Integrating Methods PDF

UDT stands for Universal Design Theory which is a design theory with the aim of integrating a broad variety of engineering domains, such as mechanical engineering, material science, information science, chemistry, chemical engineering or pharmaceutics. All engineering domains have in common that their overall goal is to create something new in the world, a machine in mechanical engineering or a specific drug in pharmaceutics. The UDT consists of several parts. One very important part of the theory is the kernel of the UDT which is based on an axiomatic approach. In this paper we want to describe theoretical fundamentals and practical requirements of UDT’s axiomatic approach. One important requirement we are dealing with is to enlarge, expand or extend a theory. In the traditional view of axiomatic approaches this seems to be almost impossible. UDT wants to give an answer to this problem. In our paper we describe the basic elements, an abstraction model of different abstraction domains and the axiomatic framework of the UDT.

When facing today’s world competition, the concept of “fast innovation” that allies both innovation and time to market, is a surviving matter. In the science of new product design, many different approaches have been formalized, but most of this scientific work has been performed at academic level. In this paper we discuss about a new approach to use these design methods in order to build an “Intuitive Design Method” (IDM), based on previous knowledge and technological background of the company. Based on these acknowledgements a flow chart of Intuitive Design Method building will be presented. Then, a case study will support our approach. This case study has been conducted in M.G.I. Coutier on of the French automotice supplier leader and the presented product will be an intake manifold. Both these theoretical and principal approaches will lead us to a conclusion that demonstrate the usefulness of the IDM model, and that there is no metamethod that can be apply to any company, but a dynamic set of existing basic rules. These rules have to be formalized in order to significantly increase engineers abilities to optimize a total design process.

Designing high quality products and processes at low cost has become an economical and technological challenge to producers in order to survive in today’s competitive market place. In turn, engineers are forced to find systematic and efficient ways to meet this challenge. Axiomatic Design method is developed to answer this challenge by providing design axioms to place the product and process design on a scientific base. Independence and Information Axioms have provided scientific ways of looking at the decision process in design. In another approach, Robust Design method uses Taguchi’s Quality Loss Function and a new measure of quality, called S/N ratio, to predict the quality from customers’ point of view.

This paper compares the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) and Axiomatic Design (AD). Both AD and TRIZ are briefly reviewed and their possible similarities and relationships are analyzed and listed. A case study is given.

Six Sigma is one of the most innovative and successful methodologies to have been introduced in recent years at an industrial level. The goal of this approach is to increase the efficiency of the company system and to generally reduce the costs involved in the production process. The instruments used are mainly statistical: a representative CTQ characteristic is studied for each Six Sigma Project, and the causes of any non-conformities found, as well as their effects on the system, are analysed. This makes it possible to evaluate the best choice for optimising the system and to identify the risk associated with each choice; Six Sigma is, therefore, generally used for optimising processes. After an initial Define phase, Six Sigma can be subdivided into the following phases: Measure, Analyze, Improve & Control. Product optimisation can be developed in greater detail by using Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) techniques during the Improve phase. These techniques adopt a statistical approach in order to assess which design solutions are best and the system response associated with the solution chosen.

The paper examines Axiomatic Design in the light of its possible links to an evolved version of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, TRIZ. The paper highlights incompatibilities between the the Independence Axiom and the Ideality concept contained within TRIZ, but also several areas of mutually beneficial integration between the two methods – at philosophical, methodological and working tool levels.

This paper shows the method how the coupled design can be changed to uncoupled design by logical and systematic process of TRIZ. The brief concepts of Axiomatic Design and TRIZ are reviewed. The detail process of uncoupling design process is explained and also a case study is showed.

Young-Soon Yang
Dept. of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Axiomatic Design based design formulation (FRs-DPs mapping and the underlying Design Matrix) is the “meaningbase” of a design because it is human-intelligence-engaging (i.e., written in natural language), transparent (one can easily find out the rational behind the design), soft (one can easily propose modifications to improve the design), and evaluative (one can easily evaluate whether or not the design is a good or not-so-good one). To map FRs into DPs, or vise versa, however, knowledge and information is needed encoding the previous design trials, designers’ engineering judgment, overall familiarity with the design problem, and alike. AI community has built up a tradition to use inductive decision trees, qualitative models, linguistic variables, and alike to capture the above-mentioned design-relevant knowledge and information. This study uses examples of decision trees, qualitative models, and linguistic variables, and examines the logical interactions of these formatted knowledge with the mapping process of FRs from a set of given DPs, and vise versa. It is found that a heterogeneous combination of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning is involved in the mapping process. Further study is needed in this direction. Nevertheless, AD based design formulation should accompany other information in a system for design to increase the trustworthiness, usability, and transparency of design-relevant information to individuals directly or indirectly involved in the design.

Proceedings of the First World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT-Vol. 1), Society for Design and Process Science, Austin, TX, pp. 103-111, December 7-9, 1995.
Researchers and practitioners worldwide have recognized the importance of structured, scientificallybased, and industrially-tested theories and methods for product (and process) design and development. Recent research has sought similar goals: reduced development time, reduced product costs, and increased value delivered to customers. However, American and European research in engineering design and product development have evolved differently and are distinct in their scope of application. Consequently, little integration and cross-learning have been done. In this paper we propose a categorization of design research approaches2 based on evolution and scope. We use this categorization to explain the reasons for lack of integration of design research. We distinguish between the process of creating a knowledgebase of design (the objective of design research in academia) and the process of selecting and implementing such knowledge (the objective of product development in industry). Finally we propose a process for identifying synergies and conflicts in the use of multiple design theories and methods.

Pennsylvania State University
This article investigates the use of TRIZ and Axiomatic Design to solve the problem of poor acoustics in the historic Schwab Auditorium on the Penn State University Park campus. The problem is dissected to its functional requirements and the design parameters which govern the requirements. TRIZ and Axiomatic Design are then used to create an uncoupled design which solves all the functional requirements with one design parameter each. Finally there is a suggestion on how to combine all of the solutions to solve the poor acoustic problem in Schwab Auditorium.

MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, September, 2006.
To efficiently design safety-critical systems such as nuclear power plants, with the requirement of high reliability, methodologies allowing for rigorous interactions between the synthesis and analysis processes have been proposed. This paper attempts to develop a reliability-centered design framework through an interactive process between Axiomatic Design (AD) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). Integrating AD and FTA into a single framework appears to be a viable solution, as they compliment each other with their unique advantages. AD provides a systematic synthesis tool while FTA is commonly used as a safety analysis tool. These methodologies build a design process that is less subjective, and they enable designers to develop insights that lead to solutions with improved reliability. Due to the nature of the two methodologies, the information involved in each process is complementary: a success tree versus a fault tree. Thus, at each step a system using AD is synthesized, and its reliability is then quantified using the FT derived from the AD synthesis process. The converted FT provides an opportunity to examine the completeness of the outcome from the synthesis process. This study presents an example of the design of a Containment Heat Removal System (CHRS). A case study illustrates the process of designing the CHRS with an interactive design framework focusing on the conversion of the AD process to FTA.

Nov. 2000.
One of the most important tasks in robust design is to select an appropriate system output response in the study. The quality of this selection will greatly affect the effectiveness of the robust design project. Currently, this selection process is more like art than science. By using TRIZ and Axiomatic Design principle, several new approaches to enhance robust design are developed. These approaches enable us to select the appropriate system output response in a systematic fashion. The approach described in this paper was successfully applied and verified in a case study in a large automotive company.

Nov. 2000.
This paper describes how to use the framework of Axiomatic Design to identify a proper system output response and bridge the gap between the conceptual design and the parameter design to facilitate the upfront robustness thinking, which is an extension to the methodology, presented in Part I. Part II builds upon the rationale presented in Part I for the proper identification of system output response in a more complex technical system. It could be, for instance, be a design review process to investigate how a design concept may be optimized to desensitize the side effects of noise factors. It is shown that using bottom-up approach based on axiomatic design bridges the gap between conceptual design and parameter design. By applying the method in Part II, engineer gains deeper insight of design concept structure and the physical effects of the corresponding design parameters.