Hierarchical Approach for Engineering Skills Acquisition

  • Mark S. Levin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2070)


The article addresses the use of hierarchical morphological design framework for engineering skills acquisition. The hierarchical ap- proach is the best way for structuring some complex design skills in the field of composite systems. Applications of the hierarchical morpho- logical approach involve hierarchical description, design and analysis of composite systems, and an analysis of system evolution. Our material de- scribes the following: (i) some hierarchical structures and combinatorial operations, (ii) hierarchical information, (iii) hierarchical processes (e.g., AHP, hierarchical decision making), (iv) our hierarchical morphological approach (HMA), (v) many applications of hierarchical morphological approach, (vi) some strategies for acquisition of engineering skills, and (vii) usefulness for engineering education and extension / structuring of engineering skills.


Engineering Education Skill Acquisition Design Alternative Hierarchical Approach Engineering Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. Adelson, “Cognitive Research; Uncovering How Designers Design; Cognitive Modeling: Explaining and Predicting How Designers Design”, Research in Engineering Design, 1 (1), 1989, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. R. Anderson, The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. R. Anderson, “Skill Acquisition: Compilation of Weak-method Problem Solutions”, Psychological Review, 94, 1987, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. A. Baldwin, and M. J. Chung, “Managing Engineering Data for Complex Products”, Research in Engineering Design, 7 (4), 1995, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. A. Botafogo, E. Rivlin, and B. Shneiderman, “Structural Analysis of Hypertext: Identifying Hierarchies and Useful Metrics”, ACM Trans. on Information Systems, 10 (2), 1992, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Bournaud, and J.-G. Ganascia, “Conceptual Clustering of Complex Objects: A Generalization Space Based Approach”, Proc. of the Third Intl. Conf. on Conceptual Structures, LNAI 954, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995, 173–187.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Bournaud, and J.-G. Ganascia, “Accounting for Domain Knowledge in the Construction of a Generalization Space”, Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce’s Dream, D. Lukose, H. Delugach, M. Kecler, L. Searle, J. Sowa, (Eds.), LNAI 1257, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997, 446–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. C. Conant, “Information Flows in Hierarchical Systems”, Intl. J. of General Systems, 1 (1), 1974, 9–18.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Conklin, “Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey”, IEEE Computer, 20 (9), 1987, 17–41.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Cordero, “Developing The Knowledge and Skills of R & D Professionals to Achieve Process Outcomes in Cross-Functional Teams”, The J. of High Technology Management Research, 10 (1), 1999, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Cross, “Skills of Expertise in Engineering Designers”, Research in Engineering Design, 10 (3), 1998, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. H. Demes, et al., “The Engineering Design Research Center of Carnegie Mellon University”, Proc. of the IEEE, 81 (1), 1993, 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. M. Eastman, A. H. Bond, and S. C. Chase, “Application and Evaluation of an Engineering Data Model”, Research in Engineering Design, 2 (4), 1991, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. L. Edwards, “Improved Design through Guidelines Support”, Engineering Designer, 19 (5), 1993, 22–23.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. R. Garey, and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability. The Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. E. Grossmann, and A. W. Westerberg, “Research Challenges in Process Systems Engineering”, AIChE Journal, 46 (9), 2000, 1700–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Harary, R. Z. Norman, and D. Carthwright, Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs, J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Z. Kamal, H. M. Karandikar, F. Mistree, and D. Muster, “Knowledge Representation for Discipline-Independent Decision Making”, Expert Systems in Computer-Aided Design, J. S. Gero (ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987, 289–318.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. H. Klein, “Cognitive Processes and Operations Research: A Human Information Processing Perspective”, J. of Operational Research Society, 45 (8), 1994, 855–866.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Klein, “Capturing Design Rationale in Concurrent Engineering Teams”, Computer, 1993, 39–47.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Sh. Levin, “A Hierarchical Hypertext System”, Aut. Doc. and Math. Linguistics, 23 (3), 1989, 52–59.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Sh. Levin, “Hierarchical Components of Human-Computer Systems”, Human Computer Interaction, LNCS 753, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993, 37–52.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Sh. Levin, “The Third Literacy”, Aut. Doc. and Math. Linguistics, 29 (3), 1995, 66–81.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Sh. Levin, Combinatorial Engineering of Decomposable Systems, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Sh. Levin, “Towards Systems Engineering Education”, Proc. of Eur. Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, 1, 2000, 257–262.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Sh. Levin, R. Shraga, H. Zamir, A. Shiff, and S. Inon, “Multicriteria Design of Product Trajectory: Example”, Presentation, Israeli National Conf. on Operations Research ORSIS’2000, Eilat, Israel, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Sh. Levin, E. Ben-Ezri, Y. Blonder, K. Hershkovits, N. Lev, and A. ShemTov, “Multicriteria Design of Life Cycle: Example”, Presentation, Intl. Conference MCDM’2000, Ankara, Turkey, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Sh. Levin, and M. Danieli, “Framework for Evaluation and Improvement of Buildings”, Proc. of Intl. Conf. CoDesigning2000, 2, Univ. of Coventry, 2000, 209–214.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Sh. Levin, and B. J. Feldman, “System Evolution: Example for Signal Processing”, Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Systems Engineering, Univ. of Coventry, 2000, 377–380.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Sh. Levin, and M. Firer, “Hierarchical Morphological Design of Immunoassay Technology”, Manuscript (under submission).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Sh. Levin, and L. Sokolova, “Hierarchical Example of Medical Treatment”, Manuscript.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Sh. Levin, and M. Nisnevich, “Combinatorial Scheme for Management of Life Cycle: Example for Concrete Macrotechnology”, J. of Intelligent Manufacturing, (in press), 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. I. Madanshetty, “Cognitive Basis for Conceptual Design”, Research in Engineering Design, 7 (4), 1995, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. L. Maher, “Engineering Design Synthesis: A Domain Independent Representation”, AI EDAM, 1 (3), 1987, 207–213.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. H. Michaelson, D. Michie, and A. Bonlander, “The Technology of Expert Systems”, BYTE, 4, 1985, 303–312.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Nilsson, Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, MacGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1971.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Minsky, “Commonsense-Based Interfaces”, Comm. of the ACM, 43 (8), 2000, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Minsky, The Emotion Machine. Pantheon, available in 2001, corresponding presentation: Eur. Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Univ. of Vienna, 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. E. Nissen, “Knowledge-based Knowledge Management in the Reengineering Domain”, Decision Support Systems, 27 (1-2), 1999, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    D. A. Norman, “Design Principles for Cognitive Artifacts”, Research in Engineering Design, 4 (1), 1992, 43–50.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    C. V. Ramamoorthy, and B. W. Wah, “Knowledge and Data Engineering”, IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1 (1), 1989, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    F. R. Roberts. Discrete Mathematical Models with Applications to Social, Biological and Environmental Problems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, MacGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1988.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. C. Scott, and J. E. Clayton. A Practical Guide to Knowledge Acquisition, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, 1991.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. J. Shenhar, “From Theory to Practice: Toward a Typology of Project Management Styles”, IEEE Trans. on Eng. Manag., 45 (1), 1998, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ch. Tong, and D. Sriram, (Eds.). Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design: Knowledge Acquisition, Commercial Systems, and Integrated Environments, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. J. Waller, “The Synthesis of Hierarchical Structures: Techniques and Applications”, Decision Sciences, 7, 1976, 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    A. Wong, and D. Sriram, “SHARED: An Information Model for Cooperative Product Development”, Research in Engineering Design, 5 (1), 1993, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark S. Levin
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Mechanical EngineeringBen-Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations