Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 37–48 | Cite as

An engineering design knowledge reuse methodology using process modelling

  • David Baxter
  • James Gao
  • Keith Case
  • Jenny Harding
  • Bob Young
  • Sean Cochrane
  • Shilpa Dani
Original Paper


This paper describes an approach for reusing engineering design knowledge. Many previous design knowledge reuse systems focus exclusively on geometrical data, which is often not applicable in early design stages. The proposed methodology provides an integrated design knowledge reuse framework, bringing together elements of best practice reuse, design rationale capture and knowledge-based support in a single coherent framework. Best practices are reused through the process model. Rationale is supported by product information, which is retrieved through links to design process tasks. Knowledge-based methods are supported by a common design data model, which serves as a single source of design data to support the design process. By using the design process as the basis for knowledge structuring and retrieval, it serves the dual purpose of design process capture and knowledge reuse: capturing and formalising the rationale that underpins the design process, and providing a framework through which design knowledge can be stored, retrieved and applied. The methodology has been tested with an industrial sponsor producing high vacuum pumps for the semiconductor industry.


Design knowledge reuse New product introduction Knowledge management Product lifecycle management 



The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided for this collaborative project through the Cranfield University and Loughborough University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centres, which are supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The participation and continued support of BOC Edwards is greatly appreciated.


  1. Andrews P, Shahin T, Sivaloganathan S (1999) Design reuse in a CAD environment—four case studies. Comput Ind Eng 37:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backer T, Siegel T, Rabin P, McGrath T (1995) Avoiding the redesign trap: standard design processes improve design quality and reuse. In: Proceedings of the 10th computing in aerospace conference, AIAA, San Antonio, TX, USA, pp 95–1003Google Scholar
  3. Balasubramanian P, Nochur K, Henderson J, Kwan M (1999) Managing process knowledge for decision support. Decis Support Syst 27(1):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter DI, Gao JX (2004) Process based representation for design knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on manufacturing research 2004 (ICMR 2004), Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter DI, Gao JX (2005) Process based design knowledge reuse through process and product representation. In: Proceedings of the 12th CIRP life cycle engineering seminar (CIRP LCE) 2005, Grenoble, FranceGoogle Scholar
  6. Blessing LTM (1995) A process-based approach to design. Colloq Dig IEE 49:4Google Scholar
  7. Burge JE, Brown DC (2002) Integrating design rationale with a process model. In: International workshop on agents in design, WAID’02, MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Busby JS (1999) The problem with design reuse: an investigation into outcomes and antecedents. J Eng Des 10(3):277–297CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarkson PJ, Hamilton JR (2000) Signposting, a parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Res Eng Des 12(1):18–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Classen A, Lopez L (1998) New product introduction between two geographically dispersed entities. In: International conference on engineering and technology management, 1998. (IEMC ‘98), IEEE, San Juan, PR, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Concheri G, Milanese V (2000) MIRAGGIO: a system for the dynamic management of product data and design models. Adv Eng Softw 32:527–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa CA, Young RIM (2001) Product range models supporting design knowledge reuse. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers—Part B—Eng Manuf 215(3):323–338Google Scholar
  13. Finger S (1998) Design reuse and design research—keynote paper. In: Engineering design conference ‘98, Professional Engineering Publishing, Brunel University, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardam A, Burge SE (1997) Changes in the engineering design process. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on manufacturing research (NCMR) Advances in Manufacturing Technology XI. Glasgow Caledonian University, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorti SR, Gupta A, Kim GJ, Sriram RD, Wong A (1998) An object-oriented representation for product and design processes. Comput Aided Design 30(7):489–501zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen C, Andreasen M (2002) The content and nature of a design concept. In: Norddesign 2002: visions and values in engineering design. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  17. Harding JA, Popplewell K, Cook D (2003) Manufacturing system engineering moderator: an aid for multidiscipline project teams. Int J Prod Res 41(9):1973–1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayashi N, Herman G (2002) A coordination-theory approach to exploring process alternatives for designing differentiated products. In: Engineering management conference, 2002 (IEMC ‘02), IEEE International, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Hew KP, Fisher N, Awbi HB (2001) Towards an integrated set of design tools based on a common data format for building and services design. Automat Constr 10(4):459–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hicks BJ, Culley SJ, Allen RD, Mullineux G (2002) A framework for the requirements of capturing, storing and reusing information and knowledge in engineering design. Int J Inform Manage 22(4):263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang HZ, Gu YK (2006) Development mode based on integration of product models and process models. Concurrent Eng Res Appl 14(1):27–34CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Inns T, Neville P (1998) Establishing a company-level design process to facilitate design reuse. In: Engineering design conference ‘98, Professional Engineering Publishing, Brunel University, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Johannessen J-A, Olaisen J, Olsen B (2001) Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. Int Inform Manag 21:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalpic B, Bernus P (2002) Business process modelling in industry-the powerful tool in enterprise management. Comput Ind 47(3):299–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerr C, Roy R, Sackett P (2004) A product ontology for automotive seat specification. In: The 2004 ASME international design engineering technical conferences & the computer and information in engineering conference (ASME DETC/CIE 2004)—30th design automation conference (DAC), Salt Lake City, UT, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Knott RP, Merunka V, Polak J (2003) The role of object oriented process modeling in requirements engineering phase of information systems development. In: EFITA 2003, Debrecen, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  27. Leake DB, Wilson DC (2001) A case-based framework for interactive capture and reuse of design knowledge. Appl Intell 14:77–94zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li Y, Shao X, Li P, Liu Q (2004) Design and implementation of a process-oriented intelligent collaborative product design system. Comput Ind 53(2):205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowe A, McMahon C, Culley S (2004a) Information access, storage and use by engineering designers—Part 1. Eng Designer March/April:30–32Google Scholar
  30. Lowe A, McMahon C, Culley S (2004b) Information access, storage and use by engineering designers—Part 2. Eng Designer May/June:23–25Google Scholar
  31. Lu S, Cai J, Burkett W, Udwadia F (2000) A methodology for collaborative design process and conflict analysis. Ann CIRP 49(1):69–74Google Scholar
  32. Lubit R (2001) The keys to sustainable competitive advantage: tacit knowledge and knowledge management. Organ Dyn 29(4):164–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Markus ML (2001) Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. J Manage Inf Syst 18(1):57–93MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsumoto IT, Stapleton J, Glass J Thorpe T (2005) A knowledge-capture report for multidisciplinary design environments. J Knowl Manage 9(3):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA (1993) Integration definition for function modeling (IDEFØ)Google Scholar
  36. Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci. 5(1):14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paashuis V, Boer H (1997) Organizing for concurrent engineering: an integration mechanism framework. Integr Manuf Syst 8(2):79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pakovich N, Marjanovich D (2001) Considering an object oriented approach to the design process planning. Int J Technol Manag 21:25–42Google Scholar
  39. Park H, Cutosky MR (1999) Framework for modeling dependencies in collaborative engineering processes. Res Eng Des 11(2):84–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pavkovic N, Marjanovic D (2000) Entities in the object oriented design process model. In: International design conference (Design 2000), Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramesh B, Tiwana A (1999) Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decis Support Syst 27:213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodgers PA, Caldwell NHM, Clarkson PJ, Huxor AP (2001) The management of concept design knowledge in modern product development organizations. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 14(1):108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodgers PA, Huxor AP, Caldwell NHM (1999) Design support using distributed web-based AI tools. Res Eng Des 11(1):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Röhl P, Kolonay R, Irani R, Sobolewski M, Kao K (2000) A federated intelligent product environment. In: Proceedings of the 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Sainter P, Oldham K, Larkin A, Murton A, Brimble R (2000) Product knowledge management within knowledge-based engineering systems. In: ASME 2000 Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Saviotti PP (1998) On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge. Res Policy 26:843–856Google Scholar
  47. Schofield M, Gregory M (2002) The impact of architectural uncertainty on product introduction in dispersed environments. In: Engineering management conference, 2002 (IEMC ‘02), IEEE International, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  48. Shahin TMM, Andrews PTJ, Sivaloganathan S (1999) A design reuse system. proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, Part B: J Eng Manuf 213(6):621–627Google Scholar
  49. Shooter S, Keirouz W, Szykman S, Fenves S (2000) A model for the flow of design information in product development. Eng Comput 16(3–4):178–194zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sim SK, Duffy AH (2003) Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Res Eng Des 14:200–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sivaloganathan S, Shahin TMM (1999) Design reuse: an overview. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers—Part B—Eng Manuf 213(7):641–655Google Scholar
  52. Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Tate D, Nordlund M (1996) A design process roadmap as a general tool for structuring and supporting design activities. In: Proceedings of the second world conference on integrated design and process technology, Austin, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Tucker D, Hackney R (2000) Towards the integration of concurrent engineering environments within organisational strategy. J Manag Dev 19(3):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tuomi I (1999) Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. J Manag Inform Syst 16(3):103–117Google Scholar
  56. Salminen V, Yassine A, Riitahuhta A (2000) A strategic management framework for collaborative product development. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on engineering design and automation (ED&A), Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  57. Walsham G (2001) Knowledge management: the benefits and limitations of computer systems. Eur Manage J 19(6):599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood III WH, Agogino AM (1996) Case-based conceptual design information server for concurrent engineering. Comput Aided Design 28(5):361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wujek B, Koch P, Chiang W (2000) A workflow paradigm for flexible design process configuration in FIPER. In: Proceedings of the 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA-2000–4868, Long Beach, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  60. Xu Z, Frazer J, Tang M (2002) Novel design methodology supporting product life-cycle design. Comput Ind 49:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yassine AA, Falkenburg DR (1999) A framework for design process specifications management. J Eng Des 10(3):223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zdrahal Z, Mulholland P, Domingue J, Hatala M (2000) Sharing engineering design knowledge in a distributed environment. Behav Inf Technol 19(3):189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Baxter
    • 1
  • James Gao
    • 2
  • Keith Case
    • 3
  • Jenny Harding
    • 3
  • Bob Young
    • 3
  • Sean Cochrane
    • 3
  • Shilpa Dani
    • 3
  1. 1.Decision Engineering CentreCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK
  2. 2.School of EngineeringThe University of GreenwichKentUK
  3. 3.Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations