|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 39
5
IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN EDUCATION
AND RESEARCH
Rapid changes in computer-based design tools and the increasingly rapid introduction
of new products into a global economy put unprecedented demands on designers and
those who educate them. The demands on practicing engineers include completing
designs in shorter times and operating with a limited knowledge of functional
performance. Engineers must often serve as members of teams whose members are
physically dispersed, teams composed of engineers of various disciplines, or teams that
may include such professionals as lawyers, psychologists, or artists. Finally, the legal
liability associated with designed products requires not only that the product perform as
intended but also that their designs and associated design decisions be documented and
traceable.
It follows that tools to facilitate and enhance the productivity of designers and to
document the basis for design decisions must advance. Several of the available tools are
useful for these ends but have severe limitations. Quality Function Deployment, for
example, can be very subjective, and the Analytical Hierarchy process can be applied
only in simple decisions. Although they are far from perfect, these tools are widely used
because they provide cost-effective solutions for designers.
Several theories of design are not widely used because they are either difficult to
apply (Sub, 1990) or restricted in applicability to a narrow set of circumstances
(Hazeirigg, 1999~. Research to enhance existing theories or develop new ones that could
be broadly applied is highly desirable, and the theories must be applicable in the real
world, where design time and cost are as critical as product features.
This increasing demand and limited supply of adequate tools warrants research to
improve the process of making design decisions. Decision analysis is a particular area for
further investigation in engineering design because it has already established applicability
in other fields. Further developments in engineering theory established on a credible
axiomatic base are desirable as well.
A pervasive need exists for more rigorous design tools that can be easily used and
that apply to a wide range of design processes. Progress in this area has been limited. The
inability of the engineering design community to constructively critique current theories
and to work together to formulate more general tools with wider application is striking.
Recommendation. Constructive dialogue should be encouraged to allow the best
aspects of each method and theory for decision making in engineering design to be
incorporated into common practice. Sponsored academic research could be used as a
mechanism to assist integration of existing theories and development of new ones.
Workshops or other cooperative ventures should be held in which experts establish
s
39
?
OCR for page 40
40
APPROACHES TO IMPROVE ENGINEERING DESIGN
engineering design tools that could evolve into common practice. The ease of use and
practicality of these solutions should be paramount.
Much of the research in decision analysis per se has come from such fields as
business and economics, where the multiplicity of variables renders intuitive reasoning
impractical. Currently, formal decision analysis and decision theory are being confidently
applied in such areas as medicine and business, where they are used to facilitate decisions
with significant impact. This type of state-of-the-art decision making that takes
uncertainty and the cognitive response of decision makers into account could be a
valuable part of engineering design, but no design process tool widely used today in
engineering design is mathematically rigorous and universally applicable.
Far greater productivity of design engineers will result from additional advances in
computing capability to model, simulate, and visualize products; from the understanding
of physical, chemical, and biological systems; and from robust decision analysis tools.
The ability to quantitatively describe the attributes of a successful design through
modeling will continue to improve design methodologies.
A common framework and knowledge base must be established to use more
universally those design or decision-making tools designed for one set of conditions. If
simple and attainable input data can be described, and this data readily used by each tool.
the formal decision-making tools used successfully in other fields and in other design
applications will no doubt increasingly be applied to improving engineering design and
the design tools.
Recommendation. More research should be focused on enhancing design tools and
methods applicable to all engineering disciplines. The increasing complexity of
physical systems, as well as software and biological and medical systems, begs for
increasingly quantitative and transparent tools for making and justifying design
decisions. Research for designers to develop appropriate knowledge bases is
required. The many gaps isolating related tools and theories must be bridged and a
taxonomy to facilitate comparisons between approaches must be created.
Underlying any improvement to engineering design processes must be a sound
foundation in statistics, probability, and mathematics on the part of the practicing
engineer. A brief survey of engineering curricula revealed the first two were given
cursory and, in the committee's view, insufficient treatment. The committee estimates
less than a third of newly graduated engineers have even one formal course in statistics!
For engineers to make informed decisions, they must have a sound understanding of
statistics, mathematics, and probability.
Under current Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)
guidelines, mathematics, such as differential-integral calculus and differential equations,
is required. Statistics, along with linear algebra, numerical methods, and advanced
calculus, is "encouraged." Only industrial engineering undergraduates have a formal
statistics requirement. Just one-fifth of the specialized program requirements give further
emphasis to the importance of statistics, but none require statistics.
;'
s
The mathematics of uncertainty is properly identified as "probability," and the
application of uncertainty, its management, and engineering, is "statistics." Statistics is
the methodology employed when one searches for structure (information) in collections
of data possessing error-prone and noise-like variability. Statistics provides for the
OCR for page 41
IMPLICA TIONS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN ED UCA TION AND RESEAR CH
construction of surveys and experimental plans needed for the production of information-
laden data. Gleaning information from data and succinctly expressing that information
verbally, graphically, and quantitatively should be a part of every engineer's education.
Recommendation. Statistics and probability should be required and incorporated
into the undergraduate engineering curriculum to emphasize their relevance to
engineering design and decision making, process control, and product testing.
.
Engineering design begins with the development of understanding in the form of a
conceptual model of a desired object. Many models may be proposed, each encompassing
extrinsic information coupled to the experience and knowledge of the decision maker or
team. Uncertainties will certainly abound, and decisions among alternatives will be
forced upon the decision team. The theory and practice of making decisions under
uncertainty is clearly appropriate to any study of engineering design.
Once a design and its targets have been defined, the design team begins the task of
moving from general considerations to specific requirements. In this evolutionary
process, decisions are made repeatedly, balancing costs, sensitivity to manufacturing and
environmental variability, product reliability, and customer acceptability. Many tools
assist in providing support for these decisions. Tactile physical models may be used or
computers may construct three-dimensional visualizations. Decision trees and time path
sequences are employed. Matrix displays of weighted attributes that contrast factors
versus responses are almost always used. Patterns of experiments (statistical designs)
may be employed to estimate sensitivities, make comparisons, and elucidate operable
regions. Failure mode and effects analyses are common. These tools provide the basis of
knowledge, the frame upon which decisions are made. The art of engineering design
couples the use of tools to the ability to make the best decision in the face of uncertainty.
Recommendation. Decision-making tools and decision theory should be included in
a required undergraduate design course. Interdisciplinary capstone courses that
include legal, social, and economic issues, as well as team building skills, can be
particularly useful teaching tools and should be included in this undertaking.
Although the authors tried to reach a consensus—and all did generally support most
of the recommendations some held dissenting views that they expressed as follows:
.~
It is not wise to invest more money in developing theoretical
foundations for decision making in design, firstly, because, as
the report indicates, the developments to date are fragmented
and not in any way unified. They are applicable only as adjuncts
to the entire complex design process. Secondly, the new
challenges facing industry (a.k.a. the changing nature of
engineering design) require fundamental changes to the design
process, because most of these new products will require
"creative" designs (Dym's terminology) for new, unique, or
vastly improved products. Such designs are not amenable to
formal methods but require the development of knowledge
bases concurrently with the designs.
s
41
OCR for page 42
Representative terms from entire chapter:
design tools
