Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design structure network (DSN): a method to make explicit the product design specification process for mass customization

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The process of product design specification is subjective in nature and this motivates the application of approaches and methods to make it explicit. Among the available approaches, the systematization of the development of a single product, modular products, family of products and products for mass customization stands out. Among the methods, the design structure matrix (DSM) is highlighted, as well as the use of networks to represent the variables and their interdependence relations. Representation is very important to increase the cognitive capacity of those involved in the design and to facilitate communication between specialists and non-specialists. The clarification of the knowledge and reasoning of the design increases the complexity of the specification, which needs to be managed. In this work, the method called design structure network (DSN) is proposed, allowing the visualization of the design variables as nodes of a network and the relations of interdependence as links and the specification reasoning can be represented as a path that connects the nodes in a network. For the management of network complexity, ten principles based on cognitive processes are implemented. The DSN method was applied in the geometric specification of surfboard, and the results obtained show the potential of graphical representation of the specification reasoning, as well as the ability to reduce the complexity of the network.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adobe Systems Inc. (2018) Adobe portable document format. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/adobepdf.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2018

  • Ahmad S, Schroeder RG, Mallick DN (2010) The relationship among modularity, functional coordination, and mass customization: Implications for competitiveness. Eur J Innov Manag 13(1):46–61

    Google Scholar 

  • AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H (2012) Product variety management in design and manufacturing: challenges and strategies. Enabling manufacturing competitiveness and economic sustainability Springer. Heidelberg, Germany, Berlin, pp 518–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj V, Mrvar A (1998) Pajek-program for large network analysis. Connections 21(2):47–57

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis K, Zhang G, McAdams DA (2018) Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity. Res Eng Des 29(4):547–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Belt A, Von Hagel K, Ferguson S (2015) Navigating redesign and market desirability implications when considering increased product variety. J Eng Des 26(7–9):236–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianconi F, Filippucci M, Buffi A (2019) Automated design and modeling for mass-customized housing: a web-based design space catalog for timber structures. Autom Constr 103:13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackenfelt M (2001) Managing complexity by product modularization—balancing the aspects of technology and business during the design process. Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

  • Bondy J, Murty U (1976) Graph theory with applications. Macmillan Press, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bonev M (2015) Enabling mass customization in engineer-to-order industries: a multiple case study analysis on concepts, methods and tools. Ph.D. Thesis. DTU Management Engineering. DTU Management Engineering

  • Bonev M, Hvam L, Clarkson J, Maier A (2015) Formal computer-aided product family architecture design for mass customization. Comput Ind 74:58–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonvoisin J, Halstenberg F, Buchert T, Stark R (2016) A systematic literature review on modular product design. J Eng Des 27(7):488–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Braha D (2016) The complexity of design networks: Structure and dynamics. Experimental design research. Springer, Cham, pp 129–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2004a) Topology of large-scale engineering problem-solving networks. Phys Rev E 69(1):016113

    Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2004b) Information flow structure in large-scale product development organizational networks. J Inf Technol 19(4):244–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2007) The statistical mechanics of complex product development: empirical and analytical results. Manag Sci 53(7):1127–1145

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Maimon O (1998) The measurement of a design structural and functional complexity. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 28(4):527–535

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Maimon O (2013) A mathematical theory of design: foundations, algorithms and applications, vol 17. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Reich Y (2003) Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes. Res Eng Des 14(4):185–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasegaran SK, Ramani K, Sriram RD, Horváth I, Bernard A, Harik RF, Gao W (2013) The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems. Comput Aided Des 45:204–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Xiao R, Wang H (2018) A method for coupling analysis of association modules in product family design. J Eng Des 29(6):327–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins AM, Loftus EF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82(6):407–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education 79–103

  • Du X, Jiao J, Tseng MM (2003) Identifying customer need patterns for customization and personalization. Integr Manuf Syst 14(5):387–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellson J, Gansner E, Koutsofios L, North S, Woodhull G (2001) Graphviz—open source graph drawing tools. International symposium on graph drawing. Springer, Berlin, pp 483–484

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eng N, Aurisicchio M, Bracewell R, Armstrong G (2012) Mapping for design decision support in industry. In: ASME 2012 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, pp 579–590

  • Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications

  • Fettermann DC, Tortorella GL, Taboada CM (2019) Mass customization process in companies from the housing sector in Brazil. In: Cortés-Robles G, García-Alcaraz J, Alor-Hernández G (eds) Managing innovation in highly restrictive environments, management and industrial engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Flager F, Gerber DJ, Kallman B (2014) Measuring the impact of scale and coupling on solution quality for building design problems. Des Stud 35(2):180–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogliatto FS, Silveira GJ, Borenstein D (2012) The mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature. Int J Prod Econ 138(1):14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganguly K, Poo MM (2013) Activity-dependent neural plasticity from bench to bedside. Neuron 80(3):729–741

    Google Scholar 

  • Gansner E, Koutsofios E, North S (2015) Drawing graphs with dot. https://www.graphviz.org/pdf/dotguide.pdf

  • Graphviz (2019) Graphviz user guide. https://graphviz.readthedocs.io/en/stable/manual.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2019

  • Griffin A, Hauser JR (1993) The voice of the customer. Mark Sci 12(1):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Haug A, Ladeby K, Edwards K (2009) From engineer-to-order to mass customization. Manag Res News 32(7):633–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein PH, Voris N, Morkos B (2018) Predicting requirement change propagation through investigation of physical and functional domains. Res Eng Design 29(2):309–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao SW, Huang HC (2002) A neural network based approach for product form design. Des Stud 23(1):67–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hvam L, Malis M, Hansen B, Riis J (2004) Reengineering of the quotation process: application of knowledge based systems. Bus Process Manag J 10(2):200–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaber H, Marle F, Vidal LA, Didiez L (2018) Criticality and propagation analysis of impacts between project deliverables. Res Eng Design 29(1):87–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J, Chen CH (2006) Customer requirement management in product development: a review of research issues. Concurr Eng 14(3):173–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao JR, Simpson TW, Siddique Z (2007) Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 18(1):5–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Jose A, Tollenaere M (2005) Modular and platform methods for product family design: literature analysis. J Intell Manuf 16(3):371–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung S, Simpson TW (2016) An integrated approach to product family redesign using commonality and variety metrics. Res Eng Design 27(4):391–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Karniel A, Reich Y (2009) From DSM-based planning to design process simulation: a review of process scheme logic verification issues. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 56(4):636–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler P (1989) From mass marketing to mass customization. Planning review 17(5):10–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnapillai R, Zeid A (2006) Mapping product design specification for mass customization. J Intell Manuf 17(1):29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee J (1997) Design rationale systems: understanding the issues. IEEE Expert 12(3):78–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma J, Kim HM (2016) Product family architecture design with predictive, data-driven product family design method. Res Eng Design 27(1):5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinec T, Pavković N (2014) Visualization of information traceability in product development. In: DS 77: proceedings of the DESIGN, 13th international design conference. Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp 1831–1842

  • McKay EN (2013) UI is communication: how to design intuitive, user centered interfaces by focusing on effective communication. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay A, de Pennington A, Baxter J (2001) Requirements management: a representation scheme for product specifications. Comput Aided Des 33(7):511–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkola JH (2007) Management of product architecture modularity for mass customization: modeling and theoretical considerations. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 54(1):57–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Toyama R (2015) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Essent Knowl Manag 1:95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin, p 632

    Google Scholar 

  • Park K, Kremer GEO (2019) An investigation on the network topology of an evolving product family structure and its robustness and complexity. Res Eng Des 1:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Parraguez P, Eppinger S, Maier A (2016) Characterizing design process interfaces as organization networks: Insights for engineering systems management. Syst Eng 19(2):158–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasqual MC, Weck OL (2012) Multilayer network model for analysis and management of change propagation. Res Eng Design 23(4):305–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavković N, Štorga M, Bojčetić N, Marjanović D (2013) Facilitating design communication through engineering information traceability. AI EDAM 27(2):105–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen SN, Christensen ME, Howard TJ (2016) Robust design requirements specification: a quantitative method for requirements development using quality loss functions. J Eng Des 27(8):544–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Piller FT, Walcher D (2006) Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Manag 36(3):307–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Piller FT, Moeslein K, Stotko CM (2004a) Does mass customization pay? An economic approach to evaluate customer integration. Prod Plan Control 15(4):435–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Piller FT, Schubert P, Koch M, Moesleim K (2004b) From mass customization to collaborative customer codesign

  • Pirmoradi Z, Wang GG, Simpson TW (2014) A review of recent literature in product family design and platform-based product development. In: Jiao J, Siddique Z, Hölttä-Otto K (eds) Advances in product family and product platform design. Springer, New York, pp 1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Python Software Foundation (2019) Python. Available at: http://www.python.org/. Accessed 11 Mar 2019

  • Rakic P (2002) Progress: neurogenesis in adult primate neocortex: an evaluation of the evidence. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(1):65

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh B, Jarke M (2001) Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(1):58–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y (2000) Improving the rationale capture capability of QFD. Eng Comput 16(3–4):236–252

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Silveira GJ, Borenstein D, Fogliatto FS (2001) Mass customization: literature review and research directions. Int J Prod Econ 72(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson TW (2004) Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 18(1):3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha K, Weck OL (2013) A network-based structural complexity metric for engineered complex systems. In: IEEE international systems conference (SysCon), pp 426–430

  • Sorima Neto J (2016) Surfing generates R$ 7 billion a year in clothes, boards and accessories. https://oglobo.globo.com/economia/surfe-movimenta-7-bi-ao-ano-em-roupas-pranchas-acessorios-20547660(in Portuguese)

  • Stamatis DH (2003) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn. American Society for Quality, Quality Press, USA, Milwaukee

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen M, Manschot M, De Koning N (2011) Benefits of co-design in service design projects. Int J Des 5(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Steward DV (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 3:71–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump B, Badurdeen F (2012) Integrating lean and other strategies for mass customization manufacturing: a case study. J Intell Manuf 23(1):109–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh NP (1999) Applications of axiomatic design. Integration of process knowledge into design support systems 1–46

  • Sun H, Fan S (2018) Car sequencing for mixed-model assembly lines with consideration of changeover complexity. J Manuf Syst 46:93–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzić N, Sandrin E, Suzić S, Forza C, Trentin A, Anišić Z (2018) Implementation guidelines for mass customization: a researcher-oriented view. Int J Ind Eng Manag 9(4):229–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang D, Zhu R, Tang J, Xu R, He R (2010) Product design knowledge management based on design structure matrix. Adv Eng Inform 24(2):159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng MM, Jiao J (1998a) Design for mass customization by developing product family architecture. In: Otto K (ed) ASME design for manufacture conference. DETC98/DFM-5717. Atlanta, USA

  • Tseng MM, Jiao J (1998b) Computer-aided requirement management for product definition: a methodology and implementation. Concurr Eng 6(2):145–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng MM, Jiao J, Merchant ME (1996) Design for mass customization. CIRP Ann 45(1):153–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich K, Eppinger SD (2011) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Valenti S, Panti M, Cucchiarelli A (1998) Overcoming communication obstacles in user-analyst interaction for functional requirements elicitation. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 23(1):50–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Violante MG, Vezzetti E, Alemanni M (2017) An integrated approach to support the Requirement Management (RM) tool customization for a collaborative scenario. Int J Interact Des Manuf (IJIDeM) 11(2):191–204

    Google Scholar 

  • W3C SVG Working Group (2019) Scalable vector graphics (SVG). http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/. Accessed 25 Feb 2019

  • Wang M (2016) A network-based approach for analyzing and predicting customer-product relations in engineering design. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

  • Ware C (2012) Information visualization: perception for design. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren A, Gibson C (2013) Crafting regional cultural production: emergence, crisis and consolidation in the Gold Coast surfboard industry. Aust Geogr 44(4):365–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren A, Gibson C (2015) Manufacturing stoke: emergence, transformation and consolidation in the surfboard industry. In: Handbook of manufacturing industries in the world economy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

  • Warren A, Gibson C (2017) Subcultural enterprises, brand value, and limits to financialized growth: the rise and fall of corporate surfing brands. Geoforum 86:177–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Woody T (2009) Surf’s up, waste’s down. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/business/energy-environment/19SURF.html. Accessed 28 Sep 2018

  • Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2018) Process models in design and development. Res Eng Design 29(2):161–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon BS, Jetter AJ (2015) Connecting customers with engineers for the successful fuzzy front end: requirements of tools. In: 2015 IEEE Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology (PICMET), pp 1585–1595

  • Zhou W, Wu D, Ding X, Rosen DW (2010) Customer co-design of computer mouse for mass customization without causing mass confusion. In: IEEE international conference on manufacturing automation, pp 8–15

Download references

Funding

This article was funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of Brazil (Grant nos. 309109/2017-5, 140650/2015-6).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Guilherme Branco Loureiro, Joao Carlos Espindola Ferreira & Paulo Henrique Zen Messerschmidt

Authors
  1. Guilherme Branco Loureiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joao Carlos Espindola Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paulo Henrique Zen Messerschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joao Carlos Espindola Ferreira.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loureiro, G.B., Ferreira, J.C.E. & Messerschmidt, P.H.Z. Design structure network (DSN): a method to make explicit the product design specification process for mass customization. Res Eng Design 31, 197–220 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-020-00331-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-020-00331-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation