The impact of modelling and simulation technology on engineering problem solving

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 471-489

  Dodgson, Mark ^a   Gann, David M ^b   Salter, Ammon ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING; MODELING; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 34447330436     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537320701403425     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. H. Petroski, To Engineer is Human - the role of failure in successful design (NewYork, St Martin's Press, 1985).
2. Failure is, of course, widespread in many innovative activities; researchers such as Cooper, for example, reveal the high level of failure amongst new products. Success and failure also occasionally takes time to assess: The De Havilland Comet for example was an initial success, and was instrumental in creating the new commercial airline industry, but the product was an eventual failure, marred by a series of crashes caused by metal fatigue. (R. Cooper, Winning at New Products (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1993.)
3. A model is a simplified or idealized description of observed behaviour, system or process and establishes key relationships to showhow something works. Simulation involves the imitation of a behaviour, situation or process by means of a suitable analogy and the manipulation of parameters articulated in a model to ask 'what if' questions should those parameters be changed.
4. CATIA is an integrated suite of computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided engineering (CAE) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) applications for digital product definition and simulation. Developed by Dassault Systemes and marketed internationally by IBM, the software is commonly used for 3D product life cycle design, production and maintenance. CATIA is a premium product; cheaper tools with less functionality are available at a price available to even the smallest firm. It is possible to simulate and model on a relatively simple personal computer. These technologies continue to evolve: The present 3- and 4-dimensional CAD systems are, for example, considerably more advanced in functionality than their predecessors of even a few years ago.
5. M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann & A. Salter, Think, Play, Do: Technology, Innovation and Organization (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005).
6. S. Thomke, Experimentation Matters (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 2002).
7. I. Tuomi, Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet (NewYork, Oxford University Press, 2002).
8. M. Schrage, Serious Play: How theWorld's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 2000).
9. E. Steinmueller, Will new information and communication technologies improve the 'codification' of knowledge, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 2000, p. 361.
10. K. Eisenhardt, Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14, 1989, p. 532.
11. J. B. Burland, The Leaning Tower of Pisa Revisited, Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering NewYork, 2004.
12. Fluid simulation packages include WAVE - a gas dynamics simulation programme enabling performance simulations to be carried out based on intake, combustion and exhaust system design; and VECTIS - a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics programme for solving flow equations governing conservation of mass, momentum and energy. Ricardo has also developed a range of mechanical systems simulations, includingENGDYN - asimulation environment for analyzing the dynamics of the engine and powertrain; VALDYN - for simulating the dynamics of the valvetrain; PISDYN and RINGPAK-simulation packages for design and analysis of piston/ringpack assemblies; and ORBIT - for detailed analysis of bearings.
13. See the case study of Ricardo's partnership with a Chinese company, DLW, in M. Dodgson, Technological Collaboration in Industry (London, Routledge, 1993).
14. Petroski, op. cit., Ref. 1.
15. E. Constant, The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution (Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1980).
16. W. G. Vincenti, What engineers know and how they know it (Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press, 1990).
17. H. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial (Boston, MA, The MIT Press, 1996).
18. L. Perlow, Time Famine: Towards a sociology ofwork time, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1999, p. 57.
19. K. Pavitt, Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't, Industrial and Corporate Change, 7, 1998, p. 433.
20. P. Nightingale, A cognitive model of innovation, Research Policy, 27, 1998, p. 689.
21. G. Dosi, Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation, Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1988, p. 1120.
22. Constant, op. cit., Ref. 12.
23. D. A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action (New York, Basic Books, 2003).
24. Vincenti, op. cit., Ref. 12.
25. Simon, op. cit., Ref. 12.
26. A. Gawer & M. A. Cusumano, Platform Leadership (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Publishing, 2002).
27. S. Brusconi, The limits to specialization. Problem solving and coordination in modular networks, Organization Science, 26, 2005, p. 1885.
28. S. Brusconi, A. Prencipe & K. Pavitt, Knowledge specialisation, organisational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 2001, p. 597.
29. C. Baldwin & K. Clark, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2000).
30. A. Prencipe, A. Davies & M. Hobday, The Business of Systems Integration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003).
31. R. Williams, Retooling: A historian confronts technological change (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2002).
32. T. J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology (Boston, Mass., The MIT Press, 1977).
33. A. Hargadon & R. Sutton, Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1997, p. 716.
34. One of the anonymous referees for this paper refers to the way Isambard Kingdom Brunel relied on John Scott Russell in design conversations and how modelling has always been used in engineering. We are grateful for this insight.
35. Petroski, op. cit., Ref 1.
36. Thomke, op. cit., Ref 6.
37. Ibid.
38. Schrage, op. cit., Ref. 6.
39. Schrage, op. cit., Ref. 6.
40. Schrage, op. cit., Ref. 6.
41. J. Whyte, Virtual reality in the built environment (London, The Architectural Press, 2002).
42. E. R. Tufte, The visual display of quantitative information (Cheshire, CN, Graphics Press, 1983).
43. Dodgson et al., op. cit., Ref. 5.
44. G. Pisano, The Development Factory: Unlocking the Potential of Process Innovation (Boston MA, Harvard Business School Press, 1997).
45. Simon, op. cit., Ref. 12.
46. H. Braverman, Labour and Monopoly Capital (NewYork, Monthly Review Press, 1974).
47. Williams, op. cit., Ref. 21.
48. Frank Gehry in S. Pacey, RIBA Journal, November, 2003, p. 78.
49. E. Von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2005).
50. The relationship between the researchers and Arup has been a lengthy one of over a decade, involving a number of research projects including the study of the use of IvT in other Arup projects apart from the Millennium Bridge.