Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:27:05.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Process Modelling Morphology to Support Process Analysis and Development in Change Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

T. Ammersdörfer  and
D. Inkermann
T. Ammersdörfer*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Clausthal, Germany
D. Inkermann
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Clausthal, 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.

Process modelling (PM) is used to support designers by providing guidance on what needs to be done. Change processes in development organizations accompany introduction of new procedures, new methods (also digital form), tools that have to integrated into existing processes. Objective of this paper is to provide guidance to designers in selecting the appropriate PM language to support structured changes in processes. Requirements are derived from frequent change needs in SME and a PM morphology is provided assisting the selection and use of suitable PM languages for change processes.

Keywords

process modellingdesign processchange managementinformation managementdesign methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 91 - 100
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), 2022.

References

Andreasen, M. M. (1994), “Modelling-The Language of the Designer”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 103–115. 10.1080/09544829408907876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavendiek, A.-K., Inkermann, D. and Vietor, T. (2017), “Interrelations between processes, methods, and tools in collaborative design - A framework”, Proc. of the 21st Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 8: Human Behaviour in Design, Vancouver, Canada, August 21-25, 2017.Google Scholar
Bender, B. and Gericke, K. (2021), Pahl/Beitz Design theory: Methods and application of successful product development, Springer, Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-57303-7Google Scholar
Browning, T.R., Fricke, E. and Negele, H. (2006), “Key concepts in modeling product development processes”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 9 No.2, pp. 104–108. 10.1002/sys.20047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2010), “Planning development processes for complex products”, Engineering Design 21(3), pp. 153–171. 10.1007/s00163-009-0079-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Albers, A., Bursac, N., Chen, H. X., Clarkson, P. J., et al. . (2015), “Integrated product and process models: towards an integrated framework and review”, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED21), Politecnico di Milano, Italy, July 27-30, 2015.Google Scholar
Gericke, K. and Blessing, L. (2011), “Comparisons of design methodologies and process models across disciplines: A literature review”, in Culley, SJ, Hicks, BJ, McAloone, TC, Howard, TJ, Clarkson, PJ (eds) Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, August 15–19, 2011, Design Society, vol 1, pp 393–404.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Kramer, J. and Roschuni, C. (2016), “An Exploratory Study of the Discovery and Selection of Design Methods in Practice”, Journal of Mechanical Design, 138:101109. 10.1115/1.4034088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, in Maier, A., Kim, H., Oehmen, J., Salustri, F., Škec, S. and Kokkolaras, M. (Eds.), Design theory and research methodology, DS, Curran Associates Inc, Red Hook, NY, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
Grobshtein, Y. and Dori, D. (2011), “Generating SysML views from an OPM model: Design and evaluation”, Systems Engineering Journal, Volume 14, Nr. 3. Wiley Periodicals, Hoboken, USA.Google Scholar
Helten, K., Eckert, C., Gericke, K. and Vermaas, P. (2021), “Concept for a Persona Driven Recommendation Tool for Process Modelling Approaches”, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED 21 ), Gothenburg, Sweden, August 16-20, 2021. 10.1017/pds.2021.71Google Scholar
Hjartarson, B., Daalhuizen, J. and Gustafsson, K. F. (2021), “The Dark Side of Methods – An Exploration of the Negative Effects of Method Use and Method Reflection in Design”, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED21), Gothenburg, Sweden, August 16-20, 2021. 10.1017/pds.2021.561Google Scholar
INCOSE (2015), INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04: Systems Engineering Handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities, International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), San Diego, USA.Google Scholar
Inkermann, D. (2021), “Shaping Method Ecosystems – Structured Implementation of Systems Engineering in Industrial Practice”, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED21), Gothenburg, Sweden, August 16-20, 2021. 10.1017/pds.2021.525Google Scholar
Ley, T., Jurisch, M., Wolf, P. and Krcmar, H. (2012), “Criteria for assessing the performance of processes: State-of-the-art”, Proc. of the Multiconference Business Informatics (MKWI), 2012. 10.24355/dbbs.084-201301141138-0Google Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2003), “Methods are networks of methods”, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED03), Stockholm, Sweden, August 19-21, 2003.Google Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2009), Product development, in Methodical Development of Technical Products, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 7–32.Google Scholar
Paetzold, K. (2022), “Data and Information Flow Design in Product Development”, in Krause, D. and Heyden, E. (Eds.), Design Methodology for Future Products, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trauer, J., Wöhr, F., Eckert, C., Kannengiesser, U., Knippenberg, S., et al. . (2021), “Criteria for selecting design process modelling approaches”, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED21), Gothenburg, Sweden, August 16-20, 2021. 10.1017/pds.2021.79Google Scholar
Wickel, M.C. (2017), Managing change better - A data-based methodology for analysing technical change, [PhD Thesis], Technical University of Munich. http://d-nb.info/1136078053/34Google Scholar
Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2006), “Applied signposting: a modelling framework to support design process improvement”, Proc. of the ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conferences (IDETC/CIE2006), Philadelphia, PA, US.Google Scholar
Wynn, D., Caldwell, Nicholas H. M. and Clarkson, J. P. (2014), “Predicting change propagation in complex design workflows”, Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(8), 081009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D. C. and Clarkson, P. J. (2017), “Process models in design and development”, Engineering Design, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 June 2017. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0262-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar