Abstract

Design Structure Matrix clustering analysis requires reliable evaluation results of interface cohesion among interfacing elements to produce an effective result. However, the existing cohesion evaluation methods such as the Pimmler and Eppinger’s or Sharman’s can provide biased subjective evaluation results depending on the characteristics of the individual evaluator. In this study, we propose a new quantitative evaluation method for the interface cohesion based on the amount of information being exchanged among the interfacing elements. The study shows the comparison results for interface cohesion evaluation between those of the existing methods and the new method to demonstrate the merits of the proposed method.

Keywords:

Clustering, DSM, entrophy, interface cohesion,

References

1. Baldwin, C.Y. and K. Clark, 2002. The option value of modularity in design. Harvard NOM Research Paper, 3(11).
   
2. Börjesson, F., 2012. Approaches to modularity in product architecture. Licentiate Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Retrieved from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:530891/FULLTEXT02.
   Direct Link
3. Borjesson, F. and K. Hölttä-Otto, 2012. Improved clustering algorithm for design structure matrix. Proceeding of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE).
   CrossRef    
4. Borjesson, F. and K. Hölttä-Otto, 2014. A module generation algorithm for product architecture based on component interactions and strategic drivers. Res. Eng. Des., 25(1): 31-51.
   CrossRef    
5. Browning, T.R., 2001. Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 48(3): 292-306.
   CrossRef    
6. Cabrera, A.A.A., H. Komoto, T.J. van Beek and T. Tomiyama, 2014. Architecture-centric Design Approach for Multidisciplinary Product Development. In: Simpson, T.W., J. Jiao, Z. Siddique and K. Hölttä-Otto (Eds.), Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. Springer, New York, pp: 419-447.
   CrossRef    PMid:23645508    
7. Chakrabarti, A., K. Shea, R. Stone, J. Cagan, M. Campbell, N.V. Hernandez and K.L. Wood, 2011. Computer-based design synthesis research: An overview. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 11(2): 021003.
   CrossRef    
8. Fixson, S.K. and J.K. Park, 2008. The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation and industry structure. Res. Policy, 37(8): 1296-1316.
   CrossRef    
9. Ko, Y.T., 2013. Optimizing product architecture for complex design. Concurrent Eng., 21(2): 87-102.https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X13482472
   CrossRef    
10. Li, S. and M. Mirhosseini, 2012. A matrix-based modularization approach for supporting secure collaboration in parametric design. Comput. Ind., 63(6): 619-631.
    CrossRef    
11. Oh, S.G. and P. Park, 2015. The structured model for function allocation analysis. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol., 7(2): 114-128.
    Direct Link
12. Parnas, D.L., 2002. On the Criteria to be used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. In: Broy, M. and E. Denert (Eds.), Software Pioneers. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 411-427.
    CrossRef    
13. Pil, F.K. and S.K. Cohen, 2006. Modularity: implications for imitation, innovation and sustained advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev., 31(4): 995-1011.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22528166
    CrossRef    
14. Pimmler, T.U. and S.D. Eppinger, 1994. Integration analysis of product decompositions. Proceeding of the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference Minneapolis, MN.
    
15. Shannon, C.E., 2001. A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput. Commun. Rev., 5(1): 3-55.https://doi.org/10.1145/584091.584093
    CrossRef    
16. Sharman, D.M., 2002. Valuing Architecture for Strategic Purposes. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
    
17. Sharman, D.M., A.A. Yassine and P. Carlile, 2002. Characterising modular architectures. Proceeding of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
    Direct Link
18. Stone, R.B., K.L. Wood and R.H. Crawford, 2000. A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Stud., 21(1): 5-31.
    CrossRef    
19. Yassine, A. and D. Braha, 2003. Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurrent Eng., 11(3): 165-176.
    CrossRef    
20. Yassine, A., 2004. An introduction to modeling and analyzing complex product development processes using the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) method. Urbana, 51(9): 1-17.
    Direct Link
21. Yu, T.L., A.A. Yassine and D.E. Goldberg, 2003. A genetic algorithm for developing modular product architectures. Proceeding of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp: 515-524.
    CrossRef    
22. Yu, T.L., A.A. Yassine and D.E. Goldberg, 2007. An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms. Res. Eng. Des., 18(2): 91-109.
    CrossRef    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.