Utilization of concept selection methods - A survey of finnish industry

Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference - DETC2005

Volumn 5, Issue , 2005, Pages 527-535

  Salonen, Mikko ^a   Perttula, Matti ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; MATRIX ALGEBRA; NUMERICAL METHODS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP); DECISION MAKERS; INDUSTRIAL UTILIZATION; PUGH'S EVALUATION MATRIX;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN;

EID: 33244454541     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1115/detc2005-85047     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Ulrich K.T., Eppinger S.D., 2000, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2nd ed.
2. Andreasen M.M., 2001, The Contribution of Design Research to Industry - Reflections on 20 years of ICED Conferences, Proceedings of ICED'Ol, August 21-23, 2001.Glasgow, UK
3. Araujo C.S., Benedetto-Neto H., Campello A.C., Segre P.M., Wright I.C., 1996, The Utilization of Product Development Methods: A Survey of UK Industry, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 7, pp. 265-277
4. Whybrev K., Shaw A., Aitchison D., Raine J., 2001, Use of Design Tools and Methodologies for Rapid Product Development in the New Zealand Manufacturing Industry, Proceedings of ICED'Ol, August 21-23, 2001, Glasgow, UK
5. Janhager J., Persson S., Warell A., 2002, Survey on Product Development Methods, Design Competencies, and Communication in Swedish Industry, Proceedings of TMCE 2002 - the Fourth International Symposium on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, April 2002. China, pp. 189-200
6. Höhne G., Henkel V., Müller H.D., Decker A., Klöcker S., 2004, Computer-supported Design Education for Lifelong Learning for Innovative Product Development, Proceedings of NordDesign 2004, Tampere, Finland, August 18-19, 2004, pp. 350-360
7. Liu Y.-C., Bligh T., Chakrabarti A., 2003, Towards an 'Ideal' Approach for Concept Generation. Design Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 341-355
8. Pugh S., 1996, Creative Innovative Products Using Total Design, Addison-Wesley, p.544
9. Miller G.A., 1956, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63, pp. 81-97
10. Baddeley A., 2003, Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward, Nature Reviews, Vol. 4, pp. 829-839
11. Fricke G., 1999, Successful Approaches in Dealing with Differently Precise Design Problems, Design Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 417-429
12. Salonen M., Hansen C.T., Perttula M., 2005, Evolution of Property Predictability During Conceptual Design, Proceedings of ICED'05, August 15-18, 2005, Melbourne, Australia
13. Wassenaar H.J., Chen W., 2001, An Approach to Decision-Based Design, Proceedings of ASME DETC'01, September 9 - 12, 2001, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
14. Yeo S.H., Mak M.W., Balon A.P, 2004, Analysis of Decision-making Methodologies for Desirability Score of Conceptual Design, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 15, pp. 195-208
15. Andreasen M.M., 1996, Challenges in Nordic Design Research, Proceedings of NordDesign 1996, August 28-30, 1996, Espoo, Finland
16. Otto K.N., Wood K.L., 1995, Estimating Errors in Concept Selection, Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Boston, MA, USA, 1995
17. King A.M., Sivaloganathan S., 1999, Development of a Methodology for Concept Selection in Flexible Design Strategies, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 10, pp. 329-349
18. Takai S., Ishii K., 2004, Modifying Puh's Design Concept Evaluation Methods, Proceedings of ASME DETC'04, September 28 - October 2, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
19. Pugh S., 1981, Concept Selection: A Method That Works, Proceedings of the 1981 International Conference on Engineering Design, Rome
20. Pahl G., Beitz W., 1984, Engineering Design, Design Council, London
21. See T.-K., Lewis K., 2002, Multiattribute Decision Making Using Hypothetical Equivalents, Proceedings of ASME DETC'02, September 29 - October 2, 2002, Montreal, Canada
22. Salonen M., 2004, A Concept Development Support Tool for Multiattribute Decision Making, Proceedings of NordDesign 2004, Tampere, Finland, August 18-19, 2004, pp. 31-41
23. Saaty T.L., 1990, How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Europeal Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48, pp. 9-26
24. Triantaphyllou E., Mann S., 1995, Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges, International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, Vol. 2, pp. 35-44
25. Thurston D.L., Carnahan J.V., 1992, Fuzzy Ratings and Utility Analysis in Preliminary Design Evaluation of Multiple Attributes, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 114, pp. 648-658
26. Hauser J., Clausing D., 1988, The House of Quality, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 67-73
27. Cohen L., 1995, Quality Function Deployment - How to Make QFD Work For You, Addison-Wesley, p. 348
28. Almefelt L., Andersson F., 2004, Requirements as a Means to Drive Innovation - a Reason-Based Perspective, Proceedings of ASME DETC'04, September 28 - October 2, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
29. Dym C.L., Wood W.H., Scott M.J., 2002, Rank Ordering Engineering Designs: Pairwise Comparison Charts and Borda Counts, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13, pp. 236-242
30. Eder W.E., 1998, Design Modelling - a Design Science Approach (and Why Does Industry Not Use It?), Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 9, pp. 355-371
31. Frost R.B., 1999, Why Does Industry Ignore Design Science, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 10, pp. 301-304
32. Günther J., Ehrlenspiel K., 1999, Comparing Designers from Practice and Designers with Systematic Design Education, Design Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 439-451
33. Bender B., Kammerer U., Pietzker F., Hacker W., Blessing L., 2001, Successful Strategies for Complex Design in Early Phases of the Product Development Process - an Empirical Study, Proceedings of ICED'01, August 21 -23, 2001, Glasgow, UK, pp. 173-180
34. OECD, 2002, Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2002, http://www.oecd.org, Read: February 3, 2005
35. Thurston D.L., 2001, Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 123, pp. 176-182
36. National Science Foundation, 1996, Research Opportunities in Engineering Design, NSF Strategic Planning Workshop, Final report, April 1996, USA
37. Hein L., 1994, Design Methodology in Practice, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 5, pp. 165-181