Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:58:53.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SUPPORTING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES BY ARTIFACT-ORIENTED DESCRIPTION AND SELECTION OF METHODS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Theresa Ammersdörfer ,
David Inkermann ,
Johannes Müller ,
Constantin Mandel ,
Albert Albers ,
Julian Tekaat ,
Anja Schierbaum ,
Harald Anacker ,
Michael Bitzer  and
Sven Kleiner
...Show all authors
Theresa Ammersdörfer*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Clausthal, Institute of Mechanical Engineering (IMW), Robert-Koch-Str. 32, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany;
David Inkermann
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Clausthal, Institute of Mechanical Engineering (IMW), Robert-Koch-Str. 32, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany;
Johannes Müller
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Product Engineering (IPEK), Kaiserstraße 10, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany;
Constantin Mandel
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Product Engineering (IPEK), Kaiserstraße 10, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany;
Albert Albers
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Product Engineering (IPEK), Kaiserstraße 10, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany;
Julian Tekaat
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer Research Institute for Mechatronic Systems Design IEM, Zukunftsmeile 1, 33102 Paderborn;
Anja Schierbaum
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer Research Institute for Mechatronic Systems Design IEM, Zukunftsmeile 1, 33102 Paderborn;
Harald Anacker
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer Research Institute for Mechatronic Systems Design IEM, Zukunftsmeile 1, 33102 Paderborn;
Michael Bitzer
Affiliation:
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Daimlerstr. 15, 61352 Bad Homburg, Germany;
Sven Kleiner
Affiliation:
em engineering methods AG, Model Based Engineering, Rheinstr. 97, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany;
Jan-Phillip Herrmann
Affiliation:
OWL University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Campusallee 12, 32657 Lemgo, Germany;
Patrik Krause
Affiliation:
3DSE Management Consultants GmbH, Seidlstraße 18a, 80335 München, Germany
*
Ammersdörfer, Theresa, Technische Universität Clausthal, Germany, ammersdoerfer@imw.tu-clausthal.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Systems Engineering (SE) is becoming increasingly relevant in industrial application since more stakeholders are involved in engineering activities. To implement SE, companies have to adapt existing engineering processes and methods. This adaption requires knowledge about new methods as well as their integration into the engineering activities. In order to ensure goal-oriented identification of methods for different SE activities in this contribution an action field profile and the Systems Engineering Method Matrix are proposed. The development of both tools is driven by the assumption that most SE activities and methods can be described based on the artefacts the deliver. In order to get feedback about the proposed tools, semi-structured interviews with two industry partners were conducted, focussing on the tool's usability. These interviews underline the basic usability of the tools and their support to identify SE activities to be supported by (new) methods. Moreover, requirements for further development and adaption are derived from the interviews.

Keywords

Systems Engineering (SE)Design methodsCase studyDesign process
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3245 - 3254
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Albers, A., Heimicke, J., Spadinger, M., Reiss, N., Breitschuh, J., Richter, T., Bursac, N. and Marthaler, F. (2019a), “Eine Systematik zur situationsadäquaten Mechatroniksystementwicklung durch ASD – Agile Systems Design”, KIT Scientific Working Papers.Google Scholar
Albers, A., Rapp, S., Spadinger, M., Richter, T., Birk, C., Marthaler, F., Heimicke, J., Kurtz, V. and Wessels, H. (2019b), “The Reference System in the Model of PGE: Proposing a Generalized Description of Reference Products and their Interrelations”, Proc. of the Design Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1693–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, A., Reiss, N., Bursac, N., Walter, B. and Gladysz, B. (2015), “InnoFox – Situationsspezifische Methodenempfehlung im Produktentstehungsprozess”, in Proceedings of Stuttgarter Symposium 2015.Google Scholar
Ammersdörfer, T., Müller, J., Heimicke, J., Reichardt, H., Rapp, S., Inkermann, D. and Albers, A. (2022), “Access Logics for Situation-Appropriate Selection and Introduction of Methods in Engineering Design”, in Proceedings of NordDesign 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16th - 18th August 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavendiek, A.-K. (2018), Adaptation of engineering design methods for multidisciplinary development processes considering heterogeneous teams, München.Google Scholar
Bavendiek, A.-K., Inkermann, D. and Vietor, T. (2014), “Konzept zur Methodenbeschreibung und -auswahl auf Basis von Kompetenzen und Zusammensetzung von Entwicklungsteams”, in Proc. of Symp. DfX, pp. 215–226.Google Scholar
Beckmann, G., Gebhardt, N., Bahns, T. and Krause, D. (2016), “Approach to Transfer Methods for Developing Modular Product Families into Practice”, in Proc. of International Design Conference 2016, Vol. 3, pp. 1185–1194.Google Scholar
Berschik, M.C., Schumacher, T., Laukotka, F.N., Krause, D. and Inkermann, D. (2023), “MBSE within the engineering design community - an exploratory study”, in Proc. of International Engineering Design Conference 2023.Google Scholar
Birkhofer, H., Kloberdanz, H., Sauer, T. and Berger, B. (2002a), “Why methods don't work and how to get them to work”, Zielona Gora.Google Scholar
Birkhofer, H., Kloberdanz, H.D., Berger, B. and Sauer, T. (2002b), “Cleaning up Design Methods - Describing Methods Completely and Standardised.”, in Proceedings of International Design Conference DESIGN 2002.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duehr, K., Grimminger, J., Rapp, S., Albers, A. and Bursac, N. (2022), “Enabling Distributed Teams – A Process Model for Early and Continuous Method Validation”, in Proc. of the Design Society, Vol. 2, pp. 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumitrescu, R., Albers, A., Riedel, O., Stark, R. and Gausemeier, J. (2021), Engineering in Germany: The status quo in business and science, a contribution to Advanced Systems Engineering, Paderborn.Google Scholar
Estefan, J.A. (2008), Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies: Rev. B.Google Scholar
Friedenthal, S. (2014), A practical guide to SysML: The systems modeling language, Third edition, Morgan Kaufman, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Gausemeier, J., Dumitrescu, R., Steffen, D., Czaja, A., Wiederkehr, O. and Tschirner, C. (2015), Systems Engineering in Industrial Practice, Paderborn.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C., Campean, F., Clarkson, P.J., Flening, E., Isaksson, O., Kipouros, T., Kokkolaras, M., Köhler, C., Panarotto, M. and Wilmsen, M. (2020), “Supporting designers: moving from method menagerie to method ecosystem”, Design Science, Vol. 6, p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design: VOLUME 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
Hjartarson, B., Daalhuizen, J. and Gustafsson, K.F. (2021), “The dark side of methods - An exploration of the negative effects of method use and method reflection in design”, in Proc. of the Design Society, Vol. 1, pp. 3001–3010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huldt, T. and Stenius, I. (2019), “State-of-practice survey of model-based systems engineering”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkermann, D. (2021), “Shaping Method Ecosystems - Structured Implementation of Systems Engineering in Indutrial Practice”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 1, pp. 2641–2650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO (2015), ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015: Systems and software engineering — System life cycle processes.Google Scholar
Jones, J.C. (1970), Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures, Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Lavrsen, J.C., Daalhuizen, J., Dømler, S. and Fisker, K. (2022), “Towards a lifecycle of design methods”, in Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2009), Methodische Entwicklung technischer Produkte, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walden, D.D., Roedler, G.J., Forsberg, K., Hamelin, R.D. and Shortell, T.M. (Eds.) (2015), Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities, 4. edition, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
Wallace, K. (2011), “Transferring Design Methods into Practice”, in Birkhofer, H. (Ed.), The Future of Design Methodology, Springer, London, pp. 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar