In redesign and design for customization, products are changed. During this process a change to one part of the product will, in most cases, result in changes to other parts. The prediction of such change provides a significant challenge in the management of redesign and customization of complex products where many change propagation paths may be possible. This paper reports on an analysis of change behavior based on a case study in Westland Helicopters of rotorcraft design; the development of mathematical models to predict the risk of change propagation in terms of likelihood and impact of change; and the development of a prototype computer support tool to calculate such information for a specific product. With knowledge of likely change propagation paths and their impact on the delivery of the product, design effort can be directed towards avoiding change to “expensive” sub-systems and, where possible, allowing change where it is easier to implement while still achieving the overall changes required.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
helicopters, product design, aerospace industry, CAD
Topics:
Design, Helicopters, Risk
1.
Lindemann, U., and Reichwald, R., eds., 1998, Integriertes A¨nderungsmanagement, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
2.
Simon, H., 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Boston, USA.
3.
Suh, N. P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
4.
Westland Helicopters, 1999, Technical Report No. GKN/EH101/6/99, Westland Helicopters.
5.
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P. J., and Zanker, W., 2004, “Customisation in Complex Engineering Domains,” Research in Engineering Design, 15(1), pp. 1–21.
6.
Steward
,
D. V.
,
1981
, “
The Design Structure System: A Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems
,”
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
,
EM-28
(
3
), pp.
71
–
74
.
7.
Browning
,
T. R.
,
2001
, “
Applying the Design Structure Matrix to System Decomposition and Integration Problems: A Review and New Directions
,”
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
,
48
(
3
), pp.
292
–
306
.
8.
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
), pp.
1
–
13
.
9.
Smith
,
R. P.
, and
Eppinger
,
S. D.
,
1997
, “
Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration
,”
Management Science
,
43
(
3
), pp.
276
–
293
.
10.
Browning, T. R., and Eppinger, S. D., 2000, “Modelling the Impact of Process Architecture on Cost and Schedule Risk in Product Development,” MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 4130, MIT, Boston, MA.
11.
Schach
,
S. R.
, and
Tomer
,
A.
,
2000
, “
A Maintenance-oriented Approach to Software Construction
,”
Journal of Software Maintenance-Research and Practice
,
12
(
1
), pp.
25
–
45
.
12.
Rajlich
,
V.
,
2000
, “
Modeling Software Evolution by Evolving Interoperation Graphs
,”
Annals of Software Engineering
,
9
, pp.
235
–
248
.
13.
Ollinger, G. A., and Stahovich, T. F., 2001 “RedesignIT—A Constraint-based Tool for Managing Design Changes,” Proc. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology, Pittsburgh, USA.
14.
Cohen
,
T.
,
Navthe
,
S.
, and
Fulton
,
R. E.
,
2000
, “
C-FAR, Change Favorable Representation
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
32
, pp.
321
–
338
.
15.
Sudjianto, A., and Otto, K., 2001 “Modularization to Support Multiple Brand Platforms,” Proc. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology, Pittsburgh, USA.
16.
Martin
,
M. V.
, and
Ishii
,
K.
,
2002
, “
Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularised Product Platform Architectures
,”
Research in Engineering Design
,
13
(
4
), pp.
213
–
235
.
17.
Sered, S., and Reich, Y., 2003 “Standardization and Modularization Driven by Minimizing Overall Process Effort,” Proc. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, USA.
18.
Clarkson
,
P. J.
, and
Hamilton
,
J. R.
,
2000
, “
‘Signposting’: A Parameter-driven Task-based Model of the Design Process
,”
Research in Engineering Design
,
12
(
1
), pp.
18
–
38
.
19.
Jarratt, T. A. W., Eckert, C., and Clarkson, P. J., 2003 “Linkage Analysis,” Technical Report No. CUED/C-EDC/TR124, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
20.
DefStan 00-56, 1996, Defense Standard 00-56 (PART 1)/Issue 2: Safety Management Requirements for Defense Systems, UK Ministry of Defense, Glasgow, UK.
21.
Coppendale
,
J.
,
1995
, “
Manage Risk in Product and Process Development and Avoid Unpleasant Surprises
,”
Engineering Management Journal
,
pp.
35
-
8
.
22.
Jarratt, T. A. W., Eckert, C., Clarkson, P. J., and Schwankl, L., 2002 “Product Architecture and the Propagation of Engineering Change,” Proc. 7th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Vol. 1, pp. 75–80.
Copyright © 2004
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.