A driver for selection of functionally inequivalent concepts at varying levels of abstraction

Journal of Design Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 239-259

  Teegavarapu, Sudhakar ^a   Snider, Mark ^a   Summers, Joshua D ^a   Thompson, Lonny L ^a   Grujicic, Mica ^a  

^a AMRL   (United States)

Author keywords

concept selection; functional inequivalence; levels of abstraction; process criteria

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249156934     PISSN: 17483050     EISSN: 15691551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/jdr.2007.015571     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Benjamin, P., Erraguntla, M., Delen, D. and Mayer, R. (1998) ‘Simulation modeling at multiple levels of abstraction’, Paper presented in the Proceedings of the 1998 winter simulation conference, pp.391–398, ISBN: 0-7803-5134-7, Washington, DC.
2. Beuth, V. (1987) Systematic Approach to the Design of Technical Systems and Products. Germany.
3. Dym, C., Wood, W. and Scott, M. (2002) ‘Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts’, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13, pp.236–242.
4. Hazelrigg, G. (1996) Systems Engineering: An Approach to Information-Based Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Hazelrigg, G. (2003) ‘Validation of engineering design alternative selection methods’, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 35, pp.103–120.
6. Iwasaki, Y. (1990) ‘Reasoning with multiple abstraction models’, Paper presented in the Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Qualitative Physics, p.183, Lugano, Switzerland.
7. Mullur, A.A., Mattson, C.A. and Messac, A. (2003) ‘Pitfalls of the typical construction of decision matrices for concept selection’, Paper presented in the Proceedings of the 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, NV, AIAA 2003-0466.
8. Osborn, A. (1979) Applied Imagination. New York, NY: Scribners.
9. Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
10. Pugh, S. (1991) Total Design. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.
11. Saaty, T. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. St. Louis, MO: McGraw Hill.
12. Salonen, M. and Perttula, M. (2005) ‘Utilization of concept selection methods: a survey of Finnish industry’, International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, ASME, Vol. DTM, Long Beach, CA, 85047.
13. Savransky, S. (2000) Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
14. SCC-Concept Lab Volvo (2005) Available at: http://www.volvocars.com/AboutVolvo/ConceptLab/ConceptLabVolvo.htm, Volvo Cars, 2005, accessed: May 2005.
15. Shah, J.J. (1998) ‘Experimental investigation of collaborative techniques for progressive idea generation’, Design Engineering Technical Conferences, ASME, Vol. DETC-1998, Atlanta, GA, DTM-5676.
16. Shah, J.J. and Wilson, P. (1989) ‘Analysis of design abstraction, representation, and inferencing requirements for computer-aided design’, Design Studies, Vol. 10, pp.169–178.
17. Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Summers, J.D. and Kulkarni, S. (2001) ‘Collaborative sketching (C-sketch): an idea generation technique for engineering design’, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 35, pp.168–198.
18. Summers, J.D. and Shah, J.J. (2004) ‘Representation in engineering design: a framework for classification’, Design Engineering Technical Conferences, ASME, Vol. DETC-2004, Salt Lake City, UT, DTM-57514.
19. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
20. Van Der Lugt, R. (2002) ‘Brainsketching and how it differs from brainstorming’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 11, p.43.
21. Wong, S. and Nguyen, D. (2005) Abstraction, Available at: http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11785/1.20/, Connexions, accessed: December 2005.