Architecture-Centric Design Approach for Multidisciplinary Product Development

  • A. A. Alvarez Cabrera
  • H. Komoto
  • T. J. van Beek
  • T. TomiyamaEmail author


Managing complexity is a crucial task during the development process of multidisciplinary complex products. To achieve an efficient and effective development process of such a product, all the stakeholders must maintain a common understanding of the system and mutually linked detailed information of the product. This chapter proposes system architecture as a concept wider than product architecture, which provides such an overview as well as information that links various detailed information about the product. System architecture includes not only structural elements and relations among them but also functions, behaviors represented by working principles, and a variety of requirements. The working principles are modeled with physical phenomena and the involved parameters and relations among those parameters (e.g., equations). This chapter presents three prototype tools for system architecting illustrated with examples.


Product Development Physical Phenomenon System Architecture Product Platform Function Requirement 
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.



This article is based on the research work performed at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, between 2006 and 2011 by the authors’ group. The authors gratefully acknowledge the following projects that supported the part of the research work: “Automatic Generation of Control Software for Mechatronics Systems” (supported by the Innovation-Oriented Research Programmed “Integral Product Creation and Realization (IOP IPCR)” of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation) and “Darwin” and “Octopus” (carried out under the responsibility of the Embedded Systems Institute in Eindhoven and partially supported by the same ministry under the BSIK program). Philips Healthcare and Océ Technologies were industrial partners of the Darwin and Octopus projects, respectively.


  1. Alvarez Cabrera AA (2011) Architecture-centric design: modeling and applications to control architecture generation. Dissertation, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  2. Avigad G, Moshaiov A, Brauner N (2003) Towards a general tool for mechatronic design. In: Proceedings of 2003 I.E. conference on control applications, 23–25 June 2003. pp 1035–1040. doi: 10.1109/cca.2003.1223153
  3. Baldwin C, Clark K (2006) Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. In: Braha D, Minai AA, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Understanding complex systems, vol 14. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–205. doi: 10.1007/3-540-32834-3_9 Google Scholar
  4. Beckers J, Heemels W, Bukkems B, Muller G (2007) Effective industrial modeling for high-tech systems: the example of happy flow. In: 17th annual symposium of INCOSE, San Diego, CA, USA, 24–28 Jun 2007. INCOSE, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  5. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(3):292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig K, DeVito M, Mattice M, LaVigna C, Teolis C (1999) Mechatronic integration modeling. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics, 1999. pp 1032–1037. doi: 10.1109/aim.1999.803314
  7. Danilovic M, Browning TR (2007) Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int J Proj Manage 25(3):300–314. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erden MS, Komoto H, van Beek TJ, D’Amelio V, Echavarria E, Tomiyama T (2008) A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 22(2):147–169Google Scholar
  9. Erixon G, von Yxkull A, Arnström A (1996) Modularity—the basis for product and factory reengineering. Ann CIRP 45(1):1–6. doi: 10.1016/s0007-8506(07)63005-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandez CIG (1996) Integration analysis of product architecture to support effective team co-location. M.Sc. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsberg K, Mooz H (1991) The relationship of system engineering to the project cycle. In: National Council on Systems Engineering (NCOSE) and American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM), Chattanooga, TN, 21–23 Oct 1991. pp 1–12Google Scholar
  12. IEEE (2000) Systems engineering and software engineering—Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. ISO/IEC 42010—IEEE-Std-1471-2000Google Scholar
  13. Komoto H, Tomiyama T (2010) A system architecting tool for mechatronic systems design. Ann CIRP 59(1):171–174. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Komoto H, Tomiyama T (2011) Multi-disciplinary system decomposition of complex mechatronics systems. Ann CIRP 60(1):191–194. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2011.03.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martinez MT, Favrel J, Ghodous P (2000) Product family manufacturing plan generation and classification. Conc Eng 8(1):12–23. doi: 10.1177/1063293x0000800102 Google Scholar
  16. Muller G (2007) A multidisciplinary research approach, illustrated by the Boderc project.
  17. Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Simpson TW, Siddique Z, Jiao J (2006) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Suh N (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Tomiyama T, D’Amelio V, Urbanic J, ElMaraghy W (2007) Complexity of multi-disciplinary design. Ann CIRP 56(1):185–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Umeda Y, Takeda H, Tomyama T, Yoshikawa H (1990) Function, behaviour and structure. In: Gero JS (ed) Proceedings of the 5th international conference: application of artificial intelligence in engineering, Boston, USA, 1990. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton and Springer, Berlin, pp 177–194Google Scholar
  23. Umeda Y, Ishii M, Yoshioka M, Shimomura Y, Tomiyama T (1996) Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 10(4):275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Amerongen J (2003) Mechatronic design. Mechatronics 13(10):1045–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Beek TJ, Tomiyama T (2010) Combining user workflow and system functions in product development. In: ASME conference proceedings, Montréal, Canada, 2010. pp 239–248Google Scholar
  26. Van Beek TJ, Erden MS, Tomiyama T (2010) Modular design of mechatronic systems with function modeling. Mechatronics 20(8):850–863. doi: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van der Aalst W (1998) The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J Circuit Syst Comp 8:21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Whitfield R, Smith J, Duffy A (2002) Identifying component modules. In: 7th International conference on artificial intelligence in design, Cambridge, 7 Dec 2002. pp 571–592Google Scholar
  29. Xu Y, Zou H (2007) Design principles for mechatronic systems based on information content. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 221(7):1245–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. A. Alvarez Cabrera
    • 1
  • H. Komoto
    • 2
  • T. J. van Beek
    • 1
  • T. Tomiyama
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and TechnologyTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.Cranfield UniversityCranfieldUK

Personalised recommendations