Managing Complexity in Aircraft Design Using Design Structure Matrix

Abstract

Modern aerospace systems have reached a level of complexity that requires systematic methods for their design. The development of products in aircraft industry involves numerous engineers from different disciplines working on independent components. Routine activities consume a significant part of aircraft development time. To be competitive, aircraft industry needs to manage complexity and readjust the ratio of innovative versus routine work. Thus, the main objective is to develop an approach that can manage complexity in engineering design, reduce the design cycle time, and reduce the product development cost.

The design structure matrix (DSM) is a simple tool to perform both analysis and management of complex systems. It enables the user to model, visualize, and analyze the dependencies among the functional group of any system and derive suggestions for the improvement or synthesis of a system. This article illustrates with a case study how DSM can be used to manage complexity in aircraft design process. The result of implementing the DSM approach for Light Combat Aircraft (Navy) at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, India, (in aircraft design) show primary benefits of 75% reduction in routine activities, 33% reduction in design cycle time, 50% reduction in rework cost, and 30% reduction in product and process development cost of aircraft.

Keywords

sequential design concurrent engineering design structure matrix aerospace

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Jun

Kiritsis

Xirouchakis

. (2007). Research Issues on Closed-Loop PLM, Computers in Industry, 58: 855–868.

Clausing

. (1994). Total Quality Development. A Step-by-Step Guide to World-Class Concurrent Engineering, New York: ASME.

Clark

Wheelwright

. (1993). Managing New Product and Process Development, New York: Free Press.

Smith

Eppinger

. (1997). A Predictive Model of Sequential Iteration in Engineering Design, Management Science, 43(8): 1104–1120.

Pimmler

Eppinger

. (1994). Integration Analysis of Product Decompositions, Proceedings of the ASME Sixth International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Minneapolis, MN, 343–351.

Blackburn

. (1991). Time-Based Competition. The Next Battleground in American Manufacturing, Homewood, IL: Business one Irwin.

Nevins

Whitney

. (1989). Concurrent Design of Products and Processes: A Strategy for the Next Generation in Manufacturing, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wujek

Renaud

Batill

Brockman

. (1996). Concurrent subspace optimization using design variable sharing in a distributed computing environment, Concurrent Engineering, 4 (1): 361–377.

Kong

Bhuiyan

Thomson

. (2008). Determining the Value of Sequential and Concurrent NPD Processes, Sage Publications, 16(3): 201–211.

10.

Prasad

. (1995). Sequential Versus Concurrent Engineering – An Analogy, Sage Publications, 3: 250.

11.

Fan

. (1997). Concurrent Engineering in Aerospace Extended Enterprises, In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, 1–8 October, Nottingham, 307–314

12.

Ford

Bloebaum

. (1993). A Decomposition Method for Concurrent Design of Mixed Discrete/Continuous Systems, Advances in Design Automation ASME, 65(2): 367–376

13.

Kumar

Jayasimha

Mohan

. (2004). Concurrent Engineering in the Development of an Intermediate Jet Trainer, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 6(3): 391–397.

14.

Prasad

Morenc

Rangan

. (1993). Information Management for Concurrent Engineering: Research Issues, Sage Publications, (1): 3–20.

15.

Krishnan

Eppinger

Whitney

. (1995). Accelerating Product Development by the Exchange of Preliminary Product Development Information, Journal of Mechanical Design, 117: 491–498.

16.

Eppinger

Whitney

Smith

Gebala

. (1994). A Model-Based Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development, Research in Engineering Design, 6(1): 1–13.

17.

Mayer

Painter

Witte

. (1993). IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-Engineering Applications, College Station, TX: Knowledge Based Systems.

18.

Steward

. (1981). The Design Structure System: A Method for Modelling the Design of Complex Systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 3: 71–74.

19.

Yassine

Braha

. (2003). Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Method, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11(3): 165–176.

20.

Kusiak

Wang

. (1993). Efficient Organizing of Design Activities, International Journal of Production Research, 31(4): 753–769.

21.

Sobieszczanski-Sobieski

. (1989). Multidisciplinary Optimization for Engineering Systems: Achievements and Potential, NASA Technical Memorandum 101566.

22.

Eppinger

Whitney

Smith

Gebala

. (1990). Organizing the Tasks in Complex Design Projects, ASME Design Theory and Methodology, 27: 39–46.

23.

Gonzalez-Zugasti

Otto

Whitcomb

. (2007). Options-Based Multi-Objective Evaluation of Product Platforms, Naval Engineers Journal, 119(3): 89–106.

24.

Browning

. (2001). Applying the Design Structure Matrix to System Decomposition and Integration Problems: A Review and New Directions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(3):292–306.

25.

Braha

MAD

. (2002). Partitioning Tasks to Product Development Teams, Proceedings of the ASME 14th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 29 September–2 October, Montreal, Canada