This paper presents a quantifying and reordering method for new product development based on the concurrent engineering concept. We propose to establish a fuzzy design structure matrix (FDSM) by quantifying the information flow of activity factors of new product development and employing the fuzzy clustering method. Utilizing the proposed partition and tearing algorithm to reorder matrixes, we can realize deeply the inner hierarchy workings of concurrent engineering in the new product development process. The purpose of this paper is to develop a dynamic planning method that is innovative, efficient and flexible for new product development by using the concurrent design concept and FDSM analysis. It ultimately helpful to designers and managers to grasp the interactive information flow between each of the activity factors for planning an optimum design process in new product development. One case study is employed to illustrate this method and the result validates that it can reduce the iterations of design process and shorten the product development time.
Chen, K.H., Chen, S.J., Lin, L. and Changchien, S.W. (1998). An Integrated Graphical User Interface (GUI) for Concurrent Engineering Design of Mechanical Parts , Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(1-2): 91-112.
2.
Beheshti, R. (1993). Design Decisions and Uncertainty , Design Studies, 14(1): 85-93.
3.
Rebecca, M.H. and Clark, K.B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 441-453.
4.
Susman, G.I. (1992). Integrating Design and Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage, New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Rochford, L. and Rudelius, W. (1992). How Involving More Functional Areas Within a Firm Affects the New Product Process, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(4): 287-299.
6.
Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 205-246.
7.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 716-731.
8.
Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1989). Overlapping Problem Solving in Product Development , In: Ferdow, K. (ed.), Managing International Manufacturing, North-Holland: Elseveier Science Publisher, pp. 127-152.
9.
Du, W.M., Davis, J. and Shan, M.C. (1997). Flexible Specification of Workflow Compensation Scopes, ACM SIGGROUP, Phoenix, pp. 309-316.
10.
Ellis, C.A. and Nutt, G.J. (1993). Modeling and Enactment of Workflow Systems, In: Application and Theory of Petri-Nets, Berlin : Springer-Verlag, Vol. 691, pp. 1-16.
11.
Spinner, M. (1989). Improving Project Management Skills and Techniques , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Mayer, R., Painter, M. and Witte, P. (1993). IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-engineering Applications, College Station, TX: Knowledge Based Systems.
13.
Steward, D.V. (1981). The Design Structure System: A Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 28(3): 71-74.
14.
Browning, T.R. and Eppinger, S.D. (2002). Modeling Impacts of Process Architecture on Cost and Schedule Risk in Product Development, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4): 428-442.
15.
Cho, S.H. and Eppinger, S.D. (2005). A Simulation-based Process Model for Managing Complex Design Projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(3): 316-328.
16.
Yassine, A. and Braha, D. (2003). Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Method, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11(3): 165-176.
17.
Whitney, D.E. (1990). Designing the Design Process , Research in Engineering Design, 3(2): 3-13.
18.
Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, Volume I: Integrated Product and Process Organization, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: PTR Prentice Hall.
19.
Eppinger, S.D. (1992). Organizing the Tasks in Complex Design Projects. In: Proceedings of NSE Design and Manufacturing System Conference, USA.
20.
Eppinger, S.D. , Whitney, D.E., Smith, R.P. and Gebala, D.A. (1994). A Model-based Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development, Research in Engineering Design, 6(1): 1-13.
21.
Kusiak, A. and Larson, T.N. (1995). Decomposition and Representation Methods in Mechanical Design, Journal of Mechanical Design, 117(3): 17-24.
22.
Zwicky, F. (1967). The Morphological Approach to Discovery, Invention, Research and Construction. Zwicky, F. and Wilson, A.G. (Eds), New Method of Thought and Procedure: Symposium on Methodologies, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 316-317.
23.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Warfield, J.N. (1973). On Arranging Elements of a Hierarchy in Graphic Form, IEEE-SMC, 3: 121-132.
25.
Warfield, J.N. (1976). Societal Systems: Planning, Policy and Complexity, New York: Wiley.
26.
Warfield, J.N. (1990). A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through System Design, Intersystems Publications, Salinas, CA.
27.
Ford, D.N. and Sterman, J.D. (2003). Overcoming the 90% Syndrome: Iteration Management in Concurrent Development Projects, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11(3): 177-186.
28.
Hu, J., Liu, J. and Prasad, B. (2003). A Constraint-driven Execution Plan for Maximizing Concurrency in Product Development, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11(4): 301-312.
29.
Rhee, S.H., Bae, H. and Kim, Y. (2004). A Dispatching Rule for Efficient Workflow, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 12(4): 305-318.
30.
Prasad, B. (1999). Enabling Principles of Concurrency and Simultaneity in Concurrent Engineering, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 13(3): 185-204.
