Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 173–187

Optimized sequencing of analysis components in multidisciplinary systems

Original Paper


System analysis of complex engineering systems is synthesized from a collection of analysis components that have data dependencies on each other. Sequencing interdependent analysis components in order to reduce the execution time has been addressed by multidisciplinary design optimization researchers. Representation of interdependency of analysis components is accomplished as a design structure matrix or as a graph made of nodes and edges. Sequencing of interdependent analysis components that form a directed acyclic graph is trivial. Aggregation (i.e., group of components) of some of the components into a single super-component that can render a directed cyclic graph to a directed acyclic graph is important in sequencing. Identification of components that form an aggregation is the first step in sequencing. We argue that the best form of aggregation is the strongly connected component of the graph. Challenge essentially is in sequencing within aggregations. An aggregation having n components presents a search space of n! candidate sequences. The current state of the art is to use evolutionary algorithms for this search. An aggregation requires repeated traversal (cycle/loop) of components within it for convergence. The central aim of sequencing is to reduce/minimize the overall execution time for achieving convergence through iterations. Several objective functions have been proposed for the associated optimization problems like minimize the number of feedback paths, minimize the weighted sum of feedback paths, minimize feedback and crossovers, etc. These are proxy objectives as they are not backed by mathematically established relation between the proxy objective and the aim. An objective method of predicting the number of iterations based on the sensitivity of components is proposed here. It is shown that the best sequence that takes least time to execute has a particular ordering of components, which we call one-hop-sequence. The one-hop-sequencing of components is easily achieved using a small extension to Tarjans depth first search algorithm, a standard tool in graph theory. Extended TDFS does not use sensitivity information and is much faster than evolutionary algorithms that use sensitivity information. System analysis can have simple aggregation, recursive aggregations (i.e., aggregation within aggregation) or overlapping aggregations. One-hop-sequence is shown to be the best sequence for all three cases. After sequencing of the components is done, we investigate whether an inner aggregation must retain its loop or it must be severed for speed up. This step uses sensitivity information and can offer further speed up. The proposed methodology is implemented as a tool named CASeq. Ideas discussed here may be useful to other design structure matrix applicable domains like software design, systems engineering, organizational design, product development, multidisciplinary design, product architecture, project management, building construction, manufacturing and so on.


Sequencing Graph Strongly connected component Extended Tarjan depth first search Aggregation Iteration 


  1. Allison JT, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros PY (2007) On selecting single-level formulations for complex system design optimization. ASME J Mech Des 129(9):898–906. doi:10.1115/1.2747632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altus SS, Kroo IM, Gage PJ (1996) A genetic algorithm for scheduling and decomposition of multidisciplinary design problems. ASME J Mech Des 118(4):486–489. doi:10.1115/1.2826916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA MDO-Technical Committee White paper on multidisciplinary design optimization,
  4. Blanchard BS, Fabrycky WJ (2006) Systems engineering and analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  5. Browning, Tyson R (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(3):292–306. doi:10.1109/17.946528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bustnay T, Ben-Asher JZ (2005) How many systems are there?—using the N2 method for systems partitioning. Syst Eng J 8(2):109–118. doi:10.1002/sys.20023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2001) Introduction to algorithms, 2nd edn. MIT Press and McGraw Hill, Cambridge and New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Eppinger SD, Whitney DE, Smith RP, Gebala DA (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Design 6(1):1–13. doi:10.1007/BF01588087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. “Graph theory”, MathWorld website:
  10. Hisham M, Abdelsalam E, Bao HP (2006) “A simulation-based optimization framework for product development cycle time reduction”, engineering management. IEEE Trans 53(1):69–85. doi:10.1109/TEM.2005.861805 Google Scholar
  11. Hisham M, Abdelsalam E, Bao HP (2007) Re-sequencing of design processes with activity stochastic time and cost: an optimization-simulation approach. ASME J Mech Des 129(2):150–157. doi:10.1115/1.2216730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kusiak A, Wang J (1993) Decomposition of the design process. ASME J Mech Des 115(4):687–695. doi:10.1115/1.2919255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCulley C, Bloebaum CL (1996) A genetic tool for optimal design sequencing in complex engineering systems. Struct Optim 12(2):186–201. doi:10.1007/BF01196956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier C, Yassine AA, Browning TR (2007) Design process sequencing with competent genetic algorithms. ASME J Mech Des 129(6):566–586. doi:10.1115/1.2717224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogers JL (1996) “DeMAID/GA: an enhanced design manager’s aid for intelligent decomposition,” NASA TM-11024Google Scholar
  16. Rogers JL (1996) DeMAID/GA—an enhanced design manager’s aid for intelligent decomposition. In: 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Seattle, WA, September 4–6, AIAA paper no. 96-4157Google Scholar
  17. Rogers JL (1999) Tools and techniques for decomposing and managing complex design projects. J Aircr 36(1):266–274. doi:10.2514/2.2434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sedgewick R (1992) Algorithms in C. Addison-Wesley, ReadingMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaja AS (2005) A survey of scheduling & network techniques, CASDE Report. Web:
  20. Shaja AS, Sudhakar K (2007) Discovering systems out of an inter-related network of components. J Syst Sci Eng 15(1):42–48 ISSN: 0972-5032Google Scholar
  21. Smith RP, Eppinger SD (1997) Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Manage Sci 43(3):276–293. doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.3.276 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steward DV (1981) Systems analysis and management: structure, strategy and design. Petrocelli Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Tarjan R (1972) Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J Comput 1(2):146–160. doi:10.1137/0201010 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. The design structure matrix website,
  25. Todd D (1997) Multiple criteria genetic algorithms in engineering design and operation, Ph.D. thesis, Engineering Design Centre, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Topological sorting: wikipedia web
  27. Whitfield RI, Duffy AHB, Coates G, Hills W (2003) Efficient process optimization. Concurr Eng Res Appl 11(12):83–92. doi:10.1177/1063293X03032082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yassine A, Falkenburg D, Chelst K (1999) Engineering design management: an information structure approach. Int J Prod Res 37(13):2957–2975. doi:10.1080/002075499190374 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations