Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 53–70 | Cite as

Fuzzy modelling of consensus during design conflict resolution

Original Paper


Consensus can be used for working out an agreement during design conflict resolution. This paper introduces an approach for consensus modelling in collaborative and distributed design. Consensus is represented by a formal model based on the fuzzy set theory. Defining a design cluster as a fuzzy evaluation relationship between a group of functional requirements and a group of conjecture regions allows the concept of consensus as a problem of the overlapping of design clusters of different perspectives to be introduced. To measure consensus, two key concepts are suggested: the intraconsensus design coefficient and the interconsensus design coefficient. Using the concept of consensus and its properties, the actors can more easily move towards consensus improvement or towards ideal consensus. From our observation, the result of interactions during collaborative and distributed design shows that a solution is a set of consensual design clusters. The concept of consensus is used (1) to evaluate design solution, (2) to assist the collaborative designing of a group of conjecture regions according to consensual functional requirements and finally (3) to capitalize on and share the know-how of the different actors.


Collaborative and distributed design Computer-aided design Conflict resolution Consensus identification Fuzzy modelling 


  1. Adelson B (1999) Developing strategic alliances: a framework for collaborative negotiation in design. Res Eng Des 11:133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonsson EK, Otto KN (1995) Imprecision in engineering design. ASME J Mech Des 117B:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandemer H, Gottwald S (1995) Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, fuzzy methods. Wiley, ChichesterMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Baoding L (2007) Uncertainty theory. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 17B:141–164MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Arieh D, Chen Z (2006) Linguistic group decision-making: opinion aggregation and mesures of consensus. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 5:371–386MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Arieh D, Easton T (2007) Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Sys 43(3):713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brazier FMT, Moshkina LV, Wijngaards NJE (2001) Knowledge level model of an individual designer as an agent in collaborative distributed design. Artif Intell Eng 15(2):137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brissaud D, Garro O (1996) An approach to concurrent engineering using distributed design methodology. Int J Concurr Eng Res Appl 4(3):303–311Google Scholar
  10. Case MP, Lu SCY (1996) Discourse model for collaborative design. Comput-Aided Des 28(5):333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiu M (2002) An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Des Stud 23(2):187–210MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper S, Taleb-Bendiab A (1998) Consensus: multi-party negotiation support for conflict resolution in concurrent engineering design. J Intell Manuf 9(2):155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day WHE (1988) Consensus methods as tools for data analysis. In: Bock HH (ed) Classification and related methods of data analysis, Proceedings of IFCS 87, North-Holland pp 317–324Google Scholar
  14. Détienne F (2006) Collaborative design: managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interact Comput 18(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong A (2004) Quantifying coherent thinking in design: a computational linguistics approach. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 521–540Google Scholar
  16. Dyer B, Song XM (1998) Innovation strategy and sanctioned conflict: a new edge in innovation? J Prod Innov Manage 15(6):505–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fan LQ, Senthil Kumar A, Jagdish BN, Bok SH (2008) Development of a distributed collaborative design framework within peer-to-peer environment. Comput-Aided Des 40(9):891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frey DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subrahmanian E, Katsikopoulos K, de Neufville R, Oye K, Clausing DP (2010) Research in engineering design: the role of mathematical theory and empirical evidence. Res Eng Design 21:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garro O, Salau I, Martin P (1995) Distributed design theory and methodology. Int J Concurr Eng: Res Appl 3(1):43–54Google Scholar
  20. Govaert G, Nadif M (2008) Block clustering with Bernoulli mixture models: comparison of different approaches. Comput Stat Data Anal 52(6):3233–3245MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hazelrigg GA (1996) Framework for Decision-based engineering-design. J Mech Des Trans ASME 120(4):653–658Google Scholar
  22. Hazelrigg GA (2010) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Design 21:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horváth I (2004) A treatise on order in engineering design research. Res Eng Design 15(3):155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huhns MN, Stephens LM (1999) Multiagent Systems and Societies of Agents. In: Weiss G (ed) Multiagent systems A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, pp 79–120Google Scholar
  25. Ito T, Fukuda S (1995) Browsing methodology for design support system. Int J Concurr Eng: Res Appl 3(1):13–20Google Scholar
  26. Keraron Y, Bernard A, Bachimont B (2009) Annotations to improve the using and the updating of digital technical publications. Res Eng Design 20:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein M (1991) Supporting conflict resolution in cooperative design systems. IEEE Trans Sys, Man Cybern 21(6):1379–1390Google Scholar
  28. Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI (2009) An evaluation scheme for assessing the worth of automatically generated design alternatives. Res Eng Design 20:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kusiak A, Wang J (1995) Dependency analysis in constraint negotiation. IEEE Trans Sys, Man, Cybern 25(9):1301–1313Google Scholar
  30. Kusiak A, Wang J, He DW (1996) Negotiation in constraint-based design. J Mech Des 118(4):470–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lara MA, Nof SY (2003) Computer-supported conflict resolution for collaborative facility designers. Int J Prod Res 41(2):207–233MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lara MA, Witzerman JP, Nof SY (2000) Facility description language for integrating distributed designs. Int J Prod Res 38(11):2471–2488MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li X, Zhou X, Ruan X (2002) Conflict management in closely coupled collaborative design system. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 15(4):345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li WD, Lu WF, Fuh JYH, Wong YS (2005) Collaborative computer-aided design-research and development status. Comput-Aided Des 37(9):931–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lu SCY, Cai J, Burkett W, Udwadia F (2000) A methodology for collaborative design process and conflict analysis. CIRP Ann-Manuf Technol 49(1):69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lu SCY, Elmaraghy W, Schuh G, Wilhelm R (2007) A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering. CIRP Annals–Manuf Technol 56(2):605–634Google Scholar
  37. Marcotorchino F (1987) An unified approach of the block-seriation problems. J Appl Stoch Models Data Anal 3(2):1–13Google Scholar
  38. Messick D, Brewer M (1983) Solving social dilemmas. In: Wheeler L, Shaver P (eds) Review of personality and social psychology Vol. 4. SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA, pp 11–44Google Scholar
  39. Movahed-Khah R (2006) Contribution à l’analyse du processus de conception collaborative et distribuée, en vue du développement des systèmes multi-agents. Ph.D. Thesis, UTBM, FranceGoogle Scholar
  40. Movahed-Khah R, Ostrosi E, Garro O (2007) Understanding the dynamics of state-problems in distributed and collaborative design process. Int J Concurr Eng: Res Appl 15(1):33–41Google Scholar
  41. Movahed-Khah R, Ostrosi E, Garro O (2010) Analysis of interaction dynamics in collaborative and distributed design process. Comput Ind 61(1):2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nguyen NT (2002) Consensus system for solving conflicts in distributed systems. Inf Sci 147:91–122MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ostrosi E, Ferney M (2007) Computer aided consensus searching system for collaborative and distributed design process. In: Proceedings of 4th International conference on product lifecycle management (PLM07), 11–13 July 2007, Milano, Italy, pp 311–320Google Scholar
  44. Ostrosi E, Garro O, Koukam A, Brissaud D (2001) CALC: un outil de traçabilité en conception. Revue Française de Gestion Industrielle 20(1):53–68Google Scholar
  45. Ouertani MZ (2008) Supporting conflict management in collaborative design: an approach to assess engineering change impacts. Comput Ind 59(9):882–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ouertani MZ, Gzara L (2008) Tracking product specification dependencies in collaborative design for conflict management. Comput-Aided Des 40(7):828–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pascale RT (1990) Managing on the edge: how the smartest companies use conflict to stay ahead. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Pawlak Z (1984) On conflicts. Int J Man–Mach Stud 21:127–134Google Scholar
  49. Pawlak Z (1998) An inquiry into anatomy of conflicts. J Inf Sci 108:65–78MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Pellow DN (1999) Framing emerging environmental movement tactics: mobilizing consensus, demobilizing conflict. Sociol Forum 14(4):659–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Reich Y (2010) My method is better!. Res Eng Design 21:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1998) Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Des Stud 19(2):161–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenschein JS, Zlotkin G (1994a) Designing conventions for automated negotiations. AI Magazine 15(3):29–46Google Scholar
  56. Rosenschein JS, Zlotkin G (1994b) Rules of encounter. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Shai O, Reich Y (2004a) Infused design. I. Theory. Res Eng Design 15:93–107Google Scholar
  58. Shai O, Reich Y (2004b) Infused design. II. Practice. Res Eng Design 15:108–121Google Scholar
  59. Shai O, Reich Y, Rubin D (2009) Creative conceptual design: extending the scope by infused design. Comput-Aided Des 41(3):117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shen Y, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2008) Product information visualization and augmentation in collaborative design. Comput-Aided Des 40(9):963–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Suh N (1990) Principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Susskind L (1999) An alternative to Robert’s rules of order for groups, organizations, and ad hoc assemblies that want to operate by consensus. In: Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) The consensus-building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–60Google Scholar
  63. Susskind L, Cruikshank J (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Ullah AMMS (2005) Handling design perceptions: an axiomatic design perspective. Res Eng Design 16:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Veeke HPM, Lodewijks G, Ottjes JA (2006) Conceptual design of industrial systems: an approach to support collaboration. Res Eng Design 17:85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang RC, Chuu SJ (2002) Group decision making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a manufacturing system. Eur J Oper Res 154:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang L, Shen W, Xie H, Neelamkavil J, Pardasani A (2002) Collaborative conceptual design-state of the art and future trends. Comput-Aided Des 34(13):981–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xiao A, Zeng S, Allen JK, Rosen DW, Mistree F (2005) Collaborative multidisciplinary decision making using game theory and design capability indices. Res Eng Design 16:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xie J, Song XM, Stringfellow A (1998) Inter-functional conflict, conflict resolution styles, and new product process: a four-culture comparison. Manage Sci 44(12):S192–S206MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young HP (1991) Negotiation analysis. In: Young HP (ed) Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  71. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy logic = Computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4(2):103–111MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zimmermann HJ (1996) Fuzzy set theory and its applications, 3rd edn. Kluwer Academics Publishers, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Mecatronique3MUniversité de Technologie de Belfort-MontbéliardBelfort CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives, Linguistique et Intelligence Artificielle (SCOLIA)Université de StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance
  3. 3.Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations