- Email: [email protected]
Performance Evaluation of the Collaborative Design Process
ELSEVIER
Copyright © IFAC Infonnation Control Problems in Manufacturing, Salvador, Brazil, 2004
IFAC PUBLICATIONS www.elsevier.comllocatelifac
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS Vincent ROBIN
1 ,
Philippe GIRARDl and David BARANDIARAN2
I Laboratoire d'Au/omatique et de Productique - Groupe GRAI. UMR 5131 CNRS. Universite Bordeaux 1. 351 cours de la Liberation. 33405 Talence Cedex. France. Tel.: +33540002407; fax : +33540006644 E-Mail: robin({illap-lI.bordeauxl.fr . girardfZV.lap-lI. bordeaux 1.(,.
2 EADS
CCR. Engineering and Information Technologies Department - Enterprise Engineering. Centreda 1- 4 avenue Didier Daurat 31700 Blagnac. France. Tel : + 33561 188747 E-Mail: davidbal"andiaran(j/!airhus.com
Abstract: Nowadays the design process of a product is more and more collaborative and involves the creation of working groups and the control of collaborative work . This paper presents a model to evaluate design performances. The proposed concept of design environment permits to follow and to manage collaborative design process. Then we present a frame to analyse the as-is design situation, to develop a design environment with an adapted performance measurement system and to follow the progress of the design process. Copyright © 20041FAC Keywords : design performance, collaborative design, project management, design environment.
1.
INTRODUCTION
problem and information permit to take into account process and organisational aspects. Team's design approach affects collaborative design process and concerns the design tools (how progress is evaluated), the structure of the design approach and the process type. Type of design, coupling of sub-tracks, the level of abstraction, the scope and the complexity defines the nature of the design problem. It permits to understand the design problem and consequently to create an adequate multi-disciplinary team . In this taxonomy, the information flow throughout the design process is considered. Ostergaard and Summers judge this flow as a crucial measure of collaborative design effectiveness. Despite, this taxonomy has to be completed to permit the management of the collaborative design process. Management and evaluation of the design process have to integrate product, process and organisational aspects but have also to place actor on a central place. Actor has to be considered as the principal vector of performance in the design process. This article focuses on the evaluation of design process performance with a specific view on the actor. This evaluation is proposed through the GRAI model, completed with the design environment concept. The first part describes the GRAI model and defines the concept of design environment. Then the dynamic aspects of management and evaluation of design process is proposed thanks to design environments. The second part underlines the actor' s predominance in the evaluation of the design process and describes characteristics of a performance measurement system centred on actors. Finally, an example presents the use of the design environment and the influence of a performance measurement system centred on actor for design process management.
Design process is more and more complex and has to satisfy objectives of cost, delay and quality more and more restrictive. Design processes have to integrate more and more expertises and are based now on the collaboration between actors (Poveda, 200 I). In this context, one objective of management is to define and to organise the system where the design transformation will take place, according to the needs for collaboration. Therefore, the collaborative process management requires understanding of design processes context (Chiu, 2003) in order to modify the actors' work. This context is defined considering the product and process aspects but also with a view to the human, social and organisational aspects. Ostergaard and Summers (2003) have proposed taxonomy of collaborative design, which is developed around six attributes: o Team composition o Communication o Distribution o Design approach o Information o Nature of the problem This taxonomy is relevant and brings a new vision of the description of the design situation, since it considers human, organisational and procedural aspects. Human aspects are defined thanks to team composition, communication and distribution. Team composition focuses on the impact of each actor on effective team performance. Communication describes the communication system that is necessary to develop in order to share expertise, ideas, resources or responsibilities. Distribution represents how team members and information are distributed across some variety of boundaries. Design approach, nature of the
335
2.
the system, it obliges to develop . a performance measurement system that considers design objectives, action levers and performance indicators. Performance indicators are necessary to evaluate pertinence of each intermediate situation, according to the global objectives. Identification of the action levers, associated to each performance indicator, permits to decision-maker to adapt the design context, in order to design actors could achieve design objectives. When these interactions are defined, it's possible to create and to implement the performance indicators system, to manage the design process. It permits to follow and to evolve design environment.
GRAI MODEL TO MANAGE DESIGN PROCESS
During design process management, collaborative design context and each element described in the Ostergaard's taxonomy have to be managed. So, it's necessary to use a model that considers all these aspects. Our literature review indicates that no model really takes into account all these aspects. The GRAI model integrates some of these and it could be used (Girard and Eynard, 1999; Girard and Doumeingts, 2003). Despite, it must be completed with the model of design environment, to permit the integration of the collaborative aspects. The GRAI model decomposes the design system in a perfect adequacy with the co-ordination decisions (Figure I). Consequently, the follow-up of the design situation evolution is easier and really permits to decisionmakers to co-ordinate projects. To perform this follow-up, it's necessary to analyze continuously design centre evolution. Objective is to influence the design context to favour collaborative situations between design actors. To achieve this objective, it's necessary to develop a new model that will be able to help decision-makers to create a design environment, adapted to the design actors (Robin et aI. , 2004). The GRAI model is used because it offers a frame to manage the creation, the implementation, the followup and the evolution of the design environments.
The dynamic of the management of the design process, thanks to the design environments, is based on four principal phases (Figure 2): 1) 2) 3)
4)
At each period, decision-maker assesses the necessity to make evolve or not the design frame and the design environment. This need for evolution is based on the description of the as-is situation, on the performance measures and possibly on the identification of a need for collaboration. The decision-maker compares these elements with the objectives, which assigned to them in the decision frame. He decides to create or not a new design environment, to make evolve efficiently the design context. Consequently, according to the action levers on which he could act, he assigns a new design frame to the design centre, completed with:
Decision system
Design objectives Competency domain Performance objectives
Identi fication of the need for collaboration, Description of the as-is design situation, Analysis and comparison of this as-is situation with the objectives of the design system, in order to make decision using action levers, Implementation of a design environment, adapted to the design situation, in order to change efficiently the design context.
Actors Resources Budget
o o o
Design frame
.....
Technological system -......;~-'""
Initial state of product knowtedge
Activities that take place in it. Organisations that have to be developed . Collaboration forms, recommended to make collaborative work easier for actors of the design centre.
The same work will be performing all along the project progress and a priori at each period. Nevertheless, to evolve properly a design environment, the description of the design frame that is defined in the GRAI model has to be completed. Therefore, elements of the context in which actors' collaboration will take place will enrich the design frame . The description of these elements is presented in the following paragraph.
Figure J: Reference model, structure ofa design centre
This model gives a general frame to analyse and to manage design situation. As management of the design environments has to bring about some changes in the design context, according to the current state of
336
Horizon
c=============-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----· , ...... 2
I va~1ed~ I
......
frame
necessary
I I
---"--I Decision Frame I
--,---
I
--1---
Decision Frame
I I --~-~--"\ ------ -- --- --;,=:::=--=:.:=.:-=~,
::
Design Cent re Group G1 /"':'. ' ,
PROCESS MODEL
GroupG2
I : ':-ll-:: - -r:~ --
\ '~
PRODUCT MODEL
.......... /
j
I - '. . !. ~...
\ !! J
\:\
11 ,"",,_ ~~. ~ ____ ~ - ___ - - _ _ _ \,\.. -~
,I
u
I,::
/'
;/
\_'-_c~_/_ _ ___ _ ___ _ __ __ ~-=:=::,-=-=::;: :: : : :::.-=": ::.Il
__ - __ Aa - la
Recommended
Situation
Environment
Figure 2: Reference model of the evolution ofa design environment
3.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CENTRED ON ACTORS
o
Material and financial resources (business premises, computers, budget, ... ). o Constraints of the enterprise and in particular constraints of its environment. Thanks to this description, it's possible to define parameters of a design environment: o The design frame (design objectives, competency domains, performance objectives, actors, resources, budget...) (Figure I). o The description of the expected design situation: The product model and the process model of the to-be situation. The to-be organisation of the design centre (with a social view). The to-be activities and the performance levels achieved. The to-be collaboration form . These parameters define a design environment and could evolve during the project progress. Management of the design environments consist in a continuous phase of adjustment and evolution of the environment, according to the design situation evolution. To permit this management, a performance measurement system has to be designed.
To increase design performances and consequently to satisfy customers' requirements and expectations of enterprises, the decision-maker (generally the project manager) could develop a design environment. So, the actors' context of work will be improved and since the project manager will be able to create effective working group according to assigned design objectives, the phase of human resources allocation will be more efficient. Mechanisms that could help project manager to adapt design environment to the observed situation must be based on sociologic aspects (Jeantet, 1996), on the management of the evolution of the production systems (MaIhem:, 2000) and on information about the product, the process and the organisation. Creation and deployment of a design environment oblige to analyse the existing design situation. A design situation is defined as the state of the technologic system at a specific point of time (Eder, 2003). It is described according to the six aspects of the Ostergaard's collaborative design taxonomy and it's also characterised by these criteria: o Actors, particularly their roles and their uses in the design process. Their experience concerning similar projects, their knowledge and their socialisation have to be take account too. Objective is to adapt properly their work environment according to their needs. o Product, its nature (Suh, 1990), its complexity, its status in the process and its interfaces (Eynard, 1999) have to be take into account. o Process, particularly the design approach (Perrin, 200 I), the design type (routine, innovative or creative) and the collaboration type (Joly and Mangematin, 1995; Dameron, 2000; Girard et aI, 2003).
Nowadays performance evaluation of enterprises obliges to manage discretionary activities, which are more and more collaborative (Senechal et aI, 2003). Therefore, it is not enough to measure and to manage product data or the progress of the design process. Evaluation should focus on interactions, which are generating the design process. Performance measurement system has to consider interactions between objectives, action levers and performance indicators, to supply pertinent information during the phase of design environment creation. These interactions must be described with a view to the product, the process, the organisation and the management style of the design process.
337
They influence actors' deeds and decisions and are action inductors during the progress of the design process. It's possible to manage design process thanks to these action inductors. Girard et at. (2002) have identified interactions between actor and the elements of the context of his evolution during the design process progress.
the general dynamic of the group. It's important here to identify factors that create good state of mind and motivation in the group. Lastly, last form permits to identify interactions between the group (or the actor) and its environment, the design context. Intern and extern factors, which have an influence on the group and on each actor, and each step of the evolution of the group (or of the actor), have to be defined. Then the objectives, action levers and performance indicators have to be identified according to these four types of interactions. Following paragraph suggests an example of the design process management in thanks to the design environments.
These interactions take four forms that depend on the point of view, (Figure 3): I) 2) 3) 4)
The actor and the design object, The actor with an other one, The actor and the group, Evolution of group of actors.
4.
Group of actors
State
EXAMPLE
This section illustrates the proposed concepts to evaluate design process. The example focuses on the product data process of an enterprise, which is specialised in the manufacturing of material for petrol industry. (Figure 4) shows the modelling of the product data process. It' s necessary to define clearly the process to fill properly the GRAI-R&D structure. At the beginning of the project, strategic level sends design objectives to design project manager to initialise the project. He defines the different phases of the project and creates a design centre adapted to the design situation. After that, he sends the design frame to designers, at the operational level (phase I, Figure 2). These activities have to supply drawings, technical documentation to permit the selection of 2 or 3 solutions. In the same time, when they receive intermediary results of the design, project committee and design project manager estimate the cost each of different solution. When 2 or 3 solutions are selected, project committee, quality department and design project co-ordinator manage project group to achieve the definition of the final solution. During the phases of selection and definition of the solution, we are in a collaborative design process. To manage these process, design project manager has to evaluate design situation at each period (phase 2, Figure 2), to make converge designers ' results and estimation of the project committee. He compares results to design objectives (phase 3, Figure 2). If objectives are not achieved or to improve efficiency of this collaboration between entItIes, design project manager could create a design environment (phase 4, Figure 2).
i0
Figure 3: Design actor 's interactions with elements of his context First form concerns interactions between actor and the design object (the design artefact). In this case, it's necessary to analyse actor's impacts on the evolution of the design artefact definition. An other point of view considers actor's interactions with the group and two forms of evaluation appear. In one hand, evaluation concerns the actor and it is based on his individual relationships with others members of the group. It will be relevant here to identify collaboration vectors and how collaboration between actors appears. Objective is to define collaboration form accord ing to design needs and to favour the actor' s awareness to his environment (Girard et ai, 2003 ). In the other hand, we describe
•
338
Nut/s'
Q
ProJttl
Acommittee
Figure 4: Modelling of the product data process To illustrate the four influence fonns on the actor and enterprise. In this modelling, intersections between then to identify the associated perfonnance indicators lines and columns represent decision centre and biggest arrows (vertical or horizontal) represent system, we use the GRAI-R&D structure describing of the decision system (Figure 5) of the studied decision frames, which are described in paragraph 2.
o
C Cl
_as
'"
!
... n.gameN at
~.In :al
I
proted
~rrt",bOn
I
F
H _) motS
p c lAm.W(s)
Ito:tlr f:f T.(",n;~"1
Org......
!f\formoiltlOn
,~tOn
.....
-
F
F
DIIIM dnlon
U . . . . . OnOl
.- - r..a.nd•••
-'..
~..:· tomf1' s
.
O,jllr""
ClP'r IF
Capltanu
..
"'hnat
- r--'"."m"""
• eMls
F
F
F
F
-"".
Plan''''''gk P...
S"".........
... -
.................
-
,
o.nno .. _
P- ---
"-
11
Odne . . .gyon
.c:hnOloQ)ls .nd
~- ,.
PIan..-..
Org ......
.IINt 1I''';lIf1-,~
rtsourul
F
1>'0''''"'''_ - 1 ptqKts PfOgrus
~ptI~
PIItI ,..lallon.hI$I. 'M1h c:u SlOme,.
Exec:UblndMdutf
. .................
V."".dlquatY
L
numan rasOUrt.s
F
JnIomoIoIIon low Inddeptoy
.... ".~rtd tocllni
.....~of
PLANNlNO
tnIOnndon
custom'"
I
~
000In0 ..wnentarits
-'
.tmII ine(l)
I,toUt(.)
n.. os
cMaign
-.'" f--'--~-'-"""'" - I---~-.~ -.....
Tact pa
I
SU:,.I
H .4Mm1ine(t) p ~ 1 Am.lnI(s)
H. 1
I-
"anager'nlNat
ManIg.."..,lf1I
iNDnnalon
1:-;
1
OESlOIONCl
K/'lowtvoo
IrW""'lnr
AIoc ... .m.o.t
- f--+
-.
1,.,..""'1'"
......... .
P'lan lniidutf
F
F
F
,
11
Figure 5: Modelling of the decision -making structure by the GRAI-R&D structure
This modelling pennits to define the comportment of each decision centre and relationships between each of them . It corresponds to the first step in the management of the design process. When the GRAIR&D structure is complete, it's possible to develop a perfonnance measurement system in order to manage design process thanks to the reference model of a design environment in paragraph 2. The perfonnance measurement system has to take into account
specificity of each decision centre and of each link between them (Figure 5). Here, we describe the perfonnance measurement system for the three functions: "management of project infonnation", "designing" and "management of design needs" . This system evaluates relationships between designers, project group and the context of the design process, i.e. links with design project manager and the entity which doing the needs and goals (Table I).
Table I Interactions between objectives, action levers and perfonnance indicators if considering evaluation focused on actors.
Designer I Design object Designer I Designer Designer I Project group Evolution of the project group
Objectives
Action Iners
Satisfy ~quirements, define product, reduce complexity, reduce cost, ~spect quality, .. .
Product knowledge, product structure, information system, project handbook, . ..
Data maturity, product data sharing, work product structure, design metbods, ...
Exchange data, facilitate work, coUaborate, meetings, ...
Procedure to collaborate, task definition, interface of collaboration, IT tools, ...
Number of loops, actor's competence, number of mails, erron analysis, .. .
Co-ordinate work, define project, respect delay, increase innovation, ...
Work b~akdown structure, milestones, mechanisms of co-ordination, ...
Number of non planned meetings, number of patents, ...
Increase Ictor' s competencies, use internal or elternal resourcn, . ..
Standardisation, lecture, enterprise modtlling, business plan, ...
Reuse of .. temal solutions, days of training, exchange with others functions, ...
339
Performance indicators
Girard P., Doumeingts G. (2003). Modelling of the engineering design system to improve performance. In: Computers & Industrial Engineering. Girard Ph., Robin V., Barandiaran D. (2003). Analysis of col1aboration for design coordination. lOth ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Aplications. CE'03, Madeira, Portugal. Jeantet A. (1996). La coordination par les objets dans les equipes integrees de conception de produit. In : Cooperation et conception. Terssac G. et Friedberg H .. Octares, Toulouse. Joly P.B., Mangematin V. (1995). Les acteurs sont-ils solubles dans les reseaux ? In : Economies et Societes. N°2, voI. 9, p. 17-50. Malhene N. (2000). Gestion du processus d'evolution des systemes industriels - Conduite et methode. These de doctoral. Universite Bordeaux I. Ostergaard K., Summers 1. D.. A taxonomic classification of col1aborative design process. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 03, Stockholm. Perrin J. (200 I). Concevoir I'innovation industrielle. methodologie de conception de I'innovation. CNRS editions, Paris. Poveda O. (200 I). Pilotage technique des projets d'ingenierie simultanee, modelisation des processus, analyse et instrumentation. These INPG. Robin V., Girard Ph., Barandiaran D. (2004). A of design environments to support model th collaborative design management. 5 International Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering, IDMME 2004, April 5-7 2004, Bath, UK. Senechal O. (2003). Le cycle de vie du systeme de production. In: Evaluation de la performance des systemes de production. p. 81-104, Hermes. Suh N.P (1990). The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New York.
Description of the decision-making structure of the enterprise by the GRAI-R&D structure, the definition of adapted performance measurement system and the reference model of a design environment offer the possibility to project manager to evaluate the design performance according to the objectives. Like this, he takes the good decisions and wil1 have an efficient management.
S.
CONCLUSION
Management of the design processes is complex and to improve processes performances, it's necessary to focus not only on the artefact but also on the actor's relations. This paper shows that management has to be develop around three principal phases. In a first time, the decision-making structure of enterprise has to be defined precisely to put in evidence al1 links between each design centre. Objective of this phase is to underline the rule of each actor and to judge his influence on the design process. Secondly, a performance measurement system has to be developed according to the decision-making structure. It has to integrate the actors' influences. Lastly, the reference model of a design environment gives the frame to implement the result of the two previous phases. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on research relevant of the working group IS3C: "Ingenierie des systemes de
conception et conduite du cycle de vie produit" (Engineering of design system and product life cycle management). The French research pooling supports this working group: GDR MACS of the French academic research committee: CNRS http ://v.'ww.uni v-valenciennes.rr/GDR-MACS/ REFERENCES Chiu M.L. (2003). Design moves in situated design with case-based reasoning. In: Design Studies. Vol. 24, p 1-25 . Dameron S. (2000). Processus de cooperation dans l'organisation : construction d ' une gril1e de lecture appliquee au cas d'une equipe projet. IXieme conference internationale de management strategique « perspectives en management strategique», AIMS 2000. Montpel1ier. Eder W.E. (1990). A typology of designs and designing. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 03 , Stockholm. Eynard B. (1999) . Modelisation du produit et des activites de conception - Contribution a la conduite et a la tra~abilite du processus d'ingenierie. These de Doctorat, Universite Bordeaux I. Girard P., Eynard B. (1999). Proposal to control the systems design process: application to manufactured products. In: Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering. pp . 537-544. JL.Batoz et al. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-6024-9.
•
340
Copyright © IFAC Infonnation Control Problems in Manufacturing, Salvador, Brazil, 2004
IFAC PUBLICATIONS www.elsevier.comllocatelifac
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS Vincent ROBIN
1 ,
Philippe GIRARDl and David BARANDIARAN2
I Laboratoire d'Au/omatique et de Productique - Groupe GRAI. UMR 5131 CNRS. Universite Bordeaux 1. 351 cours de la Liberation. 33405 Talence Cedex. France. Tel.: +33540002407; fax : +33540006644 E-Mail: robin({illap-lI.bordeauxl.fr . girardfZV.lap-lI. bordeaux 1.(,.
2 EADS
CCR. Engineering and Information Technologies Department - Enterprise Engineering. Centreda 1- 4 avenue Didier Daurat 31700 Blagnac. France. Tel : + 33561 188747 E-Mail: davidbal"andiaran(j/!airhus.com
Abstract: Nowadays the design process of a product is more and more collaborative and involves the creation of working groups and the control of collaborative work . This paper presents a model to evaluate design performances. The proposed concept of design environment permits to follow and to manage collaborative design process. Then we present a frame to analyse the as-is design situation, to develop a design environment with an adapted performance measurement system and to follow the progress of the design process. Copyright © 20041FAC Keywords : design performance, collaborative design, project management, design environment.
1.
INTRODUCTION
problem and information permit to take into account process and organisational aspects. Team's design approach affects collaborative design process and concerns the design tools (how progress is evaluated), the structure of the design approach and the process type. Type of design, coupling of sub-tracks, the level of abstraction, the scope and the complexity defines the nature of the design problem. It permits to understand the design problem and consequently to create an adequate multi-disciplinary team . In this taxonomy, the information flow throughout the design process is considered. Ostergaard and Summers judge this flow as a crucial measure of collaborative design effectiveness. Despite, this taxonomy has to be completed to permit the management of the collaborative design process. Management and evaluation of the design process have to integrate product, process and organisational aspects but have also to place actor on a central place. Actor has to be considered as the principal vector of performance in the design process. This article focuses on the evaluation of design process performance with a specific view on the actor. This evaluation is proposed through the GRAI model, completed with the design environment concept. The first part describes the GRAI model and defines the concept of design environment. Then the dynamic aspects of management and evaluation of design process is proposed thanks to design environments. The second part underlines the actor' s predominance in the evaluation of the design process and describes characteristics of a performance measurement system centred on actors. Finally, an example presents the use of the design environment and the influence of a performance measurement system centred on actor for design process management.
Design process is more and more complex and has to satisfy objectives of cost, delay and quality more and more restrictive. Design processes have to integrate more and more expertises and are based now on the collaboration between actors (Poveda, 200 I). In this context, one objective of management is to define and to organise the system where the design transformation will take place, according to the needs for collaboration. Therefore, the collaborative process management requires understanding of design processes context (Chiu, 2003) in order to modify the actors' work. This context is defined considering the product and process aspects but also with a view to the human, social and organisational aspects. Ostergaard and Summers (2003) have proposed taxonomy of collaborative design, which is developed around six attributes: o Team composition o Communication o Distribution o Design approach o Information o Nature of the problem This taxonomy is relevant and brings a new vision of the description of the design situation, since it considers human, organisational and procedural aspects. Human aspects are defined thanks to team composition, communication and distribution. Team composition focuses on the impact of each actor on effective team performance. Communication describes the communication system that is necessary to develop in order to share expertise, ideas, resources or responsibilities. Distribution represents how team members and information are distributed across some variety of boundaries. Design approach, nature of the
335
2.
the system, it obliges to develop . a performance measurement system that considers design objectives, action levers and performance indicators. Performance indicators are necessary to evaluate pertinence of each intermediate situation, according to the global objectives. Identification of the action levers, associated to each performance indicator, permits to decision-maker to adapt the design context, in order to design actors could achieve design objectives. When these interactions are defined, it's possible to create and to implement the performance indicators system, to manage the design process. It permits to follow and to evolve design environment.
GRAI MODEL TO MANAGE DESIGN PROCESS
During design process management, collaborative design context and each element described in the Ostergaard's taxonomy have to be managed. So, it's necessary to use a model that considers all these aspects. Our literature review indicates that no model really takes into account all these aspects. The GRAI model integrates some of these and it could be used (Girard and Eynard, 1999; Girard and Doumeingts, 2003). Despite, it must be completed with the model of design environment, to permit the integration of the collaborative aspects. The GRAI model decomposes the design system in a perfect adequacy with the co-ordination decisions (Figure I). Consequently, the follow-up of the design situation evolution is easier and really permits to decisionmakers to co-ordinate projects. To perform this follow-up, it's necessary to analyze continuously design centre evolution. Objective is to influence the design context to favour collaborative situations between design actors. To achieve this objective, it's necessary to develop a new model that will be able to help decision-makers to create a design environment, adapted to the design actors (Robin et aI. , 2004). The GRAI model is used because it offers a frame to manage the creation, the implementation, the followup and the evolution of the design environments.
The dynamic of the management of the design process, thanks to the design environments, is based on four principal phases (Figure 2): 1) 2) 3)
4)
At each period, decision-maker assesses the necessity to make evolve or not the design frame and the design environment. This need for evolution is based on the description of the as-is situation, on the performance measures and possibly on the identification of a need for collaboration. The decision-maker compares these elements with the objectives, which assigned to them in the decision frame. He decides to create or not a new design environment, to make evolve efficiently the design context. Consequently, according to the action levers on which he could act, he assigns a new design frame to the design centre, completed with:
Decision system
Design objectives Competency domain Performance objectives
Identi fication of the need for collaboration, Description of the as-is design situation, Analysis and comparison of this as-is situation with the objectives of the design system, in order to make decision using action levers, Implementation of a design environment, adapted to the design situation, in order to change efficiently the design context.
Actors Resources Budget
o o o
Design frame
.....
Technological system -......;~-'""
Initial state of product knowtedge
Activities that take place in it. Organisations that have to be developed . Collaboration forms, recommended to make collaborative work easier for actors of the design centre.
The same work will be performing all along the project progress and a priori at each period. Nevertheless, to evolve properly a design environment, the description of the design frame that is defined in the GRAI model has to be completed. Therefore, elements of the context in which actors' collaboration will take place will enrich the design frame . The description of these elements is presented in the following paragraph.
Figure J: Reference model, structure ofa design centre
This model gives a general frame to analyse and to manage design situation. As management of the design environments has to bring about some changes in the design context, according to the current state of
336
Horizon
c=============-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----· , ...... 2
I va~1ed~ I
......
frame
necessary
I I
---"--I Decision Frame I
--,---
I
--1---
Decision Frame
I I --~-~--"\ ------ -- --- --;,=:::=--=:.:=.:-=~,
::
Design Cent re Group G1 /"':'. ' ,
PROCESS MODEL
GroupG2
I : ':-ll-:: - -r:~ --
\ '~
PRODUCT MODEL
.......... /
j
I - '. . !. ~...
\ !! J
\:\
11 ,"",,_ ~~. ~ ____ ~ - ___ - - _ _ _ \,\.. -~
,I
u
I,::
/'
;/
\_'-_c~_/_ _ ___ _ ___ _ __ __ ~-=:=::,-=-=::;: :: : : :::.-=": ::.Il
__ - __ Aa - la
Recommended
Situation
Environment
Figure 2: Reference model of the evolution ofa design environment
3.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CENTRED ON ACTORS
o
Material and financial resources (business premises, computers, budget, ... ). o Constraints of the enterprise and in particular constraints of its environment. Thanks to this description, it's possible to define parameters of a design environment: o The design frame (design objectives, competency domains, performance objectives, actors, resources, budget...) (Figure I). o The description of the expected design situation: The product model and the process model of the to-be situation. The to-be organisation of the design centre (with a social view). The to-be activities and the performance levels achieved. The to-be collaboration form . These parameters define a design environment and could evolve during the project progress. Management of the design environments consist in a continuous phase of adjustment and evolution of the environment, according to the design situation evolution. To permit this management, a performance measurement system has to be designed.
To increase design performances and consequently to satisfy customers' requirements and expectations of enterprises, the decision-maker (generally the project manager) could develop a design environment. So, the actors' context of work will be improved and since the project manager will be able to create effective working group according to assigned design objectives, the phase of human resources allocation will be more efficient. Mechanisms that could help project manager to adapt design environment to the observed situation must be based on sociologic aspects (Jeantet, 1996), on the management of the evolution of the production systems (MaIhem:, 2000) and on information about the product, the process and the organisation. Creation and deployment of a design environment oblige to analyse the existing design situation. A design situation is defined as the state of the technologic system at a specific point of time (Eder, 2003). It is described according to the six aspects of the Ostergaard's collaborative design taxonomy and it's also characterised by these criteria: o Actors, particularly their roles and their uses in the design process. Their experience concerning similar projects, their knowledge and their socialisation have to be take account too. Objective is to adapt properly their work environment according to their needs. o Product, its nature (Suh, 1990), its complexity, its status in the process and its interfaces (Eynard, 1999) have to be take into account. o Process, particularly the design approach (Perrin, 200 I), the design type (routine, innovative or creative) and the collaboration type (Joly and Mangematin, 1995; Dameron, 2000; Girard et aI, 2003).
Nowadays performance evaluation of enterprises obliges to manage discretionary activities, which are more and more collaborative (Senechal et aI, 2003). Therefore, it is not enough to measure and to manage product data or the progress of the design process. Evaluation should focus on interactions, which are generating the design process. Performance measurement system has to consider interactions between objectives, action levers and performance indicators, to supply pertinent information during the phase of design environment creation. These interactions must be described with a view to the product, the process, the organisation and the management style of the design process.
337
They influence actors' deeds and decisions and are action inductors during the progress of the design process. It's possible to manage design process thanks to these action inductors. Girard et at. (2002) have identified interactions between actor and the elements of the context of his evolution during the design process progress.
the general dynamic of the group. It's important here to identify factors that create good state of mind and motivation in the group. Lastly, last form permits to identify interactions between the group (or the actor) and its environment, the design context. Intern and extern factors, which have an influence on the group and on each actor, and each step of the evolution of the group (or of the actor), have to be defined. Then the objectives, action levers and performance indicators have to be identified according to these four types of interactions. Following paragraph suggests an example of the design process management in thanks to the design environments.
These interactions take four forms that depend on the point of view, (Figure 3): I) 2) 3) 4)
The actor and the design object, The actor with an other one, The actor and the group, Evolution of group of actors.
4.
Group of actors
State
EXAMPLE
This section illustrates the proposed concepts to evaluate design process. The example focuses on the product data process of an enterprise, which is specialised in the manufacturing of material for petrol industry. (Figure 4) shows the modelling of the product data process. It' s necessary to define clearly the process to fill properly the GRAI-R&D structure. At the beginning of the project, strategic level sends design objectives to design project manager to initialise the project. He defines the different phases of the project and creates a design centre adapted to the design situation. After that, he sends the design frame to designers, at the operational level (phase I, Figure 2). These activities have to supply drawings, technical documentation to permit the selection of 2 or 3 solutions. In the same time, when they receive intermediary results of the design, project committee and design project manager estimate the cost each of different solution. When 2 or 3 solutions are selected, project committee, quality department and design project co-ordinator manage project group to achieve the definition of the final solution. During the phases of selection and definition of the solution, we are in a collaborative design process. To manage these process, design project manager has to evaluate design situation at each period (phase 2, Figure 2), to make converge designers ' results and estimation of the project committee. He compares results to design objectives (phase 3, Figure 2). If objectives are not achieved or to improve efficiency of this collaboration between entItIes, design project manager could create a design environment (phase 4, Figure 2).
i0
Figure 3: Design actor 's interactions with elements of his context First form concerns interactions between actor and the design object (the design artefact). In this case, it's necessary to analyse actor's impacts on the evolution of the design artefact definition. An other point of view considers actor's interactions with the group and two forms of evaluation appear. In one hand, evaluation concerns the actor and it is based on his individual relationships with others members of the group. It will be relevant here to identify collaboration vectors and how collaboration between actors appears. Objective is to define collaboration form accord ing to design needs and to favour the actor' s awareness to his environment (Girard et ai, 2003 ). In the other hand, we describe
•
338
Nut/s'
Q
ProJttl
Acommittee
Figure 4: Modelling of the product data process To illustrate the four influence fonns on the actor and enterprise. In this modelling, intersections between then to identify the associated perfonnance indicators lines and columns represent decision centre and biggest arrows (vertical or horizontal) represent system, we use the GRAI-R&D structure describing of the decision system (Figure 5) of the studied decision frames, which are described in paragraph 2.
o
C Cl
_as
'"
!
... n.gameN at
~.In :al
I
proted
~rrt",bOn
I
F
H _) motS
p c lAm.W(s)
Ito:tlr f:f T.(",n;~"1
Org......
!f\formoiltlOn
,~tOn
.....
-
F
F
DIIIM dnlon
U . . . . . OnOl
.- - r..a.nd•••
-'..
~..:· tomf1' s
.
O,jllr""
ClP'r IF
Capltanu
..
"'hnat
- r--'"."m"""
• eMls
F
F
F
F
-"".
Plan''''''gk P...
S"".........
... -
.................
-
,
o.nno .. _
P- ---
"-
11
Odne . . .gyon
.c:hnOloQ)ls .nd
~- ,.
PIan..-..
Org ......
.IINt 1I''';lIf1-,~
rtsourul
F
1>'0''''"'''_ - 1 ptqKts PfOgrus
~ptI~
PIItI ,..lallon.hI$I. 'M1h c:u SlOme,.
Exec:UblndMdutf
. .................
V."".dlquatY
L
numan rasOUrt.s
F
JnIomoIoIIon low Inddeptoy
.... ".~rtd tocllni
.....~of
PLANNlNO
tnIOnndon
custom'"
I
~
000In0 ..wnentarits
-'
.tmII ine(l)
I,toUt(.)
n.. os
cMaign
-.'" f--'--~-'-"""'" - I---~-.~ -.....
Tact pa
I
SU:,.I
H .4Mm1ine(t) p ~ 1 Am.lnI(s)
H. 1
I-
"anager'nlNat
ManIg.."..,lf1I
iNDnnalon
1:-;
1
OESlOIONCl
K/'lowtvoo
IrW""'lnr
AIoc ... .m.o.t
- f--+
-.
1,.,..""'1'"
......... .
P'lan lniidutf
F
F
F
,
11
Figure 5: Modelling of the decision -making structure by the GRAI-R&D structure
This modelling pennits to define the comportment of each decision centre and relationships between each of them . It corresponds to the first step in the management of the design process. When the GRAIR&D structure is complete, it's possible to develop a perfonnance measurement system in order to manage design process thanks to the reference model of a design environment in paragraph 2. The perfonnance measurement system has to take into account
specificity of each decision centre and of each link between them (Figure 5). Here, we describe the perfonnance measurement system for the three functions: "management of project infonnation", "designing" and "management of design needs" . This system evaluates relationships between designers, project group and the context of the design process, i.e. links with design project manager and the entity which doing the needs and goals (Table I).
Table I Interactions between objectives, action levers and perfonnance indicators if considering evaluation focused on actors.
Designer I Design object Designer I Designer Designer I Project group Evolution of the project group
Objectives
Action Iners
Satisfy ~quirements, define product, reduce complexity, reduce cost, ~spect quality, .. .
Product knowledge, product structure, information system, project handbook, . ..
Data maturity, product data sharing, work product structure, design metbods, ...
Exchange data, facilitate work, coUaborate, meetings, ...
Procedure to collaborate, task definition, interface of collaboration, IT tools, ...
Number of loops, actor's competence, number of mails, erron analysis, .. .
Co-ordinate work, define project, respect delay, increase innovation, ...
Work b~akdown structure, milestones, mechanisms of co-ordination, ...
Number of non planned meetings, number of patents, ...
Increase Ictor' s competencies, use internal or elternal resourcn, . ..
Standardisation, lecture, enterprise modtlling, business plan, ...
Reuse of .. temal solutions, days of training, exchange with others functions, ...
339
Performance indicators
Girard P., Doumeingts G. (2003). Modelling of the engineering design system to improve performance. In: Computers & Industrial Engineering. Girard Ph., Robin V., Barandiaran D. (2003). Analysis of col1aboration for design coordination. lOth ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Aplications. CE'03, Madeira, Portugal. Jeantet A. (1996). La coordination par les objets dans les equipes integrees de conception de produit. In : Cooperation et conception. Terssac G. et Friedberg H .. Octares, Toulouse. Joly P.B., Mangematin V. (1995). Les acteurs sont-ils solubles dans les reseaux ? In : Economies et Societes. N°2, voI. 9, p. 17-50. Malhene N. (2000). Gestion du processus d'evolution des systemes industriels - Conduite et methode. These de doctoral. Universite Bordeaux I. Ostergaard K., Summers 1. D.. A taxonomic classification of col1aborative design process. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 03, Stockholm. Perrin J. (200 I). Concevoir I'innovation industrielle. methodologie de conception de I'innovation. CNRS editions, Paris. Poveda O. (200 I). Pilotage technique des projets d'ingenierie simultanee, modelisation des processus, analyse et instrumentation. These INPG. Robin V., Girard Ph., Barandiaran D. (2004). A of design environments to support model th collaborative design management. 5 International Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering, IDMME 2004, April 5-7 2004, Bath, UK. Senechal O. (2003). Le cycle de vie du systeme de production. In: Evaluation de la performance des systemes de production. p. 81-104, Hermes. Suh N.P (1990). The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New York.
Description of the decision-making structure of the enterprise by the GRAI-R&D structure, the definition of adapted performance measurement system and the reference model of a design environment offer the possibility to project manager to evaluate the design performance according to the objectives. Like this, he takes the good decisions and wil1 have an efficient management.
S.
CONCLUSION
Management of the design processes is complex and to improve processes performances, it's necessary to focus not only on the artefact but also on the actor's relations. This paper shows that management has to be develop around three principal phases. In a first time, the decision-making structure of enterprise has to be defined precisely to put in evidence al1 links between each design centre. Objective of this phase is to underline the rule of each actor and to judge his influence on the design process. Secondly, a performance measurement system has to be developed according to the decision-making structure. It has to integrate the actors' influences. Lastly, the reference model of a design environment gives the frame to implement the result of the two previous phases. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on research relevant of the working group IS3C: "Ingenierie des systemes de
conception et conduite du cycle de vie produit" (Engineering of design system and product life cycle management). The French research pooling supports this working group: GDR MACS of the French academic research committee: CNRS http ://v.'ww.uni v-valenciennes.rr/GDR-MACS/ REFERENCES Chiu M.L. (2003). Design moves in situated design with case-based reasoning. In: Design Studies. Vol. 24, p 1-25 . Dameron S. (2000). Processus de cooperation dans l'organisation : construction d ' une gril1e de lecture appliquee au cas d'une equipe projet. IXieme conference internationale de management strategique « perspectives en management strategique», AIMS 2000. Montpel1ier. Eder W.E. (1990). A typology of designs and designing. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 03 , Stockholm. Eynard B. (1999) . Modelisation du produit et des activites de conception - Contribution a la conduite et a la tra~abilite du processus d'ingenierie. These de Doctorat, Universite Bordeaux I. Girard P., Eynard B. (1999). Proposal to control the systems design process: application to manufactured products. In: Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering. pp . 537-544. JL.Batoz et al. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-6024-9.
•
340