This article proposes a new method of design process planning based on a growth curve model with a fuzzy number managing uncertain design progress. Because a product consists of many interdependent subsystems, an engineering design process consists of two different knowledge creation activities, that is, an activity to enhance the technical performance level of each subsystem, which is called task, and an activity to enhance the integrity level among the subsystems. This research models the progress of the technical performance and the integrity with the growth curve. A numerical design structure matrix is used to represent task dependency and collaboration efficiency. A design process plan is evaluated by the probability that the technical performance will achieve the target level of design target. A proposed method facilitates a project manager to explore various process plans, to assess their risks, and to decide better plans. A planning example of a student formula car design project demonstrates that a project manager can quantitatively compare alternative process plans and choose the better plan. That result shows the possibility of the proposed model toward an optimization of process planning.
BaldwinCYClarkKB (2000) Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. London: MIT Press.
2.
BrowningTEppingerS (2002) Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management49(4): 428–442.
3.
BrowningTRamaseshR (2007) A survey of activity network-based process models for managing, product development projects. Production and Operations Management16(2): 217–240.
4.
BrowningTR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management48(3): 292–306.
5.
BrowningTRDeystJJEppingerSD. (2002) Adding value in product development by creating information and reducing risk. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management49(4): 443–458.
6.
ChaoLPIshiiK (2007) Design process error-proofing: failure modes and effects analysis of the design process. Journal of Mechanical Design: Transactions of the ASME129(5): 491–501.
7.
ChoSHEppingerSD (2005) A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management52(3): 316–328.
8.
ClarkKBFujimotoT (1990) The power of product integrity. Harvard Business Review68(6): 107–118.
9.
ClarksonPJHamiltonJR (2000) “Signposting”: a parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Research in Engineering Design12(1): 18–38.
10.
EckertCMClarksonPJ (2010) Planning development processes for complex products. Research in Engineering Design21(3): 153–171.
11.
EppingerSDWhitneyDESmithR. (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Research in Engineering Design6(1): 1–13.
12.
FernándezMGConner SeepersadCRosenDW. (2005) Decision support in concurrent engineering—the utility-based selection decision support problem. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications13(1): 13–27.
13.
GongCKaoI (1997) Design for accuracy and repeatability for robots using Taguchi methods. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications5(3): 263–277.
14.
JarrettJPClarksonPJDawesWN (2002) Improving turbomachinery design process management. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, ASME: Montreal, Canada, September 29-October 2, 2002vol. 4, pp. 161–170.
15.
KanSH (2002) Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.
16.
KaraSKayisBKaebernickH (1999) Modelling concurrent engineering projects under uncertainty. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications7(3): 269–274.
17.
KaufmannAGuptaMM (1988) Fuzzy Mathematical Models in Engineering and Management Science. New York: Elsevier Science Pub. Co.
18.
KrishnanVEppingerSDWhitneyDE (1997) A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Management Science43(4): 437–451.
19.
LévárdyVBrowningTR (2009) An adaptive process model to support product development project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management56(4): 600–620.
20.
MacDuffieJFujimotoT (2010) Why dinosaurs will keep ruling the auto industry. Harvard Business Review88(6).
21.
MalcolmDGRoseboomJHClarkCE. (1959) Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation. Operations Research7(5): 646–669.
22.
MarcaD (1988) IDEF0/SADT Business Process and Enterprise Modeling. San Diego: Eclectic Solutions Corp.
23.
MeloAFClarksonPJ (2002) Planning and scheduling based on an explicit representation of the state of the design. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, ASME: Montreal, Canada, 2002, September 29–October 2, vol. 4, pp. 89–98.
24.
ModerJJPhillipsCRDavisEW (1983) Project Management with CPM, PERT and Precedence Diagramming. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
25.
NahmYEIshikawaHYangYS (2007) A flexible and robust approach for preliminary engineering design based on designer’s preference. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications15(1): 53–62.
26.
NomaguchiYMatsuyamaRHorinouchiT. (2011) Design process planning by multi-objective optimization of technical performance and product integrity. In: Proceedings of ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, ASME: Washington, DC, USA, 2011, August 28-31, DETC2011–48156.
27.
NomaguchiYTsutsumiDFujitaK (2008) Design achievement model for planning creative and concurrent design process. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, ASME: New York City, NY, USA, 2008, August 3–6, vol. 1(Part A), pp. 205–218.
28.
NomaguchiYYamamotoTFujitaK (2010) Design process planning by management of milestones and options with design attainment mode. In: HeisigPClarksonPJVajnaS (eds) Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes. London: Springer-Verlag London Ltd; pp 65–76.
29.
NonakaIVon KroghG (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science20(3): 635–652.
30.
NonakaIByosierePBoruckiC. (1994) Organizational knowledge creation theory: a first comprehensive test. International Business Review3(4): 337–351.
31.
O’DonovanBEckertCClarksonPJ (2004) Simulating design processes to assist design process planning. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, ASME: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2004, September 28–October 2, vol. 3, pp. 503–512.
32.
OstergaardKJSummersJD (2007) Resistance based modeling of collaborative design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications15(1): 21–32.
33.
ParkHCutkoskyMR (1999) Framework for modeling dependencies in collaborative engineering processes. Research in Engineering Design11(2): 84–102.
34.
PimmlerTUEppingerSD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. In: Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Design Technical Conferences; Minneapolis, MN, September 11–14, 1994, Vol. 68, pp. 343–351.
35.
ReichYLevyE (2004) Managing product design quality under resource constraints. International Journal of Production Research42(13): 2555–2572.
36.
ReichYPazA (2008) Managing product quality, risk, and resources through resource quality function deployment. Journal of Engineering Design19(3): 249–267.
37.
SakamotoHFujitaK (2006) An essay on availability of structural optimization in the design process of electric appliances. In: Proceedings of JSME millennium, JSME: Kumamoto, Japan, 2006, September 18–22, vol. 4, pp. 343–344 (in Japanese).
38.
SmithRPEppingerSD (1997) Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Management Science43(3): 276–293.
39.
SmithRPEppingerSD (1998) Deciding between sequential and concurrent tasks in engineering design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications6(1): 15–25.
40.
WynnDClarksonPJEckertCA (2005) Model-based approach to improve planning practice in collaborative aerospace design. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, ASME: Long Beach, California, USA, 2005, September 24–28vol. 5, pp. 537–548.
41.
YangTGIshiiKKarandikarH (2005) Decision analysis approach for improving product development decision quality: an interactive simulation game showcase. In: Proceedings of ASME 2005 international design engineering technical conferences and computers in engineering conference, ASME: Long Beach, California, USA, 2005, September 24–28, vol. 5, pp. 319–328.
42.
YassineAA (2007) Investigating product development process reliability and robustness using simulation. Journal of Engineering Design18(6): 545–561.
