FPSO ChapterII

CHAPTER II.
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE HYPOTHESES

2.1
ADAPTING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GAME..................................................... 44
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.2
Engineering Design: Discord with the Ruling Paradigm ..................................... 55

The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Engineering Design ....................... 56
The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Social Sciences.............................. 58
The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Economics .................................... 59
The Evolutionary Approach: A Summary.......................................................... 60
STABILIZING THE PRODUCT AN ARGUMENT FOR NUMERICAL

TAXONOMY........................................................................................................................... 62
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.5
Typological Thinking: Foundational to the Ruling Paradigm.............................. 49

Developing Products According to the Ruling Paradigm .................................... 51
Population Thinking: Foundational to the Evolutionary Approach...................... 52
Developing Products According to the Evolutionary Approach .......................... 54
CURRENT TRENDS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH ........... 55
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.4
The Process of Change: Two Opposing Views .................................................. 44

Evolution: A Process of Adapting to Change ..................................................... 45
Variation and Selection: The Unit Events in Evolution....................................... 46
Product and Process equals Phenotype and Genotype...................................... 47
Stabilizing Products and Varying Processes: Industrial Practices ....................... 47
The Evolutionary Approach in the Realm of Engineering Design ....................... 48
THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH VERSUS THE RULING PARADIGM.......................... 49
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
42
Design a HPP Based on Commonalities: Recapping Chapter I ........................... 62

Group Technology (GT): A Formal Approach to Standardization ...................... 62
Numerical Taxonomy: An Integrator................................................................. 65
CHANGING THE PROCESS AN ARGUMENT FOR ADDRESSING LEARNING .......... 69
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.1.3
Improve the Process Through Change: A Recap ................................................ 69

Technology Diffusion: Modeling the Effect of Learning..................................... 70
From Mutation to Innovation: Mapping of Variation Mechanisms ..................... 71
2.6
SYNTHESIZING PRODUCT AND PROCESS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE

COMPROMISE DSP................................................................................................................ 74
2.7
A LOOK BACK AND A LOOK AHEAD................................................................................. 75
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 The Darwinian Logic in a Population of Self-Replicators (Berra 1990) ...................... 46
Figure 2-2 (a) Numerical Taxonomy in Biological Classification (b) Numerical Taxonomy
used to Define HPPs .............................................................................................. 67
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Introduction of Genetic Variations: A Mapping to Engineering Design........................ 72
ii
CHAPTER II
2.
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE

HYPOTHESES
There never was in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs
or two grains; the most universal quality is diversity
- Michel de Montaigne
NumTax TechDiff c-DSP
x x
x x
x x
HPPRM
Demonstrating applicability of
Evolutionary approach
Numerical Taxonomy
Technology Diffusion
c-DSP
The principal objective in this chapter is to substantiate the choice of hypotheses that we
postulate in Section 1.5.1. The approach we follow is first to substantiate the fundamental hypothesis,
then to substantiate the derived hypotheses.
In order to support the Fundamental Hypothesis we demonstrate that an Evolutionary Approach

increases adaptability, and that it is gaining ground on the mechanistic approach (shows generality).
In order to substantiate Hypothesis 1, we demonstrate the applicability of Numerical Taxonomy to

identify the potential for standardization in an existing product portfolio.
In order to substantiate Hypothesis 2, we demonstrate how Technology Diffusion captures the effect
of reduced performance while learning during organizational implementation of new processes.
In order to substantiate Hypothesis 3, we demonstrate that the compromise DSP is aimed at flexible
and robust solutions.
Based on this chapter we assert that the postulated hypotheses are appropriate in context of this
research, hence, testing these hypotheses represents validating the HPPRM.
CHAPTER II
The Appropriateness of the Hypotheses
43
CHAPTER II
2.1
ADAPTING TO CHANGE
THE NAME OF THE GAME
The objective in this section is to add to the substantiation of the fundamental hypothesis by
tying product development to the evolution of biological organisms. We do this by presenting two
opposing views in Section 2.1.1 of explaining how manmade system changes over time. Based on our
observations presented in Section 1.2 the evolutionary model seems to fit better, and in Section 2.1.2 we
present some key evolutionary principles. And finally, in Section 2.1.3 we tie these principles to product
development in general, and product platform design in particular.
2.1.1
The Process of Change: Two Opposing Views

In Section 1.1.3 we link reuse to affordable adaptation of existing products; in Section 1.2.1
we link affordable adaptation to improving product adaptability; and in Section 1.2.2 we link
improved product adaptability to economic success. It all boils down to (1) that the market changes
constantly and unpredictably, and (2) that success (i.e., survival) is linked to how well a product is
adapted to these changes. Hence, product development is very much linked to the processes that change
the market.
If we define the market as a system, and the state of this system in terms of the values taken at
a particular moment by its state variables, then it follows that the paths of the state variables through time
describe changes in the state of the system. To say how the system changes, we must explain how the
sequence of states arises, which ultimately is an explanation of the process of change. In (Hall 1994) two
opposing views of explaining this process are presented. One, taken from physics, views changes in the
state of systems as being determined by externally given natural laws; a mechanistic view. The other,
taken from the biological sciences, views system changes as being generated by forces working within the
evolutionary view.
A Mechanistic View on the Process of Change

From a mechanistic perspective, complex reality is simplified by assuming that basic units of
analysis are either identical, or that some description of a single unit can be adopted which captures the
essence of all. In this view, variation is merely a nuisance, attributed to the imperfect manifestation of the
underlying essences, a distraction from the typical in which clues to the laws of the universe are to be
found (Mayr 1982). The laws referred to are natural laws, which are viewed as timeless in the sense that
they hold in all places at all times. Hence, uncovering these laws would facilitate prediction of systems,
44
CHAPTER II
which would make them deterministic. Developing products according to this view implies that we seek
equilibrium solutions that are optimal regardless of time or place.
An Evolutionary View on the Process of Change

From an evolutionary perspective, variation is not seen as a nuisance, but the central means of
explaining how system changes. Rather than seeking general principles of unknown origin about how a
system functions, evolutionists delve into how observed states come into being and give rise to other
states. These are questions about creative forces rather than pure functioning. In this endeavor, the
diversity of experience is viewed as central to understanding the process of change. The notion of diversity
is obviously relevant to engineering design once it is recognized that no two firms in an industry deliver
identical products in term of operational performance, cost or quality. Developing products according to
this view implies that we seek robust solutions for a changing world.
The Opposing Views in Context of Our Philosophical Anchoring

In Section 1.6 we position ourselves in the relativistic school of epistemology, which clearly
opposes the mechanistic view with its constancy and universal laws. In this context, optimal solutions
are based on the assumption that the criteria for optimality are possible to derive and articulate. This
again, is based on the assumption that our knowledge is not only correct but complete. Adhering to the
relativistic school of epistemology, we do not believe that these assumptions are valid. We believe that the
world is constantly changing, hence, we believe in products that are changeable in an affordably way, or
are able to function for a range of conditions. In contrast to the mechanistic view, the evolutionary view
on the process of change does not consider solutions as optimal or non-optimal. The direction of change
is based on the solutions that are present, and which of them are perceived as better than others in context
of the environment. We think the latter describe the observed reality in product development better, hence,
we adhere to the evolutionary view and proceed to further tie it to product development.
2.1.2
Evolution: A Process of Adapting to Change

As we mentioned in Section 1.4.2 the leading theory when it comes to explaining evolution as
we observe it, is neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a synthesis of Darwins idea of gradual evolutionary

changes (Darwin 1859) and Mendels discovery of genetic stability (Mendel 1865). The gradual
evolutionary change mechanism also known as Darwinian Logic, see Figure 2-1 is based on the
assumption that any organisms primary goal is to reproduce as many times as possible. Thus, populations
tend to increase in an environment with finite supply of resources, creating competition for the resources.
45
CHAPTER II
All individuals have different traits and those traits favored in competition will come to dominate the
population survival of the fittest through natural selection. Since traits appear as a product of genes and
environment, and some traits are heritable, a populations gene-pool will reflect the dominating traits.
1. Organisms tend to
1. Organisms tend to
increase
increaseininnumbers
numbers
exponentially
exponentially
3.3.There
Thereisiscompetition
competition
for
forresources:
resources:the
the
struggle
strugglefor
forexistence
existence
5. Favored variants
5. Favored variants
increase in frequency:
increase in frequency:
natural selection
natural selection
2. There is a finite
2. There is a finite
supply of resources
supply of resources
4. All characters vary,
4. All characters vary,
including those that
including those that
affect competition
affect competition
7.7.Permanent
Permanentchange
changeinin
genetic
composition
genetic compositionofof
population:
population:evolution
evolution
6.6.Some
Somepart
partofof
variation is heritable
variation is heritable
Figure 2-1
The Darwinian Logic in a Population of Self-Replicators (Berra 1990)
2.1.3
Variation and Selection: The Unit Events in Evolution

At the finest scale, evolution is a coupling of an episode of genetic variation with an episode of
phenetic selection during a single generation, hence, it is referred to as the unit event in evolution (Bell
1997). Based on this we infer that variation is the key to adaptation, and moreover, the amount of
variation determines the speed with which a population adapts. Variation is very prerequisite for any
change, development or progress, not only in biology, but in any domain, at any time. It seems like the
closest we come a universal principle. Selection, on the other hand, is not the key to adaptation, but the
turner of the key. By selecting upon favorable variants, selection effectuates the adaptation of the
population, and hence, provides direction to the change.
In Nature, variation appears at a genetic level, whereas selection appears at a phenetic level. In
other words, Nature adapts by constantly changing the genotype and stabilizing the phenotype around
the individuals most fit for a given condition. We believe that where the variation and selection appear is
significant, hence, we propose a mapping of genotype and phenotype into the realm of engineering.
46
CHAPTER II
2.1.4
Product and Process equals Phenotype and Genotype

genotype, which remains unchanged over time, gives a description of the
complete set of alleles inherited. However, the term genotype is normally used on a subset of alleles for
classification. Hence, the definition of genotype used in this dissertation is the class of which an
organism is a member, based upon the postulated state of its alleles (Lewontin 1992).
The genotype provides the potential and will together with the environment determine the
actual state of the characters, referred to as the phenotype. As for genotype, the term phenotype is
normally used on a subset of characters for classification. Hence, the definition used in this dissertation is
the class of which an organism is a member, based upon the observable physical qualities of the
organism including its morphology, physiology, and behavior at all levels of description (Lewontin
1992).
Taking this into the engineering domain, we suggest that genotype corresponds to the class of
which a product is a member, based upon the technology and processes that are actually used in realizing
it. Similarly, we suggest that phenotype corresponds to the class of which a product is a member, based
upon the observable characters of the product including its form, function, processes, material, and
performance at all levels of description. Included in performance is total cost and time to market.
In short, we define the processes (everything included) needed to realize a product as
analogous to genotype, and the product itself as analogous to phenotype. Following up on the analogy,
stabilizing the phenotype implies stabilizing the product, and changing the genotype implies changing
the processes.
2.1.5
Stabilizing Products and Varying Processes: Industrial Practices

Based on the previous we suggest that adaptation to changes, i.e., to become more in tune with
the market requirements, is best done by stabilizing the product and changing the processes. In other
words, the products that meet the requirements and provides the most leverage to existing designs are
favored, and costs / quality / time to market are addressed by continuously improving the realization
processes. How well does this jibe with the industrial reality?. To answer this question we look at two
industrial successes.
First we look to Volvo. In 1966 the 140 series was introduced and was refined and developed
within the same envelope for 8 years before the successor the 240 series was introduced in 1974. The
240 series was honed and refined for an impressive 18 years before discontinued in 1992. The 760 series,
introduced in 1982, was refined and honed for only 9 years before the 850 series was introduced in 1991.
In all these cases, the outer appearance for each series virtually didnt change; the changes were small
47
CHAPTER II
from year to year, allowing all problems to be addressed in turn. This resulted in an exceptional high
quality for the later models within each series. In contrast to the stable products, Volvo has changed
dramatically in the way they realize their cars, and has been forerunners in many areas concerning
organization of the work-place; they introduced self organized working cells and a very flat organizational
hierarchy. Toyota has a similar history with their Corolla model, which they have honed and refined for
over thirty years. Its quality and value for money have made it the best selling car world wide for a
number of years.
Another example is Boeing. As we already have mentioned in Section 1.3.2 Boeing has
virtually not changed the 747 since they introduced it in 1969. Nor have they changed the other families
that are currently delivered. (They do develop new families, though.) And similarly to Volvo and Toyota,
they invest tremendous amount of resources into improving their processes. From their web-site
www.boeing.com we get to know that beginning in early 1994, The Boeing Company initiated a process
improvement activity called Define and Control Airplane Configuration / Manufacturing Resource
Management (DCAC/MRM). This "breakthrough" initiative will improve the processes the company uses
to produce airplanes and is a significant opportunity to further reduce costs, cycle time and defects.
DCAC/MRM will substantially enhance the company's ability to deliver more value to its customers.
Having linked Boeings product development strategy to the design of product platforms,
brings us to believe that designing product platforms per se is an evolutionary act in its own right; its a
specific instantiation of stabilizing the product. However, as we have pointed out, stabilizing the product
should be done in parallel with changing, i.e., continuously improving, the realization processes. We
further believe that this strategy improves adaptability to change in a very fundamental way; adapting a
product through adapting its realization process. From this perspective, the offshore way of saving time
and money by introducing new products realized in the same old way is clearly wrong. And the track
record of virtually all offshore developments may give support to this claim. This is elaborated further in
Section 2.2.2. Having to some degree demonstrated that the evolutionary approach show some merits in
industry, we proceed to place the evolutionary approach in an engineering design context.
2.1.6
The Evolutionary Approach in the Realm of Engineering Design

Biological evolution, or neo-Darwinism, has come to be a general theory that binds the
biological sciences together. Theodosius Dobzhansky is famous for having said that nothing in biology
can be understood except in the light of evolution. A general, unifying theory has meant a lot to the
biological sciences; just imagine the importance of being able to tie research at a micro-biological level to
research at a population level. In many other sciences this importance is understood, and they search for a
48
CHAPTER II
unifying, general theory similar to evolution. In physics they seek to tie research at a quantum-mechanics
level to research at a cosmic level (Hawking 1988); in economics they seek to tie research at a house-hold
level to research at a global economy level (Hall 1994); in social sciences they seek to tie research at an
individual level to research at a society level (Sober 1995). In contrast, engineering designers are still
discussing whether a general, unifying theory is of any value at all (Eder 1987; Dixon 1988; Staley and
Vora 1990; Warfield 1990; Hoover and Jones 1991; Cross 1992; Sargent and Road 1994; Hubka and Eder
1996). We believe it is, and anchored in the discussion provided in the remainder of this Chapter we
assert that an evolutionary approach is a good starting point for a general theory of engineering design.
2.2
THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH

VERSUS THE RULING PARADIGM
The objective in this section is to add further to the substantiation of the fundamental
hypothesis by demonstrating that the evolutionary approach provides a better basis for adapting to change
than the ruling paradigm. We do this by presenting, in Section 2.2.1, the foundation for the ruling
paradigm. In Section 2.2.2 we present the ramifications of developing products based on the ruling
paradigm. In Section 2.2.3 we present the foundation for the evolutionary approach. And finally, in
Section 2.2.4 we present the ramifications for developing products based on an evolutionary approach.
2.2.1
Typological Thinking: Foundational to the Ruling Paradigm

The existing approach to engineering design is anchored in the ruling paradigm of science,
namely, reductionism / formalism / foundationalism, see Section 1.6.1. This paradigm is based on
Typological Thinking where the types are real and any variation is an illusion (Mayr 1995). Typological
Thinking is anchored in the pre-Socratic process versus object discussion. Heraclitus represents a process
view by claiming that there is nothing but change whereas Parmenides represents an object view by
claiming that change is an illusion. Attempts to bridge these radical views were made by Democritus
who claimed that unchangeable particles [atoms] make up an ever changing world, and Plato who
eidos [types] from the ideal and real world underlie the observed variability in
the illusionary world of our senses (Honderich 1995; Mayr 1995). Over the course of time, however, the
basic building blocks of Democritus and the ideal types of Plato prevailed. These thoughts were taken
further by Aristotle, Descartes, Sir Newton, and Kant, just to name a few, and can be summarized in three
dogmas; the Dogma of Objects, the Dogma of Categorization, and the Dogma of Scientific Knowledge
(Emblemsvg 1999).
49
CHAPTER II
The Dogma of Objects emphasizes the importance of objects over processes. This dogma is
primarily anchored in the static world view advocated by both Democritus and Plato; what is real and
intrinsic does not change (types and atoms), whereas the observable changes are due to imperfect world
processes (illusionary shadows and collision of atoms)(Honderich 1995). The focus on objects derives a
need for organization, which leads to the next dogma.
The Dogma of Categorization advocates that the whole is approximately the sum of a reduced
set of parts that are decoupled. This dogma is primarily anchored in the Platonic world view; a limited
number of fixed, distinct, and unchangeable types underlie the observed variability (Mayr 1995). Plato
may be the father of categorization but Aristotle, who himself rejected the Platonic types, has probably
contributed the most to sustaining and manifesting the dogma of categorization. In his scientific project,
the scale of being, groups of physical objects sharing the same typical features are placed relative to each
other based on their value. Interesting to note is that species was introduced to divide the organic world,
a division used even today (Honderich 1995). Even if Aristotle himself viewed the world as a continuum
(the distinctions between groups are blurred (Sober 1995)), the legacy to science is that the world consists
of discontinuous, distinct, and unchanging types. This concept combined with the concept of basic
building blocks has resulted in the notion that a whole can be treated as a collection of parts. The logical
consequence of this view is that the properties of the whole are viewed as a sum of the properties of the
parts. Moreover, the properties of some parts are more influential on the whole than others. Hence, in
order to gain knowledge about a whole, it is partitioned into its most important parts where each part in
the reduced model is analyzed separately. Then a synthesis of the whole is based on putting together
pieces of knowledge from the reduced model. This is the basis for reductionism, an approach that has been
very successful, especially within biology and physics in the western world (Honderich 1995). When
combining the dogma of objects with the dogma of categorization, the world becomes a set of fixed,
distinct objects that are more or less decoupled. This world view rises the question: how can we acquire
knowledge about the objects and how can we organize them?, which leads to the next dogma.
The Dogma of Scientific Knowledge asserts knowledge to be measurable evidence supporting
the truths of the ruling paradigm. Worth noting is the public notion that this time the scientists really
got it the truths we have now are final. This dogma is also primarily anchored in the Platonic world
view; the type is the only thing that is real. Hence, the only philosophical and scientific inquiry considered
valid, is inquiry directed towards unveiling reality. The inquiry itself, which is the process of acquiring
knowledge, is based on logic and mathematics stemming from ancient Greek tradition and refined by
Galileo. He introduced the scientific method stating that research should be done in one of two ways. (1)
Observe nature and describe the studied phenomena using logic and mathematics; (2) derive some
properties about some phenomena using logic and mathematics, then observe nature to see if the derived
50
CHAPTER II
results fit the empirical results. This forms the basis for the foundationalist / reductionist / formalist school
of epistemology in the seventeenth century, where Descartes was the most prominent figure Having
elaborated on each of the dogmas of Typological Thinking we take a look at the ramifications of using this
approach in engineering design.
2.2.2
Developing Products According to the Ruling Paradigm

We assert that there is a constant gap between what the market asks for and what the industry
can offer, i.e., there is always room for improvements. This implies that the ultimate objective of
developing products is to close this gap. i.e., to adapt to changes when they occur, as well as constantly
improving cost and quality. What are the ramifications of adapting products according to Typological
Thinking?
First we look at the ramifications of applying the dogma of objects. Viewing the world as fixed
objects has resulted in a search for the optimal solution. This implies searching for some static
equilibrium, an approach commonly seen in engineering design. This approach is supported by many of
our most prominent and fundamental scientific theories, such as the first and second laws of
thermodynamics. According to the second law of thermodynamics, any system progresses from high
towards low order to find its thermodynamic equilibrium. However, systems operating far away from their
thermodynamic equilibrium, such as life, cannot be described adequately by the laws of thermodynamics;
evolution show that life goes from low towards higher complexity. This apparent conflict may be seen as
the ultimate manifestation of the product versus process discussion (Capra 1996). As an effort to reduce
the adversary impacts of optimization, the optimality criteria are constantly being broadened; designing
for X, designing for manufacturing, Integrated Product and Processes Design, etc. Nevertheless, the
search for the optimal product and a fixed world view is still prevalent, resulting in processes still being
viewed through the product.
Secondly, we look at the ramifications of applying the dogma of categorization. Viewing the
whole as approximately the sum of a reduced set of decoupled parts, has resulted in a wide spread practice
of sub-optimization. When designers are faced with a complex problem, it is divided into manageable
sub-problems. This division has traditionally been along discipline lines to centralize discipline
knowledge. The centralization of discipline knowledge, however, has created an introvert focus; each
discipline seeks its optimal way to meet its specification. This is traditionally done by freezing interdisciplinary input to each discipline model. This results in a model only capable of optimizing variables
for a particular discipline for one fixed state of all other disciplines. Hence, reduced discipline-based
models can only give qualitative information (at the best ) about effects on the total system performance.
51
CHAPTER II
Thirdly, we look at the ramifications of applying the dogma of scientific knowledge. Viewing
scientific knowledge as measurable evidence supporting the truths of the ruling paradigm, has lead to
the notion that what we know is all there is. Besides providing the two other dogmas with validity and
credibility (amplifying their effects), this notion has resulted in an extreme confidence in technology and
its ability to solve all problems. This notion grows stronger as science progresses and we are able to
acquire more and more rational knowledge. As our notion of knowing all there is to know grows stronger,
our caution grows weaker. This is seen frequently as new products are released and then recalled because
of unanticipated effects. Classical in this context is the story about the scientifically proven fact that
Formula is better for infants than breast milk. As researchers are looking into this matter they reveal an
incredible complexity regarding breast milk composition and infant needs. Similarly, the notion that all
we know is all there is has also created problems in the offshore oil and gas industry. Novel concepts are
introduced all the time to address particularly costly and / or time consuming activities. However, by being
novel new problems are introduced that cannot be fully anticipated in the early design stages. Frequently,
the magnitude of the new problems is underestimated grossly, and we suspect this to be mainly due to the
dogma of scientific knowledge.
By adapting and improving products according to Typological Thinking, we design for a fixed
world with limited knowledge ending up with products that are sub-optimized, yet we claim that we have
the optimal solution. The overall ramifications are perhaps best seen in the growing environmental
problems we are facing. This is elaborated in (Emblemsvg 1999) where the solution is seen as designing
by deliberately violating the three dogmas. In the following we introduce the Evolutionary Approach and
demonstrate how it violates all three dogmas of Typological Thinking.
2.2.3
Population Thinking: Foundational to the Evolutionary Approach

The Evolutionary Approach is based on Population Thinking where variations are real and
types are illusions (Mayr 1995). Population Thinking is anchored in neo-Darwinism and based on the
assumption that all organic phenomena are composed of unique features and can be described collectively
only in statistical terms. In Population Thinking the key to adaptation is (1) having a population, and (2)
having variation in the population. Hence, when external conditions changes, there is always somebody
that is better adapted, thus showing the preferred direction. From this we see that without variation, there
would be no adaptation. Hence, in Population Thinking variation is the key to progress. Having a
population of different variants implies competition for the limited resources. In this competition some
variants do better than others, which points to a very important aspect of Population Thinking; relative
performance. This means that evolution operates on a relative rather than absolute scale. Hence, an object
52
CHAPTER II
is measured on a scale provided by its context, which implies that objects cannot readily be decoupled;
they all seem to be depending on each other.
From this it can be inferred that the relativistic aspect of Population Thinking supports a search
for satisficing2-1 solutions rather than optimum solutions, which undermines the dogma of objects.
Further, it can be inferred that the relativistic aspect supports a holistic rather than reductionistic view,
which undermines the dogma of categorization. Finally, it can be inferred that the relativistic aspect
supports relative rather than absolute truths, which undermines the dogma of knowledge.
The competition between variants in a population is the basis for natural selection. In biology
natural selection refers to the rate of deaths or sterility that is directly linked to an organisms genotype.
Note that this may be only a fraction of the total mortality in a population. Hence, the individuals best
adapted to their environment have the highest probability of survival and therefore the highest probability
of leaving most offspring, which leaves us with a selection that is probabilistic. The industrial analogy to
probabilistic selection is that decisions are based on limited information, hence, based on an objects
perceived performance rather than its actual performance. From this it can be inferred that the
probabilistic aspect of Population Thinking supports cautious decision making and inclusion of more than
just rational knowledge (i.e., recognizing that the information is limited), which undermines the dogma of
knowledge.
When faced with changes in living conditions, some individuals do better in the competition
due to some unique combination of traits. This winning combination is preserved in the population
through heritage; the offspring is a slight variation of its parents. Hence, a population is very much a
product of its history, which implies that nature works with what it got and is not so much concerned
about what it could have had. From this it can be inferred that the historical aspect of Population Thinking
supports our observation about path-dependence introduced in Section 1.2.2. It further enhances the
relativistic aspect by focusing on what is present and not on what could have been, and hence,
undermines optimized solutions and thus the dogma of objects and scientific knowledge.
In addition to preserving the winning combinations, they are also shared with the rest of the
population. The individuals having the winning combination (i.e., the fittest) leaves more offspring; these
offspring will have variants of the winning combination; they will fare better leaving even more offspring,
and so on. Over generations the winning combination disseminates through the population and we say
that evolution has occurred. Hence, evolution is a relative process of adapting to change and it rests on
three principles, population, heredity and selection. These three principles are characterized by variation,
path-dependence, and probabilistics, which also characterize product development as found in Section
53
CHAPTER II
1.2.2. From this it can be inferred that the evolutionary approach supports Heraclitus claim that there is
nothing but change, hence, supporting the notion that we have to shift our focus from the object to the
processes shaping the objects in order to increase adaptability. This certainly undermines the very
foundation of Typological Thinking; the world is not constituted of fixed objects it is a continuous
process of change.
2.2.4
Developing Products According to the Evolutionary Approach

Adapting and improving products according to Population Thinking implies (1) designing for
a changing world; (2) using all available knowledge; (3) showing caution by recognizing our limited
ability to understand the wholeness; (4) utilizing available assets to reduce design changes and improve
processes; (5) aiming at competitive solutions rather than optimal. We firmly believe that this approach
violate all three dogmas of Typological Thinking making it a suitable approach for realizing Hierarchical
Product Platforms. This belief is further substantiated by looking at some current trends in engineering
design.
2-1
Satisfacing solutions are solutions that are good enough but not necessarily the best (Simon 1996).
54
CHAPTER II
2.3 CURRENT TRENDS

AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH
The objective in this section is to substantiate our claim that the evolutionary approach is
suitable for engineering design in general, and for realizing Hierarchical Product Platforms in particular.
We do this by presenting in Section 2.3.1 some opposing views to the ruling paradigm that have recently
surfaced in engineering design. This is followed by a presentation in of some evolutionary concepts used
in engineering (Section 2.3.2); in the social sciences (Section 2.3.3); and in economic (Section 2.3.4).
Finally, in Section 2.3.5 we identify how this work is an extension of what has been done.
2.3.1
Engineering Design: Discord with the Ruling Paradigm

There are efforts in engineering design to move from a static to a dynamic world view. One
such effort is the introduction of Open Engineering Systems (OES). OES are defined as systems of
industrial products, services, and or processes that are readily adaptable to changes in their environment
and enable producers to remain competitive in a global marketplace through continuous improvement
and indefinite growth of an existing base (Simpson, Lautenschlager et al. 1997). This definition
explicitly acknowledges that the world is changing and that products offered to this changing world has to
be adaptable in order to stay competitive. One particular strategy to achieve adaptability is to move from
optimal solutions to satisficing solutions i.e., from solutions for a point to solutions for a range. This
strategy was initially introduced to reduce the impact of inaccurate information in the early stages of
design (Mistree, F. et al. 1993), however, it shows good merit for realizing Open Engineering Systems as
well (Simpson, Lautenschlager et al. 1997).
There are also concerns regarding the reductionist mode we use to handle our increasingly
complex world. Reductionism rests on the major assumption that there are no intrinsic properties of the
whole that cannot be found in the parts, an assumption supported by the dogma of objects. This
assumption normally holds for smaller and less complex manmade systems. However, as systems become
more complex, and as manmade systems interact on a larger scale with a living environment, this
assumption does not seem to hold. As a consequence, systems thinking and holism has been introduced
(Honderich 1995). These new thoughts emphasize that the properties of the whole lies in the relations
between part, i.e., in the way the parts are organized. One common argument is that life cannot be created
just by adding all the ingredients the properties of life lies rather in the organization and sequence of
organization; i.e., a process view indeed (Capra 1996). The fact that the problem and hence the solution
lies in the relations between parts is seen all to often in the offshore oil and gas industry. In fact
55
CHAPTER II
interfacing problems have lead to a new practice of interdisciplinary design teams trying to resolve interdisciplinary conflicts as early in the design process as possible. Other efforts have been to expand the
computerized engineering models in step with the increased computing capabilities, to capture more
relations between sub-systems and between the system and its surroundings.
Finally, the foundationalist / formalist / reductionist school of epistemology is under heavy
attack on the basis that truths are observed to change over time. As a result, the holistic / social /
relativistic school of epistemology emerged in the beginning of this century, and has since then gained
growing support in the scientific community. Even the notion that only rational knowledge is valid is in
retreat, at least in industry. According to head-hunting firms senior personnel are now wanted more than
ever in managing positions in order to draw on their intuitive knowledge their wisdom to apply the
rational knowledge in more fruitful ways.
Having said this, we proceed to discussing some applications of natural analogies and
evolutionary thinking in engineering design and in other humanistic domains.
2.3.2
The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Engineering Design

The unit events in evolution variation and selection are implemented in all the design
methods we have reviewed. When ever a solution to an engineering problem is sought regardless of
system level there is always a period where alternatives are generated and a period where one or more
alternatives are selected for further work (French 1985; Muster and Mistree 1988; Erichsen 1989; Mistree,
F. et al. 1990; Bras and Mistree 1991; Pahl and Beitz 1993; Lewis and Mistree 1995; Suh 1995; Hubka
and Eder 1996; Pugh 1996). In this respect they all support the evolutionary approach. However, they all
have a bias towards the product. The reason why is that design is invariably viewed as realizing a product
that meets the specified requirements (functional and product). All the methods reviewed boils down to
presenting (slightly) different ways of converging to a product that meets a set of criteria for good designs.
And here we are at the heart of the problem: how do we establish criteria for good design? To some
degree the criteria for good design are domain dependent. Nevertheless, there are some criteria that are
more universal than others, and here is where we see the evolutionary approach. Stabilizing the product
while changing the process, i.e., to favor products that meet the requirements and provides the most
leverage to existing designs while addressing costs / quality / time to market by continuously improving
the realization processes, is viewed as one of the more universal criteria. This is to some extend
supported by the new quality drive referred to as Continuous Quality Improvement, where improvements
are implemented continuously in small steps however, on a product level.
56
CHAPTER II
When it comes to using natural analogies directly, one person stands out; French. Being a
professor, his work is in context of teaching where he uses natural analogies to derive principles for good
designs. This is based on observing the designs by nature, i.e., the products of nature, and hence, these
principles are only used at a level of deriving working principles (i.e., a physical manifestation to meet a
set of functional requirements) (French 1994). The very principles leading to the elegance in natural
designs, however, is not touched upon. Hence, the process perspective is not included, and he does not
seem to believe that nature can provide a basis for a broad design theory; science is the study of the
natural world; it is concerned with what is. Engineering design is considered with creating new thins; it
makes extensive use of science, but it is a different activity.
Henry Petroski is a designer that is interesting from the perspective of stabilizing the product.
His work emphasizes on human aspects of engineering rather than the principles used to achieve designs.
These human aspects include the drive to make existing designs bigger or better; the drive to make
something unique with your stamp on it; and most importantly, the mistakes made during the whole
process. The latter is seen as imperative to future successes; those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it. In his many examples, failure is attributed to extrapolation, i.e., utilization of
technology / principles / etc. outside traditional ranges of application (Petroski 1985). One of the more
famous instances is the Tacoma Narrow Bridge outside of Seattle, WA. The suspension bridge principle
had not been used for so slender and long spans before, and the result we all know; disasters. His many
examples support our assertion about stabilizing the product; i.e., to favor satisficing solutions closer to
existing, well proven solutions. The amount of caution is of course dependent on the consequences of
failure. Petroski is also concerned with the prevalent use of modern design tools. He fears that the
designers accept the results without questions (Petroski 1992). This jibes with the dogma of knowledge;
outputs from computer software represents the ultimate technological knowledge, hence, it cannot not
only be trusted, it gives us all the information we need.
Koen is a designer that is interesting from a research validation perspective. He claims that
everything is heuristics; he uses Gdels proof to define arithmetic as a heuristic (Gdel 1931); he uses
Einsteins Theory of Relativity to prove time as a heuristic; and he uses
Principle to prove position and energy as heuristics (Koen 1985). This support our definition of scientific
knowledge as justifiable belied. However, it follows from his thinking that the universal method is to
use heuristics. In other words, as an engineer do what you think is the most appropriate and represents
best practice at the time you have to decide and come up with a solution (Koen 1987). In the sense he
advocates satisfacing solutions over optimized solutions, we follow him. In the sense he advocates adKoens work supports a relativistic view on knowledge, and it supports robust,
satisficing solutions over optimized ones.
57
CHAPTER II
Even though there are evolutionary elements in some of the engineering design processes and
there are initiatives to include fabrication processes, the very principles behind evolution are not
considered as being part of the engineering design process itself. However, designers seem to have no
problems using these principles in other contexts, for example for a certain type of search and
optimization techniques referred to as evolutionary computations (IC). In their current form, evolutionary
computations are studied and applied in three standard formats, each distinguished by what level of
granularity the algorithm models evolution. Genetic Algorithm, the best known of the variants in the
USA, model evolution at the level of gene propagation. Evolution Strategies, an evolutionary computation
developed and studied chiefly in Germany, model how evolution optimizes individuals to better exploit
their particular environment. Evolutionary Programming, on of the earliest investigated evolutionary
computations, employs a model of evolution as it operates on multiple species competing for shared
resources (Angeline 1995). As Evolutionary Computation indicates, they operate on a population of
candidates in parallel. By manipulating a population of solutions simultaneously, evolutionary
computations can search several areas of a solutions space allocating appropriate numbers of population
members to search the various regions of the space. The allocation is determined by a fitness function used
to determine the goodness of each individual solution. The best set of solutions is allowed to mate to give
rise to a new generation of solutions. The variation part of evolution is taken care of by mutating the
new parent population so as to create small variations around the parental mean (Forrest 1996).
In other domains there seem to be less resistance when it comes to applying the very
principles of evolution to explain and control system changes. This is elaborated next.
2.3.3
The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Social Sciences

Using Darwinian thinking in non-traditional areas like psychology and culture is relatively
new, a fact that many finds astounding in hindsight. The reason for the disconnect between Darwin and
other fields is by some believed to be an innate fear, even among many scientists, of letting Darwinian
thinking leak into realms outside of biology. Applying evolutionary theory to other disciplines is seen by
many scholars as an unwelcome intrusion, because it might dramatically alter the fundamental notions
that underlie those fields of study (Dennet 1995). Still, the use of Darwinian thinking has expanded in
spite of efforts to contain it. It has gone from being a sideline for a few people to being a major,
(Clark, Cooper et al. 1997).
For example, psychologists are asking how and why natural selection has seen fit to leave
people with conditions like moodiness, jealousy and anxiety. What purpose could, say, jealousy serve in
aiding a persons chances for survival and reproduction? Likewise, physicians have been using
58
CHAPTER II
evolutionary principles to discover the purpose behind some diseases and other unwanted conditions.
why is the body vulnerable to disease? Why hasnt natural selection done a better job? At closer
examination, however, it often turns out that what initially is perceived as being harmful, actually turns
out to be beneficial from a species perspective (Clark, Cooper et al. 1997).
Scholars have also used natural selection to explain cultural phenomena, relying on an idea
developed by Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has come up with the concept of
memes , which are important ideas, like Darwinian Evolution, Christianity or Postmodernism, that are
governed by the laws of natural selection. If society is an organism, memes are like genetic traits. Some
evolve and are passed on, other disappear. Put together, the memes that survive make up our culture and
society, just as each creature is the sum of its genes. Dawkins and others argue that natural selection can
help us understand why some memes survive and flourish, and others die (Dawkins 1986). Elliot Sober
follows this trend, and he points out that Darwin owed a depth to economy who showed him how order
can be produced without conscious design. The example was that socially beneficial characteristics can
emerge in a society as if by an invisible hand; though each individual acts only in his or her narrow selfinterest, the result would still be a society of order, harmony and prosperity (Sober 1995).
Even morality is being explained as being molded and constrained by epigenetic rules. For
example, incest is not always perceived as morally wrong, however, it turns out that children growing up
together very closely are unable to form strong sexual bonds during adolescence or later (Ruse and Wilson
1995).
2.3.4
The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Economics

Having borrowed from the economic domain the notion that there need not be consciousness
involved in creating order, economists seem to embrace evolutionary principles to a greater extent than
many other domains. Fishers equation for Natural Selection (see Equation 4-1), has been widely used to
model market behavior as a function of fitness and market shares (Hall 1994). Evolutionary principles
are also used to explain why the market behaves the way it does. The long periods of stasis where minor
innovations diffuse through the various industries resembles genes propagating in a gene-pool to yield
optimal adjustments, and sudden large changes occurring rapidly in periods of revolution when growth
rules resembles punctuated equilibriums. According to (Emblemsvag and Bras 1998) the periods of
stasis are seen as needed for allowing a continuous revenue to keep the wheels spinning and to finance
research and development efforts. From time to time these research and development efforts result in
sufficiently large innovations to rock the industry. These are periods where a subset of the systems old
59
CHAPTER II
pieces, along with some new ones, can be put back together in a new configuration, which operates
according to a new set of rules (Gersick 1991).
Another interesting story about technology that has left home, traveled to new place, seen new
things, and returned home, is game theory. Being published by von Neumann and Morgenstern in 1944,
the Theory of Games in Economics was developed within the realm of economics based on the
assumption of ideally rational players. This assumption works well for two-person zero-sum games where
the Nash-equilibriums are interchangeable. However, the equilibrium selection problem for more general
games has no such easy solution. This lead to the game theory hitting the doldrums in the late 1980s,
and it was not until biologists directed the attention away from rationality that game theory came back as
being interesting. Biologist using game theory to predict the long term interactions within populations,
pointed out that insects hardly can be said to think at all, and so rationality cannot be so crucial if game
theory somehow manages to predict their behavior under appropriate conditions. Simultaneously the
advent of experimental economics brought home the fact that human subjects are no great shakes at
thinking either; trial and error is the standard mode of reaching an equilibrium. Hence, in economy as
elsewhere, attempts to model people as hyper rational players is giving way to selecting an equilibrium
equilibriating process by means of which it is achieved (Weibull 1997). This is also
pointed out when the prisoners dilemma is played many times with the same players; then the solutions
tend to be co-operative since this gives a better accumulated pay-off (Kreps 1990).
2.3.5
The Evolutionary Approach: A Summary

From the foundations of the evolutionary approach presented in Section 2.2.3 we have
substantiated a) path-dependence, b) that variation is the key to adaptation, and c) that decisions (i.e.,
selection) is human centered and probabilistic, see Section 1.2.2. In doing so, we have identified the
fallacies of d) the dogma of objects, e) the dogma of categorization and f) the dogma of knowledge. Hence,
by demonstrating that current thinking support a), b) or c); that it breaks with d), e) or f); that it does not
contradicts a) through f); and that there are some aspects of a) through f) that are not covered, we assert
that the evolutionary approach is appropriate, and that it is an extension of existing work.
First of all, none of the traditional thinking within the field of engineering design explicitly
contradicts a) through f). Secondly, Open Engineering Systems, see Section 2.3.1, breaks with the dogma
of objects (the world is viewed as changing) while supporting path-dependence and human centered /
probabilistic decision making (robust and adaptive designs). Thirdly, work in the social sciences and
economics support population thinking by demonstrating that the process of evolution can be used to
describe changes within non-organismic systems. In particular, game theory shows us the importance of
60
CHAPTER II
path-dependence, population thinking, and probabilistic decisions. Specifically, game theory shows that
rational players are not only utopian, they are not needed nor wanted. Finally, we miss a holistic approach
to implement evolutionary principles to the very process of design so as to guide designers in selecting
solutions. We assert therefore, that the evolutionary approach represented by stabilizing the product
while changing the processes is a valid approach AND an extension of existing work within the field of
engineering design. Based on this we proceed to further elaborate on how to stabilize the product in
Section 2.4, and how to change the processes in Section 2.5.
61
CHAPTER II
2.4 STABILIZING THE PRODUCT

AN ARGUMENT FOR NUMERICAL TAXONOMY
The objective in this section is to substantiate the choice of Numerical Taxonomy as hypothesis
to address product platform definition. In Section 2.4.1 we recap where we left in Chapter I before we
move on to presenting Group Technology (GT) in Section 2.4.2 as our basis for standardization. Then, in
Section 2.4.3, we present Numerical Taxonomy as an integrator of GT formalism, clustering analysis and
product platform perspectives, and we assert Numerical Taxonomy to be an appropriate Hypothesis.
2.4.1
Design a HPP Based on Commonalities: Recapping Chapter I

Before we substantiate our choice of Numerical Taxonomy as hypothesis to define Hierarchical
Product Platforms, we briefly recap Chapter I. In Section 1.1.3 we define reuse for a range of applications
as our approach to develop marginal fields. In Section 1.2.1 we define that a solution has to be based on
existing commonalities in a product portfolio. In Section 1.2.3 we identify product platform design as our
choice of approach. In Section 1.3.1 we identify standardization as our choice of increasing existing
commonality. In Section 1.3.2 we provide a set of definitions related to product platform design. In
Section 1.3.3 we identify the Hierarchical Product Platform (HPP) to be an advancement to product
platform and product family design. And finally, in Section 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 we hypothesize Numerical
Taxonomy as a good framework for defining HPPs, and in the following we will substantiate this choice of
hypothesis.
From the previous we summarize the research objective to provide a method to find the level of
standardization that gives the best compromise between reduced operational performance (not wanted),
and reduced cost & time (wanted). Being focused on the product, standardization has to be considered
both from a design and a manufacturing perspective. By searching the literature we find that Group
Technology (GT) is maybe the philosophy that provides the most systematic approach to standardization,
both from a design and a manufacturing perspective.
2.4.2
Group Technology (GT): A Formal Approach to Standardization

Group technology (GT) has been used as a valuable tool in the ongoing effort to streamline the
design and manufacturing process. This is done by forming part families with members that are somewhat
different but uses similar processes (Hyde 1981; Suresh and Kay 1998). The formation of part families
and manufacturing cells is based on domain dependent classification and coding schemes, where existing
designs / parts are grouped in order to prevent design proliferation (design oriented grouping) and to
62
CHAPTER II
identify potential for cellular manufacturing (manufacturing oriented grouping). The design oriented
groups are the basis for any standardization effort, and is hence of most interest to this research.
Coding and Classification: The Heart and Soul of GT

Group Technology (GT) is basing family formation on classification schemes and
corresponding coding schemes; in fact, S.P. Mitrofanov, widely credited with developing the scientific
basis for GT, has stated that the role of classification is the basic problem (solution) on which group
(Mitrofanov 1966). The classification scheme is to bring together items by their
similarities and then segregate them by their essential differences. What similarities and differences to use
should express the ultimate objectives of the user. For design purposes geometric features, materials,
capacities, etc. are normally used. For manufacturing purposes functions, processes, etc. are normally used
(Ingram 1984). Having decided on a basis to group parts, i.e., a classification scheme, this must be
followed by a coding scheme to facilitate the classification. There are many different coding schemes,
however, similar to all is the qualitative nature due to being discrete; the parts are either in the group or
not. The similarity is based on the similarity in the coding structure, hence, there is nothing saying how
much you are into the group, i.e., there is no quantitative grouping (Eckert 1984; Ingram 1984; Dunlap
and Hirlinger 1987; Hyer and Wemmerlov 1987). This presupposes the existence of a grouping that
coincides with the proposed classification scheme, which may cause problems as we shall see next.
Unit Part Families Only? A Major Limitation to GT

Being anchored in the discrete parts manufacturing industry, GT traditionally has sought to
standardize single / unit parts and not whole structures that are assembled in a hierarchical way (unit
parts into sub-assemblies, sub-assemblies into assemblies, assemblies into modules, modules into products,
etc.). This is considered a weakness, since the cost and schedule benefits of standardizing assemblies seem
proportional with the level of assembly.
This is accounted for by focusing on the hierarchical manner ship structures are designed and
manufactured, and we have defined the Hierarchical Product Platform as a hierarchical organization of
the entities to be standardized across the members in the product family, see Section 1.3.3. (In fact, most
of products are designed and manufactured in a hierarchical manner.)
This definition implies that we are seeking to unveil commonalities at any level of assembly,
and it may seem like this is virgin land to traditional GT. Fortunately, there have been attempts to utilize
GT at a hierarchy of parts and processes. In (Dehoff 1990) one such attempt is described for implementing
GT at Boeing Helicopters during their design and fabrication of the V-22 Osprey helicopter. The V-22
63
CHAPTER II
Osprey is fabricated almost entirely of graphite epoxy solid-laminates. These laminates are actually
designed from scratch to suit every application. The result was an enormous proliferation of ply-laminate
orientations and layers, ply-pack configurations, you name it, which made the Bonding Assembly Rig
quite extensive. GT was implemented to investigate the potential for standardization at the various levels
of design; from ply-laminates through ply-pack assemblies, see illustration. In doing so they devised a
classification
scheme
that
accounted
for
fabrication processes as well as part functions,

and they used the coding to investigate the
Level of
aggregation
Pre-assembled
Ply Pack(s)
Ply Pack
Assemblies
standardization potential in the current part

inventory. By doing this they were able to
(Multiple)
Ply Packs
reduce the number of single pliers (the unit

part) to a small set with standard laminate
BONDING
ASSEMBLY
BONDING
JIG
ASSEMBLY
(BAJ)
JIG (BAJ)
DETAILED
DETAILED
COMPOSITE
COMPOSITE
PARTS
PARTS
Single
Ply Pack
configuration; the number of single ply-packs

to a small set with standard geometric features;
COMPOSITE
COMPOSITE
ASSEMBLIES
ASSEMBLIES
Geometric
features
(design oriented)
Single
Pliers
STANDARDIZATION
STANDARDIZATION
ATTEMPTS
ATTEMPTS
and so on. However, as we have pointed out,

Ply-laminates
(process oriented)
the discrete coding presupposes that the parts
group in a particular way. The problems of presupposition are linked among other things to the actual
similarity within a group; it may turn out that some parts really should have belonged to another group,
and so on. The problem Boeing Helicopter faced strongly resembles our case; we are seeking to unveil
commonalities in order to investigate the potential for standardization. Hence, we seek to avoid any
problems caused by presupposing that the parts are grouped in any particular way. One approach that may
seem a little more scientific is cluster analysis, a method frequently used to investigate how elements
group based on some chosen features.
Cluster Analysis: Investigating The Potential For Part Family Formation

Cluster analysis separates numerical data sets into unique clusters of data, each with a unique
set of characteristics. These characteristics are related, by the groupings, to the control variables of the
data. The most common type of cluster analysis calculates either a similarity value or a dissimilarity value
for each pair of data elements and stores these values in a two-dimensional similarity array. These values
are then accessed by the clustering algorithm to group the data elements. A common practice using
dissimilarity values is to represent data elements as points in space and minimize the sum of distances of
grouped elements from the calculated centroids of their respective clusters. This reveals the closeness of
data in a quantitative way, hence, would be preferable in the formation of parts families. There have been
64
CHAPTER II
attempts in GT to cluster the data prior to suggesting any classification (Gongaware and Ham 1984), but
this approach has not gained wide support mainly due to the difficulties associated with implementation;
there seem to be enough problems implementing simple classification and coding schemes. In context of
our problem, however, cluster analysis seems like an attractive approach, which is preferred.
Based on the previous, we assert that GT formalism expanded with product platform thinking
and cluster analysis is a good approach to define WHAT to include in a Hierarchical Product Platform.
However, this pose a new question: Are there any philosophies that effectively can integrate product
platform thinking, GT formalism and data clustering, in the event of developing HPPs? From the
literature we find that Numerical Taxonomy as given in (Sneath and Sokal 1973) is thought to be.
2.4.3
Numerical Taxonomy: An Integrator

Numerical Taxonomy, as given in (Sneath and Sokal 1973), is a stand-alone method primary
used to classify biological organisms based on overall similarity, with the intent to (1) create stable
phenetic groups (phenetic taxonomy) and (2) study phyletic lineages and evolution (phylogenetic
taxonomy. In Figure 2-2 (a), the relationship between clustering, phenetic taxonomy and phylogenetic
taxonomy is indicated, using classification of some of the big cats as an example. In clustering, the
resemblance between each sample is measured based on their recorded character-states. When the
characters and samples are chosen (subjective activity), the clustering itself is fairly free of personal bias
(objective activity). Being applied in a scientific setting, this is considered a strength (Sneath and Sokal
1973). In creating a taxonomy, however, personal judgement is called for which requires insight into the
aims of the study, conventions in the particular group, convenience and esthetics. Thus, the creation of a
taxonomy represents insight and knowledge, while the clustering represents scientifically obtained
supporting evidence. For further reference, see Chapter IV where we give a more comprehensive
presentation of Numerical Taxonomy in terms of its fundamental positioning, clustering and creation of
taxa.
How do evolutionary principles and numerical taxonomy fit into development of Hierarchical
Product Platforms? According to evolutionary principles, all living organisms are stemming from the
same point of origin, hence, it becomes natural that convergence into forefathers along a timeline coincide
to a high degree with convergence into higher taxa on a hierarchical scale. According to Figure 2-2 (a),
big cats that are classified into the Panthera genus, are viewed to have the same forefather some 3 million
years back (a panthera species?), and all members of the Felidae family is viewed to have the same
forefather some 10 million years back (a felidae species?). Thus, each classificatory juncture in the
phenetic taxonomy, up to the rank of family, could be viewed as potential species-junctures in the
65
CHAPTER II
phylogenetic taxonomy. Therefore, phenetic taxonomy is by some viewed as a good indicator of hereditary
relationships between species2 (Sneath and Sokal 1973; Berra 1990).
The genetic relationships inferred from biochemical and immunological techniques agree very nicely with the
genetic relationships based on morphology, i.e., form and structure (Berra 1990).
66
PHENETIC TAXONOMY
(stable phenetic groups)
Cordata
class
Mammalia
order
Carnivora
Canidae
Felidae
Lynx
Puma
Clouded
Leopard
Small
Cats
Bobcat
Jaguar
Leopard
Tiger
Lion
Cheetah
Cougar
Acinonyx
Panthera
Felinae
Clouded
Leopard
Jaguar
Leopard
species
Tiger
Lion
genus
5 mill
years
Acinonychinae 1 mill
years
Panthera Neofelis Felis Lynx Puma Acinonyx
sub-family Pantherinae
Small
Cats
Bobcat
family
PHYLOGENETIC TAXONOMY
(phyletic lineages and evolution)
Resemblance
(a)
CLUSTERING
(based on existing designs)
Potential
platforms
Coding
scheme
Total Vessel
Bow
ASSEMBLY
TAXONOMY
(stable manufacturing
entities)
STANDARDIZATION TAXONOMY
(Hierarchical Product Platform)
FPSO / FSU / Shuttle
Midship module
Ship Side
Panels
Plate
ANALYSIS
Hierarchical
Product
Platform
Bulkhead
Girders
Stiffener
Webs
Plate
Stringers
Stiffener
Hierarchical Product
Platform
Hierarchy of Assembly
...
FPSO / FSU
FPSO
(b)
Figure 2-2
(a) Numerical Taxonomy in Biological Classification
(b) Numerical Taxonomy used to Define HPPs
67
Cheetah
phylum
...
Cougar
Animala
CLUSTERING
Time
kingdom
Resemblance
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER II
In the same way, a product platform taxonomy can be constructed where each junction
becomes a potential product platform, and where junctions at higher taxa represents platforms for an
increasing number of OTUs, i.e., a Hierarchical Product Platform. Consequently, the objective of the
research pertaining to defining Hierarchical Product Platforms is to find a way to go create a taxonomy
that reveals the contours of a Hierarchical Product Platform. In this effort taxonomy represents
knowledge and insight, and clustering represents scientifically obtained supporting evidence, as for
biometrics. This is illustrated in Figure 2-2 (b), where the Assembly Taxonomy to the left (hierarchical
representation of construction assemblies) corresponds to Phenetic Taxonomy in Figure 2-2 (a), and the
Standardization Taxonomy (Hierarchical Product Platform) corresponds to the Phylogenetic Taxonomy in
Figure 2-2 (b). However similar, there is a difference in the sequence of events. The assembly taxonomy
becomes known when vessels are partitioned. This fact is utilized to code the parts and assemblies for
database manipulation. After all, we are investigating the potential for standardization at each level of
assembly, and need to run cluster analysis on corresponding data. Hence, the Assembly Taxonomy
becomes input to cluster analysis, rather than the outcome.
Another difference is that evolutionists are trying to reveal historical connections whereas
standardizationists are trying to reveal future connections. Hence, basing HPPs solely on existing
designs may impose constraints that are historically anchored and not really applicable for contemporary /
future designs. Thus, the historical data has to be analyzed for its applicability for future designs. As an
example, we consider a hypothetical taxonomic distinction between offshore designs and regular ship
designs. The differences may be due to a non-interrupted operations requirement for offshore installations.
This requirement prohibits docking of the vessel during its operational life (15-25 years)., which results in
fatigue contingencies (material amounts and quality) for offshore designs that typically makes them 20%
more expensive (Trm 1998). For marginal fields, however, the operation time is between 2-6 years
which allows almost normal docking schedules even for production units. Hence, the hypothetical
taxonomic differentiation between offshore and ship designs which is historically anchored, may not be
applicable to contemporary and / or future designs.
From the previous we argue that in evolutionary studies as well as in standardization efforts
the same objective is sought, namely, junctures of lineages, and that Numerical Taxonomy provides a
solid means for achieving this. Therefore, we assert that Numerical Taxonomy is an appropriate
hypothesis, and we propose to develop a method for defining HPPs by partitioning the vessels while
creating an Assembly Taxonomy for input to a Coding Scheme; obtain the states of the characteristics for
each partitioned part to be clustered; cluster the data to reveal taxonomic structures; analyze the clustering
based on current information; and finally, synthesize a Standardization Taxonomy for future designs.
68
CHAPTER II
2.5 CHANGING THE PROCESS

AN ARGUMENT FOR ADDRESSING LEARNING
The objective in this section is to substantiate the choice of Technology Diffusion as our
hypothesis to address the effects of learning when transferring from one process to another. In Section
2.5.1 we recap why a change in process is required in the first place. Then, in Section 2.5.2, we present
Technology Diffusion as a means of modeling the effect of learning. In Section 2.5.3 we outline a
mapping of how to introduce change, and assert Technology Diffusion to be an appropriate Hypothesis. In
Chapter IV we elaborate more on Technology Diffusion in context of its origin and application.
2.5.1
Improve the Process Through Change: A Recap

In Section 2.3.5 we conclude that the evolutionary approach suggests stabilizing the product
and changing the process. In our terms this means to constantly look for ways to improve the process,
this vague term that encapsulates all activities leading to the realization of the product. Further, any
improvement implies change, which we have discussed at length in the beginning of this Chapter to be of
the essence of progress and development. From a rational perspective, the parts of the process with the
highest potential for improvement should be addressed at each round of improvement. As for any
evolution there has to be alternatives upon which selection can act. Which alternatives to propose
depend on what is available and what seems to be most promising. However, the selection of which
process to proceed with has to be based on some evaluation of how much the new technology will
contribute to a firms overall competitiveness. Important in this context is the time frame considered for
pay-back; the longer time frame, the less contributions are required for a favorable decision. (In context of
developing marginal fields, the investment cost of new processes is preferred paid off over one contract, or
maximum over the realization of a whole family. This implies a time frame from 6 to 10 years, see
Chapter VII.)
Being a new process (or product) implies that a firm cannot fully utilize all its benefits until
the operational skills have developed adequately. In turn the acquisition rate of operational skills depends
on the new technologys maturity in the industry, and the amount of transferable skills from current
technology.
Based on the previous, we seek a way to model these effects, and we find that Technology
(Silverberg, Dosi et al. 1988; Silverberg 1991) and used in (Hall 1994) shows
promising merits.
69
CHAPTER II
2.5.2
Technology Diffusion: Modeling the Effect of Learning

In their research, the decision to change technological trajectory is based on evaluating how
long it will take for the economic benefits of a shift to outweigh its costs, see Equation [2-1]
P2 P1
b
C
1
C1 2
SKL X
[period]
[2-1]
where
P2 P1
C1
C2
SKL
X
B
= cost per unit of implementing new technology

= current unit operational cost of old technology
= current unit operational cost of new technology
= skill level, see Equation [2-2] and [2-3]
= anticipation bonus; future potential beyond C2
= required pay-back period
[$]
[$/period]
[$/period]
[]
[]
[period]
In evaluating the economic benefits (denominator), two important factors are introduced,
namely, the effect of lacking skills (SKL) and the effect X of each firms judgement of the future prospects
of the new technology. If X = 2 indicates that the new technology is viewed to have a potential for cutting
the current unit operational cost C2 in half. The skill level represents an efficiency reduction factor and is
being modeled as a sigmoid learning function, given in Equation [2-2] as:
SKL(t ) =
[2-2]
1
(t0 t )
1 + (1 / SKL0 1)
where SKL(t) is the organizational skill-level at time t, SKL0 is the initial skill-level at time t0 , is the
learning rate, and t0 is when the new technology is implemented
As we see in Equation [2-2], SKL(t) gives the skill-level at one particular time t, while the new
design cost shown in is accumulated cost over the whole project period. Hence, we average the skill-level
for the project period as defined in Equation [2-3], and the results are given in. How can we implement
SKL? We answer by giving an example.
SKL =
[2-3]
t t0
SKL(t )dt
t0
70
CHAPTER II
From Equation [2-1] through [2-3] we see that high learning rates () favor first movers, being
able to reap the benefits of a new technology fast enough to not affect their market shares. Intermediate
learning rates favor later movers, having access to more start up information due to learning leaks from
first movers that struggled to make the new technology work. Low learning rates favor no change at all,
i.e., those who changed to the new technology changed back to the old in the simulation (or they died).
In any of these scenarios, the last movers were the inevitable losers. This emphasizes the importance of
the learning rate in a successful change from one technology to another.
The learning rate is viewed as dependent on the educational level within the part of the
organization that is affected by the change. Intuitively, higher education gives higher learning rate. This is
based on the assumption that people with higher education have demonstrated their ability to acquire
new knowledge. In addition, the initial skill level affects the learning rate; the lower initial skill level, the
longer time to the steep part on the learning curve. This shows the double effect of initial skill level; it
affects the learning rate as well as the starting point, thus, it becomes an important parameter.
The factors we believe affects the initial learning skills are the leverage potential from current
processes. This emphasize the importance of not meandering too far away from what is known; with small
values of skill level SKL, the benefits of the new technology becomes negative in the sense that it yields
a worse situation than the initial one. In Chapter IV we give a more comprehensive presentation of the
mathematical basis behind Technology Diffusion.
How is this concept applicable to evaluate new realization-technologies for the purpose of
getting a product better adapted to its requirements (more fit)? Even if the context of this research is
different (no mass production and the decision regarding transfer is based on more criteria than just cost),
the concept of reducing the benefits of a new technology to reflect the actual skill level is still applicable.
Based on the previous, we assert that Technology Diffusion is an appropriate hypothesis.
2.5.3
From Mutation to Innovation: Mapping of Variation Mechanisms

Having substantiated Technology Diffusion as our choice of modeling learning, we proceed to
look at some approaches to introduce variation. We keep it in the evolutionary spirit, and present a
mapping of strategies from the realm of biology to the realm of engineering design. as we have already
pointed out in the beginning of this chapter, if variation is not introduced in new generations of organisms
/ products, evolution will eventually cease. In the following, mechanisms for introducing variations into
natural gene pools are given in Table 2-1with the corresponding industrial analogy.
At this point we introduce a fundamental break with the biological analogy. All the industrial
analogies presented in Table 2-1 are considered Lamarckian since the variation they provide is
71
CHAPTER II
appropriately directed, i.e., a designer tries to pass on to the next generation of products the variations that
has spontaneously emerged in the present generation. However, we do not consider this break with
Nature to seriously hamper the overall analogy, since it only affects the generation of variation while
selection, which directs the evolution, is unaffected.
Table 2-1
Introduction of Genetic Variations: A Mapping to Engineering Design
Biological Variation Mechanisms
Industrial Analogy
Gene mutations:
Copying errors that occur during DNA
replication, of which mostly are deleterious for a
fixed environment.
(Adds novel alleles to a species gene pool.)
Innovation I:
Innovations at a unit task / unit decision level
originating from basic research, which have never
been industrialized (Pedersen, Allen et al. 1998).
Symbiogenesis:
Creation of new life forms through permanent
symbiotic arrangements of formerly independent
organisms.
(Adds novel alleles.)
Innovation II:
Innovations as above that have been formerly
implemented in other industries (Pedersen, Allen
et al. 1998).
Migration:
Introduction of alleles from one population into
another within the same species.
(Adds new but not novel alleles to a gene pool)
Imitation:
Firms implementing and adopting the leading
technology within same industry (Hall 1994).
Chromosomal mutation:
Rearrangement of larger chromosome segments
during sexual reproduction where duplication of
genes expands an organisms function repertoire.
(Shuffles existing alleles)
Learning I:
Learning at an organizational level how to utilize
new technology more efficiently after it has been
implemented (Hall 1994).
Recombination:
Rearrangement of gene segments by sexual
reproduction.
(Shuffles existing alleles)
Learning II:
As above at an individual level (Hall 1994).
Having emphasized the importance of learning rate and initial skill levels when introducing
changes, we look to the levels of change that can be introduced. We know that Nature introduces variation
as a statistical distribution around the parental type, with allele-shuffling as the major source of variation,
and mutation as the smallest source. As the complexity of organisms increase, the less important mutation
becomes producing almost always deleterious variants. What we learn from this is that learning and
72
CHAPTER II
imitation should be our main source of variation, which implies small discursions from the existing;
continuous improvement in small steps.
73
CHAPTER II
2.6
SYNTHESIZING PRODUCT AND PROCESS

AN ARGUMENT FOR THE COMPROMISE DSP
The objective in this section is to substantiate the choice of Compromise DSP as our
hypothesis to synthesize a solution from a combined product and process model. In order to come to a
conclusion on a standardized product platform together with its process(es), the parameter settings and its
most appropriate realization-technology have to be determined based on evaluating what is the best
combination of operational performance and realization performance. It is acknowledged that this
endeavor in itself is evolutionary in spirit since it contains an inherent element of ineradicable blindness
about outcomes pertaining to forward looking design decisions. This blindness stems from 1) the
incomplete models; 2) the assumed customer preferences; and 3) the chance elements pertaining to
political situations, etc. Hence, preference is given to a) solution schemes that allow designers to gain
appreciation about the problem in order to support human judgement, and b) flexible and robust solutions
whose performance matches a set of goals as closely as possible. In order to gain appreciation about the
problem and to support human judgement, it is considered favorable to evaluate different scenarios
implying an ability to rank order the different objectives in various ways.
The Compromise DSP (c-DSP) as given in (Mistree, Hughes et al. 1993) is found to be
promising in that respect. The c-DSP is a multi-objective decision model based on Mathematical
Programming and Goal Programming to satisfy a set of constraints while achieving a set of conflicting
goals as well as possible. Particularizing, formulating and solving a c-DSP gives structure and context to
synthesize the product and the process model, and we assert that the c-DSP is an appropriate
hypothesis.
In Chapter IV, the c-DSP is presented more comprehensively in terms of its mathematical
formulation.
74
CHAPTER II
2.7
A LOOK BACK AND A LOOK AHEAD
The principal objective in this chapter is to substantiate the choice of hypotheses that we
postulate in Section 1.5.1, arguing applicability for each hypothesis at the time starting with the
fundamental hypothesis.
The applicability of the Evolutionary Approach (the fundamental hypothesis) is demonstrated
by tying product development to evolution of biological organisms (Section 2.1); by demonstrating that
the evolutionary paradigm is better suited to adapt products to changes (Section 2.2); by demonstrating
that the evolutionary approach is well befit for engineering design in general, and for realizing
Hierarchical Product Platforms in particular (Section 2.3). Based on this we assert that the evolutionary
approach is an appropriate fundamental hypothesis, see Section 1.5.
The applicability of Numerical Taxonomy (Hypothesis 1) is demonstrated by presenting Group
Technology (GT) as our basis for standardization (Section 2.4.2), and by presenting Numerical Taxonomy
as an integrator of GT formalism, clustering analysis and product platform perspectives (Section 2.4.3).
Based on this we assert Numerical Taxonomy to be an appropriate Hypothesis for addressing the
definition aspect of developing Hierarchical Product Platforms.
The applicability of Technology Diffusion (Hypothesis 2) is demonstrated by presenting
Technology Diffusion as a means of modeling the effect of learning (Section 2.5.2), and by outlining a
mapping of how to introduce change based on an industrial analogy (Section 2.5.3). Based on this we
assert that Technology Diffusion is an appropriate Hypothesis for addressing the effects of learning during
a transitional phase.
The applicability of the compromise DSP (Hypothesis 3) is demonstrated by presenting its
structure as befit to handle multiple conflicting goals from a satisficing perspective rather than from an
optimizers perspective. Based on this we assert that the compromise DSP is an appropriate hypothesis to
address synthesis of product and process models.
Based on the assumption that the postulated hypotheses are appropriate, we assert that testing
these hypotheses substantiates the validity of the HPPRM, and hence, provides the answers to the posed
research questions. Hence, in the next chapter we give a detailed presentation of the HPPRM framework
in order to facilitate its validation. With this we end Chapter II to the words of Robert Frost:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the road less traveled by.
And that has made all the difference
75
REFERENCES
Angeline, P. J. (1995). Interactive Evolution of Imagery. IEEE Expert(June): 7-10.
Bell, G. (1997). The Basics of Selection. New York, Chapman & Hall.
Berra, T. (1990). Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
Bras, B. A. and F. Mistree (1991). Designing Design Processes in Decision-Based Concurrent
SAE Transactions, Journal of Materials & Manufacturing vol. 100: pp. 451-458.
Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life. New York, Doubleday.
Clark, C., M. Cooper, K. Jost and D. Masci (1997). Evolution vs. Creationism. Congressional Quarterly
Inc. 7(32): 745-768.
Cross, N. (1992). Design Methodology and Relationships with Science. NATO Advanced Research
Workshop on Design Methodology and Relationships with Science, Eindhoven, The Netherlands,
NATO.
Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species.
Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Wathmaker. New York, W. W. Norton.
Dehoff, K. (1990). Composite group technology development. 46th Annual Forum PRoceedings of the
American Helicopter Society, Washington DC, USA, American Helicopter Society, Alexandria VA,
USA.
Dennet, D. (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon and Schuster.
Dixon, J. R. (1988). On a Research Methodology Towards s Scientific Theory of Design. S. L. Newsome,
W. R. Spillers and S. Finger. Berlin, Springer Verlag: 316-337.
Dunlap, G. C. and C. R. Hirlinger (1987). Well planned coding, classification system offers companywide synergistic benefits. Capabilities of group technology. N. L. Hyer. Dearborn, Mich., Computer
and automated systems associatoin of SME, Publications Development Dept., Marketing Services
Division: 101-106.
Eckert, R. L. (1984). Codes and classification systems. Group technology at work. N. L. Hyer. Dearborn,
Mich., Computer and automated systems associatoin of SME, Publications Development Dept.,
Marketing Services Division: 43-51.
Eder, W. E. (1987). Theory of Technical Systems - Prerequisite to Design Theory. International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 87), Boston, MA, ASME.
Emblemsvg, J. (1999). Activity-Based Life-Cycle Assessments in Design and Management. GWW
School of Mechanical Engineering. Atlanta, GA, Georgia Institute of Technology: 600.
Emblemsvag, J. and B. Bras (1998). Financial Analysis, Critical Assumption Planning and Uncertainty in
Product Development. 1998 International Conference on Achieving Excellence in New Product
REFERENCES
Development and Management, Atlanta, Georgia, Product Development & Management Association
(PDMA).
Erichsen, S. (1989). Management of Marine Design. Kent, England, Butterworths.
Forrest, S. (1996). Genetic Algorithms. ACM Computing Surveys 28(1): 77-80.
French, M. J. (1985). Conceptual Design for Engineers. London, Springer Verlag.
French, M. J. (1994). Invention and Evolution: Design in Nature and Engineering. Cambridge, England,
Cambridge University Press.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated
Academy of Management Review 16(1): 10-36.
Gdel, K. (1931). ber Formal Unentscheidbare Stze der Principia Mathematica und Verwandter
Systeme. Monatshefte fr Math. u. Physik 38: 173-198.
Gongaware, T. A. and I. Ham (1984). Cluster analysis applications for group technology manufacturing
systems. Group technology at work. N. L. Hyer. Dearborn, Mich., Computer and automated systems
associatoin of SME, Publications Development Dept., Marketing Services Division: 131-136.
Hall, P. (1994). Innovation, Economics and Evolution - Theoretical Perspectives on Changing Technology
in Economic Systems. Hertfordshere England, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. New York, Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Honderich, T., Ed. (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York, Oxford University Press.
Hoover, C. W. and J. B. Jones (1991). Improving Engineering Design: Designing for Competitive
Advantage. Washington DC, National Academy Press.
Hubka, V. and W. E. Eder (1996). Design Science: Introduction to the Needs, Scope and Organization of
Engineering Design Knowledge. New York, Springer Verlag.
Hyde, W. (1981). Improving productivity by classification, coding and data base standardization. New
York, M. Dekker.
Hyer, N. L. and U. Wemmerlov (1987). Group technology orientied coding systems: structures,
applications, and implementation. Capabilities of group technology. N. L. Hyer. Dearborn, Mich.,
Computer and automated systems associatoin of SME, Publications Development Dept., Marketing
Services Division: 67-83.
Ingram, F. B. (1984). Group technology. Group technology at work. N. L. Hyer. Dearborn, Mich.,
Computer and automated systems associatoin of SME, Publications Development Dept., Marketing
Services Division: 31-42.
Koen, B. V. (1985). Definition of the Engineering Method. Washington, DC, American Society for
Engineering Education.
77
REFERENCES
Koen, B. V. (1987). Generalization of the Engineering Method to the UNIVERSAL METHOD.

Engineering Education(January): 214-221.
Kreps, D. M. (1990). A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Lewis, K. and F. Mistree (1995). Designing Top-Level Aircraft Specifications: A Decision-Based
Approach to a Multiobjective, Highly Constrained Problem. 36th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Lewontin, R. C. (1992). Genotype and Phenotype. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. E. K. a. E. Lloyd.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
Mayr, E., Ed. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University; Belknap Press.
Mayr, E., Ed. (1995). Typological versus Population Thinking. Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary
Biology. Cambridge, MA, MIT: Bradford.
Mendel, G. (1865). Versuche ber Pflanzen-Hybriden.
Mistree, F., S. W. F. and B. Bras, Eds. (1993). A Decision-Based Approach to Concurrent Engineering.
Handbook of Concurrent Engineering. New York, Chapman & Hall.
Mistree, F., S. W. F., B. Bras, J. K. Allen and D. Muster (1990). Decision-Based Design: A Contemporary
Paradigm for Ship Design. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Jersey City, NJ, SNAME.
Mistree, F., O. F. Hughes and B. A. Bras (1993). The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the
Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm. Structural Optimization: Status and Promise. M. P. K.
(Ed.). Washington, D.C.: pp. 247-289.
Mitrofanov, S. P. (1966). Scientific Principles of Group Technology. Boston Spa, Yorkshire, England,
National Lending Library for Science and Technology.
Muster, D. and F. Mistree (1988). The Decision Support Problem Technique in Engineering Design.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Education 4(1): 23-33.
Pahl, G. and W. Beitz (1993). Engineering Design. London, Springer Verlag.
Pedersen, K., J. K. Allen and F. Mistree (1998). On Evolution and Engineering Systems Development.
42nd Annual Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Atlanta, GA.
Petroski, H. (1985). To Engineer is Human. New York, St. Martin's Press.
Petroski, H. (1992). The Evolution of the Useful Thing. New York, Alvred Knopf.
Pugh, S. (1996). Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design: The Living Legacy of Stuart Pugh.
Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
78
REFERENCES
Ruse, M. and E. O. Wilson (1995). Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Conceptual Issues in
Evolutionary Biology. E. Sober. Cambridge, MA, MIT: Bradford.
Sargent, P. and C. Road (1994). Design Science or
Design Studies 15(4): 389-402.
Silverberg, G. (1991). Adoption and Diffusion of Technology as a Collective Evolutionary Process.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39: 67-80.
Silverberg, G., G. Dosi and L. Orsenigo (1988). Innovation, diversity, and diffusion: a self-organisation
model. The Economic Journal 98: 1032-1354.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Simpson, T. W., U. Lautenschlager and F. Mistree, Eds. (1997). Toward Mass Customization in the Age
of Information: The Case for Open Engineering Systems. The Information Revolution: Present and
Future. Greenwich, CT, Ablex Publishing.
Sneath, P. H. A. and R. R. Sokal (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Sober, E., Ed. (1995). Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism. Conceptual Issues in
Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA, MIT: Bradford.
Sober, E., Ed. (1995). Models of Cultural Evolution. Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology.
Cambridge, MA, MIT: Bradford.
Staley, S. M. and L. S. Vora (1990). Deconciling Design Theory and Methodology: QFD/TIES and its
Place in the Domain of Science Model, Ford Research.
Suh, N. (1995). Axiomatic design of mechanical systems. Special 50th anniversary design issue transactions of the ASME Vol. 117.
Suresh, N. C. and J. M. Kay (1998). Group Technology & Cellular Manufacturing: Updated Perspectives.
Group Technology and Cellular Manufacturing: State-of-the Art Synthesis of Research and Practice.
N. C. Suresh and J. M. Kay. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 1-14.
Trm, M. (1998). Shipyard's Perspective on Design and Construction of FPSO/FSU. The Oil Industry
International Exploration and Production Forum, Heathrow, United Kingdom.
Warfield, J. (1990). The Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems Design.
Seaside, CA, Intersystems Publishers.
Weibull, J. (1997). Evolutionary Game Theory. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
79

FPSO ChapterII

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FPSO ChapterII

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CHAPTER II.

THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE HYPOTHESES

ADAPTING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GAME..................................................... 44

Engineering Design: Discord with the Ruling Paradigm ..................................... 55

STABILIZING THE PRODUCT AN ARGUMENT FOR NUMERICAL

Typological Thinking: Foundational to the Ruling Paradigm.............................. 49

CURRENT TRENDS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH ........... 55

The Process of Change: Two Opposing Views .................................................. 44

THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH VERSUS THE RULING PARADIGM.......................... 49

Design a HPP Based on Commonalities: Recapping Chapter I ........................... 62

CHANGING THE PROCESS AN ARGUMENT FOR ADDRESSING LEARNING .......... 69

Improve the Process Through Change: A Recap ................................................ 69

SYNTHESIZING PRODUCT AND PROCESS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE

A LOOK BACK AND A LOOK AHEAD................................................................................. 75

THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE

NumTax TechDiff c-DSP

In order to support the Fundamental Hypothesis we demonstrate that an Evolutionary Approach

In order to substantiate Hypothesis 1, we demonstrate the applicability of Numerical Taxonomy to

research, hence, testing these hypotheses represents validating the HPPRM.

The Process of Change: Two Opposing Views

A Mechanistic View on the Process of Change

An Evolutionary View on the Process of Change

The Opposing Views in Context of Our Philosophical Anchoring

Evolution: A Process of Adapting to Change

we observe it, is neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a synthesis of Darwins idea of gradual evolutionary

Variation and Selection: The Unit Events in Evolution

Product and Process equals Phenotype and Genotype

Stabilizing Products and Varying Processes: Industrial Practices

The Evolutionary Approach in the Realm of Engineering Design

THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH

Typological Thinking: Foundational to the Ruling Paradigm

Developing Products According to the Ruling Paradigm

Population Thinking: Foundational to the Evolutionary Approach

Developing Products According to the Evolutionary Approach

2.3 CURRENT TRENDS

Engineering Design: Discord with the Ruling Paradigm

The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Engineering Design

The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Social Sciences

The Evolutionary Approach: Its Standing in Economics

The Evolutionary Approach: A Summary

2.4 STABILIZING THE PRODUCT

Design a HPP Based on Commonalities: Recapping Chapter I

Group Technology (GT): A Formal Approach to Standardization

Coding and Classification: The Heart and Soul of GT

Unit Part Families Only? A Major Limitation to GT

fabrication processes as well as part functions,

standardization potential in the current part

reduce the number of single pliers (the unit

configuration; the number of single ply-packs

and so on. However, as we have pointed out,

the discrete coding presupposes that the parts

Cluster Analysis: Investigating The Potential For Part Family Formation

Numerical Taxonomy: An Integrator

2.5 CHANGING THE PROCESS

Improve the Process Through Change: A Recap

Technology Diffusion: Modeling the Effect of Learning

= cost per unit of implementing new technology

From Mutation to Innovation: Mapping of Variation Mechanisms

SYNTHESIZING PRODUCT AND PROCESS

A LOOK BACK AND A LOOK AHEAD

Koen, B. V. (1987). Generalization of the Engineering Method to the UNIVERSAL METHOD.

Design Studies 15(4): 389-402.

Silverberg, G. (1991). Adoption and Diffusion of Technology as a Collective Evolutionary Process.