Modelling the evolution of uncertainty levels during design

  • David C. Wynn
  • Khadidja Grebici
  • P. John Clarkson
Original Paper


Design work involves uncertainty that arises from, and influences, the progressive development of solutions. This paper analyses the influences of evolving uncertainty levels on the design process. We focus on uncertainties associated with choosing the values of design parameters, and do not consider in detail the issues that arise when parameters must first be identified. Aspects of uncertainty and its evolution are discussed, and a new task-based model is introduced to describe process behaviour in terms of changing uncertainty levels. The model is applied to study two process configuration problems based on aircraft wing design: one using an analytical solution and one using Monte-Carlo simulation. The applications show that modelling uncertainty levels during design can help assess management policies, such as how many concepts should be considered during design and to what level of accuracy.


Uncertainty levels Design process model Discrete-event simulation 


  1. 1.
    Grebici, K., Goh, Y.M., McMahon, C.A.: Uncertainty and risk reduction in engineering design embodiment processes. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Design Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kesseler E., Vankan W.J.: Multidisciplinary design analysis and multi-objective optimisation applied to aircraft wing. WSEAS Trans. Syst. Control 2(1), 221–227 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Earl, C.F., Eckert, C.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Predictability of change in engineering: a complexity view. In: Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balachandran L.K., Guenov M.D.: Computational workflow management for conceptual design of complex systems. AIAA J. Aircr. 47(2), 699–704 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thunnissen, D.P.: Propagating and Mitigating uncertainty in the design of complex multidisciplinary systems. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Earl C.F., Johnson J., Eckert C.M.: Complexity. In: Clarkson, P.J., Eckert, C.M. (eds) Design Process Improvement—A Review of Current Practice, pp. 174–197. Springer, London (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smithson M.: Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Springer, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pons D.J., Raine J.K.: Design with uncertain qualitative variables under imperfect knowledge. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 218(8), 977–986 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oberkampf W.L., Helton J.C., Joslyn C.A., Wojtkiewicz S.F., Ferson S.: Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given uncertain parameters. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 85(1–3), 11–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mourelatos Z., Zhou J.: Reliability estimation and design with insufficient data based on possibility theory. AIAA J. 43(8), 1696–1705 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McManus H., Hastings D.: A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 34(3), 81–94 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chalupnik, M.J., Wynn, D.C., Clarkson, P.J.: Approaches to mitigate the impact of uncertainty in development processes. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, vol. 1, pp. 459–570 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eversheim W., Roggatz A., Zimmermann H.-J., Derichs T.: Information management for concurrent engineering. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 100(2), 253–265 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nilsen T., Aven T.: Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 79(3), 309–317 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zimmermann H.J.: An application-oriented view of modeling uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 122(2), 190–198 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ordaz-Hernandez K., Fischer X., Bennis F.: A mathematical representation for mechanical model assessment: numerical model qualification method. Int. J. Comput. Math. Sci. 1(4), 216–226 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wynn, D.C., Eckert C.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Applied signposting: a modeling framework to support design process improvement. In: Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Browning T.R., Eppinger S.D.: Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 49(4), 428–442 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krishnan V., Eppinger S.D., Whitney D.E.: A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Manag. Sci. 43(4), 437–451 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Donovan, B.D., Eckert, C.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Simulating design processes to assist in design process planning. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lévárdy V., Browning T.R.: An adaptive process model to support product development project management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 56(4), 600–620 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wyatt, D.F., Wynn, D.C., Jarrett, J.P., Clarkson, P.J.: Supporting product architecture design using computational design synthesis using network structure constraints. Res. Eng. Des. (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00163-011-0112-y
  23. 23.
    Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Modelling iteration in engineering design. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goh, Y.M., McMahon, C.A., Booker J.: Improving confidence in simulation-based design through error functions. In: Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sébastian P., Ledoux Y.: Decision support systems in preliminary design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 3(4), 223–226 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sébastian P., Chenouard R., Nadeau J.-P., Fischer X.: The embodiment design constraint satisfaction problem of the BOOTSTRAP facing interval analysis and genetic algorithm based decision support tools. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 1(2), 99–106 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antonsson E., Otto K.N.: Imprecision in engineering design. ASME J. Mech. Des. 117(B), 25–32 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evans J.H.: Basic design concepts. J. Am. Soc. Nav. Eng. 71(4), 671–678 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eppinger S.D.: Model-based approaches to managing concurrent engineering. J. Eng. Des. 2(4), 283–290 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jarrett J.P., Dawes W.N., Clarkson P.J.: An approach to integrated multi-disciplinary turbomachinery design. ASME J. Turbomach. 129(3), 488–494 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jarrett J.P., Clarkson P.J.: The surge-stagnate model for complex design. J. Eng. Des. 13(3), 189–196 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eckert C.M., Clarkson P.J., Zanker W.: Change and customization in complex engineering domains. Res. Eng. Des. 15(1), 1–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bell, C.P., Clarkson, P.J., Dawes, W.N.: Improving the turbine cooling conceptual design process. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Berlin, Germany, 9–13 May 2008Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sobek D.K. II, Ward A.C., Liker J.K.: Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40(2), 67–83 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Wynn
    • 1
  • Khadidja Grebici
    • 2
  • P. John Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Design Centre, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations