Design process improvement [electronic resource] : A review of current practice / edited by John Clarkson, Claudia Eckert.Material type: TextLanguage: English Publisher: London : Springer London, 2005Description: XV, 560 p. online resourceContent type: text Media type: computer Carrier type: online resourceISBN: 9781846280610Subject(s): Engineering | Computer science | Engineering design | Machinery | Industrial management | Engineering | Engineering Design | Management/Business for Professionals | Manufacturing, Machines, Tools | User Interfaces and Human Computer InteractionAdditional physical formats: Printed edition:: No titleDDC classification: 620.0042 LOC classification: TA174Online resources: Click here to access online
The reality of design -- Design issues -- Models of designing -- Design planning and modelling -- Systems engineering -- Requirements engineering -- Human resources -- Artificial intelligence for design process improvement -- Complexity -- Thinking and representing in design -- Communication in design -- Engineering change -- Risk in the design process -- Design for X -- Engineering knowledge management -- Quality management -- Workflow for design -- Integrated new product development -- Product portfolio management -- The transfer of methods into industry -- Design research -- Institute of Theoretical Psychology, University of Bamberg -- Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, University of Bath -- Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge -- A culture of design research and teaching, Carnegie Mellon University -- Product Development and Machine Elements, Darmstadt University of Technology -- School of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology -- The Design Group, Technical University of Denmark -- The Systems Realization Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology -- Engineering Design Research, University of Grenoble -- Institute of Machine Design and Automotive Engineering, University of Karlsruhe (TH) -- Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University -- Information Technologies in Mechanical Engineering, University of Magdeburg -- Design Process Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- Institute of Product Development, Technische Universität München -- Engineering Design Centre, University of Newcastle -- Center for Design Research, Stanford University -- Integrated Product Development, the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm -- The CAD Centre, University of Strathclyde -- BAE SYSTEMS/Rolls-Royce University Technology Partnership for Design -- M.J. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University -- Technological Innovation Research Group, Politecnico di Torino -- Intelligent Interactive Distributed Systems, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam -- The Center for Engineering Learning and Technology, University of Washington.
vi The process is important! I learned this lesson the hard way during my previous existence working as a design engineer with PA Consulting Group's Cambridge Technology Centre. One of my earliest assignments involved the development of a piece of labo- tory automation equipment for a major European pharmaceutical manufacturer.Two things stick in my mind from those early days – first, that the equipment was always to be ready for delivery in three weeks and,second,that being able to write well structured Pascal was not sufficient to deliver reliable software performance. Delivery was ultimately six months late,the project ran some sixty percent over budget and I gained my first promotion to Senior Engineer. At the time it puzzled me that I had been unable to predict the John Clarkson real effort required to complete the automation project – I had Reader in Engineering Design, genuinely believed that the project would be finished in three Director, Cambridge Engineering weeks.It was some years later that I discovered Kenneth Cooper's Design Centre papers describing the Rework Cycle and realised that I had been the victim of “undiscovered rework”.I quickly learned that project plans were not just inaccurate,as most project managers would attest,but often grossly misleading,bearing little resemblance to actual development practice.