2017
DOI: 10.1002/sys.21385
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A study on the Requirements to Support the Accurate Prediction of Engineering Change Propagation

Abstract: This paper builds on previous work in the area of design representation to identify the types of modeling information required to support the accurate prediction of engineering change propagation during the design of complex engineering systems. It uses the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) framework as a basis to examine how engineering changes can occur and how they may subsequently propagate. It was revealed that the relationship between change requirements and product components, the functional dependencie… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
(89 reference statements)
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From such endeavors, it is also straightforward to assume the feasibility of formal performance requirements verification since SysML allows for requirements and specification traceability. Likewise, we may conjecture that other tools of MBSD may further strengthen the legitimacy of the approach: Design Structure Matrices and change‐propagation analyses are becoming standard tools of SysML‐based MBSD . These can help trace dependencies, plan for system upgrade or redesign and perhaps support the rethinking of functional allocation even for the largest of CBPS currently existing (e.g., bench‐size clinical IVMT analyzers).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…From such endeavors, it is also straightforward to assume the feasibility of formal performance requirements verification since SysML allows for requirements and specification traceability. Likewise, we may conjecture that other tools of MBSD may further strengthen the legitimacy of the approach: Design Structure Matrices and change‐propagation analyses are becoming standard tools of SysML‐based MBSD . These can help trace dependencies, plan for system upgrade or redesign and perhaps support the rethinking of functional allocation even for the largest of CBPS currently existing (e.g., bench‐size clinical IVMT analyzers).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The FDO‐DM provides the basis for both defining the system and applying the FDO Execution Model ( FDO‐EM , described in the next subsection). The FDO‐DM is built up generically (ie, without a specific architecture in mind) at a higher level of abstraction, as it is intended to be reused across, and adapted for, specific projects while running in early design phases, when “detailed change information is not readily available and an estimation of change impact is sufficient for further planning.” 46 This implies, on one hand, a high level of elements’ abstraction (eg, Objects ), while, on the other hand, documented relations being only potentially relevant to the context of a particular project, thus requiring confirmation in the project's specific context when running the FDO‐EM .…”
Section: Proposed Fdo Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An exception is the CE s representing heuristics, which can vary in their level of abstraction from general design principles to very specific design guidelines, 47–49 and thus, are applicable for both variant design (changes within defined parameter ranges, such as “add cross‐bracings to a derrick structure”) and adaptive design (changes involving new parameters or new parameter ranges, such as “provide space around Object for spatial expansion”), as suggested by Koh 46 . This also applies to Enabler Reference Objects , which can be a specific Object or a generically defined part of the system (eg, structure or room).…”
Section: Proposed Fdo Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These DSMs could also be used to trace causal paths; for example, in DSM II, the path (1,12,0.33em215,0.33em15) explains how an issue propagates across different components: (1150.33em20.33em1). Although DSM II and III include case‐specific information, DSM I could also include interactions for other applications like change propagation …”
Section: Representing a Case Of Failurementioning
confidence: 99%