), “Graph-based collaboration analysis of an agile medical engineering project with structural metrics”, in: Eppinger, S.D., Browning, T. and Trauer, J. (Editors), Proceedings of the 22nd International DSM Conference (DSM 2020), MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 13.-15.10.2020, The Design Society, p. 10, 10.35199/dsm2020.20.Google Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S., Koch, C. and Lindemann, U. (2019), “Matrix-based multivariate analysis of survey data on potentials for the collaboration of design and simulation”, in: Proceedings of the 21st International DSM Conference, Monterey, California, pp. 3–13, 10.35199/dsm2019.1.Google Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S. and Lindemann, U. (2018), “Improvement opportunities for the collaboration of design and simulation departments-an interview study”, in: Proceedings of INTERNATIONAL DESIGN CONFERENCE - DESIGN 2018, pp. 905–916, 10.21278/idc.2018.0393.10.21278/idc.2018.0393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweigert-Recksiek, S. and Lindemann, U. (2020), “Choosing the right measures to improve collaboration collaboration between design and simulation departments”, in: Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL DESIGN CONFERENCE – DESIGN 2020, 10.1017/dsd.2020.57.Google Scholar
Snider, C., & Scaron;kec, S., Gopsill, J.A. and Hicks, B.J. (2017), “The characterisation of engineering activity through email communication and content dynamics, for support of engineering project management”, Design Science, Vol. 3, 10.1017/dsj.2017.16.10.1017/dsj.2017.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar