CONCURRENT ENGINEERING: Research and Applications

System Design Optimization for Product Manufacturing

Masataka Yoshimura*
Mechanical Engineering Division, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan

Abstract: The current ultra-competitive manufacturing arena demands that a multitude of factors be considered during product design and
manufacturing, in addition to core concerns such as product performances, product qualities, and manufacturing costs. Safety aspects,
environmental impact, recycling issues, and the satisfaction of product consumers and users must all be addressed for a product design to be
successful. Optimum system technologies that can concurrently consider a broad range of factors pertaining to product manufacturing, and
streamline decision-making for product design and manufacturing are required. This article describes a total system design optimization
method that assists decision-making across the entire spectrum of product manufacturing processes, from the conceptual design stage to final
product realization. System design optimizations for advanced product manufacturing are discussed, starting from historical changes in
manufacturing methodology paradigms and product manufacturing criteria, and the roles of concurrent engineering and collaboration concepts
are then clarified as technological concepts that form the basis for innovative product manufacturing from the standpoint of system optimization.
Next, aspects of people’s involvement in product manufacturing are classified and technologies that support product manufacturing are
summarized from the standpoint of providing sophisticated decision-making assistance to design and manufacturing personnel. Finally, based
on the foregoing discussions, new methods for optimal decision-making technologies are proposed, with the aim of facilitating effective
decision-making during the task of designing sophisticated products for manufacture.

Key Words: concurrent engineering, collaboration, optimization, product manufacturing, supporting system.

1. Introduction simplest and most basic concepts, while addressing the

requirements of the product design and manufacturing
In the present product manufacturing environment, processes. We clarify that the most important factors
where fiercely competitive product development is the in the evolution of the product design are the actions
norm, a multitude of factors must be considered, in of creative human beings. To efficiently nurture the
addition to core concerns such as product performances, evolving product design and manufacturing scenario,
product qualities, and manufacturing costs. Aspects supporting technological systems and networked infor-
concerning safety, environmental impact, recycling of mation systems are developed and employed. Finally,
natural resources, the psychological satisfaction of the we explain various optimization methods and the
people using the product, and so on, must also be dealt integration of decision-making support systems that
with. Thus, there is a pressing need for optimum system streamline and assist the development of optimal designs
technologies that can concurrently consider a broad that can be optimally manufactured.
spectrum of factors pertaining to product manufactur-
ing, and expedite the complex decision-making required
for successful product design and manufacturing. 2. Evaluative Criteria in Product Manufacturing
Similarly, optimization methods that transcend conven-
tional improvement schemes and partial optimizations, Modern methods for manufacturing machine
methods that provide a competitive edge to the products have been evolving in accord with industrial
enterprises that employ them, are in demand. development. Historical changes in manufacturing
First, criteria for quantitatively evaluating ‘‘more methodology paradigms are shown in Figure 1. At the
preferable’’ states are described. Next, we explain the end of the 19th century, F.W. Taylor devised manage-
necessity of evolving the product design from the ment methods that paid special attention to the effi-
ciency of manufacturing operations. These methods
were incorporated by US automobile companies of
the period so that large numbers of products could be
*E-mail: yoshimura@[Link] produced at lower manufacturing costs, which made
Figure 11 appears in color online: http:\\[Link] them more accessible to the general populace and

Volume 15 Number 4 December 2007 329

1063-293X/07/04 0329–15 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/1063293X07083087
ß SAGE Publications 2007
Los
Downloaded from Angeles, London,
[Link] New Delhi
at PENNSYLVANIA andonSingapore
STATE UNIV February 18, 2016
330 M. YOSHIMURA

brought about the first step toward more affluent

lifestyles. Once people became familiar with such Mass production
items, there was an increasing demand for more suitable
and more highly developed products that would better
fit evolving lifestyles. In order to meet the needs of
increasingly prosperous customers, product makers Job shop type production
were forced to change manufacturing methods from
limited variety mass production to a job shop type
of production, where a variety of products could be
created to satisfy a range of preferences. The following
Production to order
requirements had to be met:

1. Prompt response to customer needs, development

of products having high performance, high quality,
and low cost, with as short as possible product Production where customers
development time, while avoiding dead-ends or participate in production designs
oversights that result in wasted effort.
2. Development of new products that customers want to
buy, not simply incremental improvements applied Figure 1. Historical changes in manufacturing methodology
paradigms.
to existing products.

These requirements imply a change in the product

manufacturing paradigm from one of ‘‘selling products and (b). To realize these requirements, criteria for
that are produced’’, common when mass production was evaluating the satisfaction level for each factor are
the norm, to one of ‘‘producing products that will sell’’, required.
with a focus on fulfilling customer desires. Figure 1 illustrates changes in product manufacturing
At present, the age of job-shop manufacturing, paradigms during approximately a 100-year interval,
in which customers select the most preferable products where inter-company competition concerning product
from a variety of products that makers prepare in development was conducted according to particular
advance, is giving way to a manufacturing paradigm criteria relevant during those times. Reflecting progress
that supports making products to order, where specific over time on a number of fronts, criteria for product
customer needs and desires can be economically dealt manufacturing have evolved and become increasingly
with even at a relatively fine-grained level. Furthermore, complex. Below are the main points of product design
we can envision the possibility that manufacturing criteria trends over roughly the past half century:
in the future will eventually integrate some form of
customer participation in the product design process, (i) Optimization of a single objective function, such as
to maximize customer satisfaction, thus, to some degree, minimization of the operational time and mini-
enabling scenarios of customer-maker collaborative mization of the cost under the constraints of
manufacturing. product performances and qualities.
In addition to the above two basic requirements (ii) Recognition of the importance of conflicting
concerning response to customer needs and development relationships among characteristics, and use of
of novel products, the importance of the following more flexible optimizations from wider viewpoints,
additional points has been growing: since improvement of a single objective function
may cause another characteristic to be degraded.
(a) Increasing public awareness of adverse effects upon (iii) Inclusion of influence levels of factors pertaining
natural environments, and depletion of natural to natural environments, and factors pertaining to
resources, has made mandatory the consideration resources and recycling, in the product criteria.
of product life-cycle and recycling of parts or raw (iv) Recognition of an increasing need in product design
materials. evaluation for inclusion of requirements pertaining
(b) The pursuit of mental as well as physical satisfaction to comfort and aesthetic factors when products
requires design and manufacturing methodologies are used.
whose products ultimately suit the emotional and
mental aspects of customer needs more closely. Once the criteria for product manufacturing
have been defined, optimization methods are then
Modern product manufacturing should, ideally, used to search for the best product design solutions.
satisfy all of the foregoing factors, namely, (1), (2), (a) For example, product designers usually apply great

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 331

Pareto optimum solution Pareto optimum solution

line by global optimization
solutions from systematic viewpoints is indispensable
line by partial optimization
in product design and manufacturing that aims to
P
provide the best possible solutions.
Product manufacturing cost Ψ2

Pareto optimum solution

line after break through
Once the global optimum solution has been obtained,
of the global optimum there is a natural desire to continue searching for
solutions even better solutions that incorporate breakthroughs
beyond the obtained optimum solution. To do this
requires moving beyond the sphere of present knowl-
Direction of quantum edge, intelligence and technologies, and then searching
leap in optimum
Q solutions due to for solutions. In order to move beyond current available
synergy effects knowledge, intelligence and technologies, collaboration
with people having different knowledge, intelligence and
Performance characteristic Ψ1 technologies is often extremely useful, since in addition
to fresh input that extends existing boundaries, benefits
Figure 2. Conflicting relationships between a product performance
from synergy effects due to unexpected combinations
characteristic and manufacturing cost.
of knowledge and intelligence can be expected.
The merits of collaborations are not simply limited
to additions of knowledge, or access to a greater pool of
effort in the search for higher product performances, resources. In fact, the deeper value of collaboration is
while product manufacturers do their best to find ways most often a natural outgrowth of human factors, where
to finesse lower product manufacturing costs. These two the whole functions in ways that are greater than the
requirements very often have conflicting relationships sum of its parts. Furthermore, the working environ-
with each other. ment and supporting tools that assist and nurture
Figure 2 shows the conflicting relationships between collaboration are crucial to its success. Thus, it is
a product performance characteristic that must be maxi- necessary to construct systems and environments that
mized, and a product manufacturing cost that needs to improve the chances of generating the best possible
be minimized [1]. Design solutions on the bold PQ line solutions, by assisting intelligent decision-making
express the Pareto optimum solution set for a multi- wherever possible.
objective optimization problem with two objectives,
namely the maximization of the product performance
characteristic and minimization of the product manu- 3. Technological Concepts for Innovating
facturing cost, under many characteristics and dimen- Product Manufacturing
sional constraints.
The shaded area corresponds to the feasible regions 3.1 Generation of Better Products by
where presently available knowledge, intelligence, and Exploiting Wider Possibilities
technologies can be used. The Pareto optimum solution
set indicated by the PQ line contains candidate design It is difficult, simply by searching within an existing
solutions from which the most suitable solution for framework, to obtain more preferable solutions that
the design environment is selected [2,3]. The Pareto represent actual breakthroughs from an initial level.
optimum solution set line (or surface, in cases having New strategies, based on a reconsideration of the entire
three objective functions) can provide extensive and manufacturing framework and the processes carried out
useful information pertaining to the global features within it, are required. That is, conventional working
of the achieved optimum solutions. styles and decision-making methods should be recon-
Designers tend to seek design solutions in the direc- structed at a fundamental level, while keeping the aim
tion of the large arrow shown in Figure 2. The solutions of obtaining better solutions foremost in mind.
on the bold PQ line correspond to candidate design As the explanations in section 2 stressed, when
solutions obtained by the global optimization. The solu- obtaining better design solutions is the goal, a truly
tions are the set of design points such that simultaneous optimum solution can seldom be obtained after the
further improvements in both the product performance initial formulation of the problem at hand. It is first
and the product manufacturing cost are not possible. necessary to painstakingly address the availability of
Designers often look for design solutions on the PQ related knowledge and technologies, and wider feasible
line, but the technique of accumulating partial optimiza- design regions must then be employed so that a rigor-
tions only leads to solutions quite some distance from ously optimum solution can be searched for and found
the PQ line, inside the feasible region, such as solutions within these wider regions [4]. The core concepts that
lying on the P00 Q00 line. It can be understood from enable generation of better products by exploiting wider
these considerations that searching for global optimum possibilities are categorized as ‘‘conceptualization’’,

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

332 M. YOSHIMURA

‘‘concurrent design’’, and ‘‘collaboration’’, as shown in optimization procedures based on a procedural flow
Figure 3. of ‘‘Simplification’’, ‘‘Optimization’’, and ‘‘Realization’’
[5,6]. During the realization phase, concrete and
3.2 Conceptualization practical designs are determined so that the require-
ments obtained at the optimization phase can be
Designers usually begin the work of designing new embodied in the product to the maximum possible
products by drawing upon their own backgrounds and degree.
experiences, and referring to products already in the The aim of basing the design on conceptualizations
marketplace. During these initial efforts, designers are in at the initial stage of the process is to significantly
danger of making various decisions under conditions increase the number of possibilities that can be consi-
where they are constrained or influenced by their dered at the earliest stage, and use as broad a working
preconceptions. To obtain more preferable solutions, arena as possible, so that the ultimately selected solution
such preconceptions should be dissolved and discarded, will not be arbitrarily limited or restricted. This
and the focus should be on the most essential and emphasis on the breadth and depth of potential design
fundamental aspects of the matters being considered, space is also the basis of the concurrent design process
so that maximally effective schemes and strategies for that is itself based on concurrent engineering and the
the design and production can be worked out at the collaboration method explained below.
conceptual design stage.
The need to support decision-making at the concep- 3.3 Concurrent Design
tual design stage makes it necessary to find methods for
obtaining conceptual outlines of product designs using The usual product manufacturing process consists
models that simplify actual designs, and/or make of a one-way sequence of steps such as (1) product
use of idealized models. Figure 4 shows the design development, (2) product design, (3) manufacturing, and
(4) marketing, with each step generally corresponding
to a specific division that is hierarchically connected
to other divisions. Within each division, the procedures
for obtaining more preferable decision-making results
Conceptualization
are conducted according to the bounds of authorized
rights given to the particular division. However, for
decision-making processes in a system defined as shown
in Figure 5, factors determined at a higher process
Key concepts for level become decision-making constraints for the lower
innovating
product manufacturing
level processes, and the feasible decision-making
spaces are thereby undesirably narrowed. Hence, one-
way sequential decision-making processes seldom yield
globally optimal design solutions.
Concurrent In contrast with the one-way sequential paradigm,
Collaboration
engineering Figure 6 shows a concurrent engineering concept

Figure 3. Key concepts for innovating product manufacturing.

Research and development
(division)

Phase 1 Simplification

Product design (division)

Phase 2 Optimization
Manufacturing (division)

Phase 3 Realization
Marketing (division)

Figure 4. Optimization flow based on simplification, optimization,

and realization. Figure 5. Usual sequential product manufacturing processes.

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 333

in which the major design factors pertaining to each Management has been discussed as one of the most
division in Figure 5 are concurrently and/or coopera- important leading technologies that companies can use
tively decided at the highest level of product manufac- to address such problems [13]. Also, the Life Cycle
turing. Often, terms such as ‘‘design for manufacturing’’ Assessment methodology has been applied, to evaluate
[7], ‘‘design for assembly’’, ‘‘design for maintenance’’, the environmental profile of a product and identify
‘‘design for distribution’’, ‘‘design for quality’’, ‘‘design options during the product design process that provide
for environment’’, and ‘‘design for reliability’’ are used, potential improvements from the standpoint of environ-
where a factor corresponding to an aspect of product mental issues [14].
manufacturing and product life-cycle replaces the ‘‘X’’ Skillfully employing ‘‘concurrent engineering’’
in ‘‘Design for X’’. The ‘‘X’’ simply expresses factors concepts offers advantages not only concerning time,
that should be subject to concurrent and cooperative since the concurrent and cooperative processing of
decision-making at the earliest product design stage. related tasks is more efficient and can decrease the
‘‘Design for Life-Cycle’’ and ‘‘Life-Cycle Design’’ are time required to complete them, but also secures a
both terms used when referring to product designs higher probability of achieving more preferable results
that must consider the entire scope of a product’s concerning the product’s manufacturing costs, perfor-
life-cycle [8]. The concepts and methodologies of mances, and qualities. The concurrent engineering
concurrent engineering have been actively discussed in process corresponds to realization of wider feasible
books and papers that clarify the practical benefits of design regions that include more preferable solutions,
concurrent engineering [9–12]. and then obtaining the best possible solutions from
A product’s life-cycle begins during manufacturing, among these more versatile feasible regions.
and enters a functional stage when a customer takes Conventional sequential manufacturing processes
possession of it. Depending on the product, there may operate by accumulating partial optimizations, whereas
be repeated cycles of use and maintenance, but the manufacturing processes based on concurrent engineer-
majority of products eventually reach the end of their ing aim to employ globally optimum results, as shown
usefulness, at which point the item may be disposed of, by the PQ line in Figure 2. In a similar vein,
or some parts and materials may be recycled and used methodologies and technologies based on concurrent
in other manufacturing processes later on. The entire engineering alter conventional methods used for
chain of events as a whole is called the product life-cycle, decision-making in product design and manufacturing
and for most products, all relevant factors should so that more preferable product design solutions can
be considered at the design stage. That is, as shown in be globally obtained. The decision-making methods
Figure 7, factors pertaining to ‘‘manufacturing’’, ‘‘use’’, for concurrent design and engineering are re-defined,
‘‘maintenance’’, ‘‘disposal’’, and ‘‘recycling’’ should all and conventionally developed manufacturing systems
be concurrently considered at the product design stage, are reconstructed, based on a focus that pays particular
in order to achieve the maximum desirable benefit. attention to the automation of design and manufactur-
Pertaining to these considerations, Product Lifecycle ing processes, and the streamlining of information flow.

Research and
development
division
Manufacturing

Ba
se
ta
Da

Product
Design Marketing Design Recycling
design
proposals division Use Proposals Disposal
division

Maintenance
Manufacturing
division

Figure 7. Conceptual diagram of concurrent designs for product

Figure 6. Conceptual diagram of concurrent engineering. life-cycle.

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

334 M. YOSHIMURA

3.4 Collaboration of inherent risks. The following points need to be

addressed whenever collaboration is contemplated:
The concept of ‘‘collaboration’’ as popularly used in
various fields is that different experts, each of whom 1. The actual partners with whom collaboration is
possesses specific knowledge, skills, technologies, and/or conducted must be skillfully selected [15,16].
know-how, cooperatively share a variety of information 2. The assignment of tasks and the collaboration
as they develop a new project. A group of experts here procedures themselves must be specified in sufficient
may correspond to experts in the same field who are detail.
working at different companies, or they may be experts
in completely different fields. The potential advantages Construction of a system that supports the foregoing
offered by this kind of multidisciplinary collaboration points is a crucial requirement.
are wider reaching than with conventional collaborative When collaboration is successfully executed, the
endeavors that are limited to a single group, corporate feasible design regions such as those shown in Figure 2
division, or local society. can be expanded in the more preferable direction, and
Figure 8 shows the concept of the described colla- a new Pareto optimum solution line can be obtained.
boration where three groups collaboratively conduct The replacement of an existing Pareto optimum solution
joint development of a new product. Knowledge and/or set with a new one means that a breakthrough of the
physical resources that an individual person, corporate product design solutions has been achieved.
division, or enterprise can apply in the course of their In most cases, people are motivated to create a new
operation are limited. In order to break such resource concept or paradigm for product manufacturing out of
barriers, collaboration facilitates the use of additional necessity. People have a natural desire for improvement,
resources that are held by comparable entities elsewhere. and the need for more sophisticated products that
In the past, designers and decision-makers working are more useful and give better satisfaction is a driving
in geographically separate locations were often ham- force for advances in product manufacturing. Therefore,
pered in their sharing and communication of informa- the involvement of people with product manufacturing
tion, due to limitations in speed or precision inherent in details will be discussed later.
older technologies. At present, however, networking
technologies have removed such obstacles and collab-
oration among people located around the globe can be 4. Involvement of Human Beings
conducted far more easily. in Product Manufacturing
Related to collaboration is now common use of
distributed manufacturing, so that development and In the past, much effort has been spent to reduce
manufacturing, and product assembly sites themselves human labor during product design and, particularly,
are located in different countries. manufacturing, by automating and/or computerizing
Collaboration offers a wide range of potential benefits a variety of operations. However, enthusiasm for
for its participants [15], but there are also a number mechanical solutions can sometimes obscure the fact
that it is people who are actually responsible for
generating more preferable products.
The inherent abilities of human beings to make
judgments, create new things, and work collaboratively
with colleagues are summarized as shown in Figure 9.
Group Working as designers, people display a range of abilities
A for making aesthetic/emotional judgments about things,
and evaluating their beauty, attractiveness, manufac-
turing quality and functionality, or degree of comfort
offered. People also reveal a range of abilities for
generating products or concepts that, to varying degrees,
Generation
of new design embody the above practical and aesthetic characteristics.
solution And people have various personal traits that either
enhance or inhibit the realization of higher than
Group Group
expected levels of achievement when working collabora-
B C tively, in sympathy with their colleagues and coworkers.
One of the most important factors in product manu-
facturing is the difference among designers in terms of
their creative abilities, such as openness to inspiration.
Figure 8. Conceptual diagram of collaboration. To most effectively stimulate and utilize these abilities,

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 335

working environments that are most suitable to the Even if given design personnel have superior natural
particular design and product manufacturing problem creative abilities and intelligence, and suitable circum-
must be created. stances for a specific product-manufacturing problem
Recently, enterprise-wide projects that aim to develop have been created, the presence of a great many evalua-
specific products have become common. To maximize the tive factors, characteristics and design variables implies
potential for success, an increasingly important engineer- that superior decision-making is far from guaranteed,
ing subject concerns how to join and deploy human hence the need for sophisticated support systems, such
resources, drawn from related but different divisions as will be explained in the next section.
within an enterprise operation. Figure 10 illustrates a
concept for forming a development project by selecting
and combining human resources from enterprise divi- 5. Technologies Supporting Product
sions that are normally vertically partitioned. The Manufacturing
optimum allocation of human resources for a
development project should be determined by consider- The major technologies that support decision-making
ing not only the technical knowledge and creative skills of pertaining to product manufacturing are shown in
the human resources who will contribute to the project, Figure 11. The focus of the decision-making process is
but also their motivations, career-path objectives, and at the center of the figure, and represents the objective
psychological fit with their co-workers [17]. To achieve to be conducted at each stage of the manufacturing
this kind of optimized balance requires a sophisticated process. Located in the ring area nearest the center
decision-making support system. represents the optimization methods and decision-
making support methods. Proceeding outward, the
next ring represents network-information systems, a
common database, and virtual reality technologies
that the ‘‘inner’’ processes rely upon. Finally, a variety
Abilities for making
“aesthetic/emotional of technologies that support the complex endeavor of
judgments” about things product manufacturing are arrayed in the represented
segments beyond the core, with a number of classes
noted in the outermost ring.

Human beings’
inherent abilities 5.1 Outlines of Technologies Supporting
Abilities for working Product Manufacturing
Abilities for
“collaboratively in
“generating” new
sympathy” The following technologies that support product
products or concepts
with coworkers
manufacturing have been developed over a number
of years, and are being continuously improved and
deployed in increasingly sophisticated situations, so
that better judgments and decision-making can be
conducted. Human involvement is supported at increas-
Figure 9. Human beings’ inherent abilities.
ingly high levels, where ‘‘quantifying’’ and ‘‘visuali-
zation’’ are important factors that enable people to
make effective judgments or evaluations.

Company
5.1.1 PRODUCT SHAPE DESCRIPTION
TECHNOLOGIES
Section A Section B … Solid models of products or parts presented on a
Resource A1 Resource B1
computer display as 3D models let designers inspect and
judge such items naturally, without having to mentally
Resource A2 Resource B2
Project i infer real-world aspects from a set of planar drawings.
Resource A3 Resource B3
Rapid prototyping technologies using Computer-Aided
...

...

Design (CAD) data offer similarly advanced support to

designers, and facilitate their discovering points for
Figure 10. Conceptual diagram for forming a development project improvement in designed products or parts, not only by
by selecting and combining human resources among enterprise observation but also by allowing tactile manipulation of
divisions. realistic manufactured prototypes [18]. Digital mockup

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

336 M. YOSHIMURA

Quality Solid
design modeling
Scheduling, Digital
production mock-ups
planning
Network-information
systems,
Modular design Rapid prototyping

Decision- CAE
QFD making Structural analysis

Kansei information
processing system Simulation

System supporting
ERP group generation
PDM of ideas
TRIZ

Data base

Figure 11. Technologies supporting product manufacturing.

technologies that present assembled products or sub- possible to obtain product performance characteristics
assemblies via computer displays can make trial during simulated operation of the product, without
manufacturing unnecessary, or at least minimize the having to conduct practical experiments.
financial and time burden of test fabrication.
Standard for the Exchange of Product (STEP) Model 5.1.3 TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPORT
Data is widely used to facilitate the smooth exchange of GENERATION OF PRODUCT IDEAS
data among different CAD systems, since its interface Supporting technologies have been developed, for
program was developed for use with a combination generating product design ideas and producing product
of CAD/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM)/ designs under collaborative circumstances involving
Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) systems [19]. a number of designers. Brainstorming is a popular tech-
Since the program smoothes the transfer of information nique that supports generation of fresh ideas by a group,
among experts and helps overcome the organizational and a support system where generated ideas are clearly
boundaries of companies, STEP Standards are a core displayed and hierarchically arranged according to their
tool in the product design field. Building on STEP interrelationships can enhance its effectiveness [21].
virtues, a methodology has recently been proposed for
cooperative workflow and infrastructure architecture 5.1.4 DATABASE AND KNOWLEDGE
based on internet tools and the XML format [20]. MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Product Data Management (PDM) is one of several
5.1.2 TECHNOLOGIES FOR ANALYSIS OF database technologies that aim to systematically manage
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS a variety of product and parts data. Another, TRIZ,
Structural analysis technologies such as the Finite organizes ideas and knowledge based on past patent
Element Method, which can analyze various character- information as a database, for use in developing new
istics such as strain, vibration, thermal deformation, products. Engineering design is a knowledge-intensive
hydrodynamics, and electro-magnetic characteristics by process that includes conceptual design, detailed design,
directly modeling complicated product shapes, make it engineering analysis, assembly design, process design,

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 337

and performance evaluation. A number of approaches for job-shop type manufacturing cells, systems that can
that aim to refine and facilitate the management minimize lead-times when setting up new product
of engineering knowledge have been developed, and manufacturing processes [35].
such have included various means of knowledge capture,
knowledge representation and storage, and knowl- 5.1.6 TECHNOLOGIES TO ACQUIRE
edge compilation [22]. A method of knowledge INFORMATION CONCERNING
capture and utilization in new product development has CUSTOMER NEEDS
been proposed in which knowledge databases of past Usually, the primary imperative in product design
development projects are effectively utilized [23]. optimization is how to maximize the satisfaction levels
A knowledge-based model, implemented as computa- of potential customers [36]. Concurrent evaluation of
tional model interface for use by designers, has customer needs and general product evaluation factors
been proposed to facilitate computer aided design by using, for example, Quality Function Deployment
processes [24]. Finally, a generic method of knowledge (QFD) [37], is an important strategy for product design
capitalization has been developed, which depends on the optimization. To design products that are attractive to
installation of knowledge capitalization tools and models, customers, products that will spur sales and deliver
with the aim of shortening product design time [25]. satisfaction during use, factors concerning aesthetics,
comfort, and ergonomics, which are difficult to handle
5.1.5 MANUFACTURING SUPPORT quantitatively, should be included during product design
TECHNOLOGIES evaluations [38–40].
When parts are manufactured, for which detailed Based on the QFD technique, a method for new
designs have been determined, one of the most impor- product development has been constructed that trans-
tant technological subjects in the production phase lates customer needs and prioritizes customer require-
is how to reduce manufacturing costs without compro- ments so that a feasible solution of the design variables
mising any quality aspects. Robust design methods and within limited resources can be determined [41].
the Taguchi method [26,27] set goals so that the total
manufacturing cost can be minimized by concurrently 5.1.7 TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPORT
considering the relationships between the required ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
accuracy and various manufacturing costs. Systems Decision-making carried out during product design
that support assembly processes quantitatively evaluate usually has direct relationships with the enterprise
the levels of difficulty in the sequence of complex management of the company producing the product.
tasks of assembling parts during manufacturing, and Concerning the need to coordinate decisions throughout
provide detailed assembly procedures that minimize an enterprise, one example where the broadest possible
time costs [28]. A 3D CAD system has been proposed scope is accommodated is Enterprise Resource Planning
for the evaluation of assemblability/disassemblability, (ERP), which aims to integrate decision-making across
in order to achieve high concurrence for product design the entire range of enterprise activities with product
at the conceptual design stage [29]. Modular design manufacturing decision-making. A business process
technologies, used to reduce product design develop- management integrated approach to the design, imple-
ment time and manufacturing costs while best fulfilling mentation, and control of an ERP information system
a variety of customer needs and requirements, will has also been developed [42].
become increasingly important in the future [30]. A
production cost estimation framework has also been
constructed to support the design of product families, 5.2 Utilization of Information Systems
using a hierarchical classification of products [31]. in Product Manufacturing
Elsewhere, multiobjective genetic algorithms have been
used to simultaneously design a product platform and its Important technologies that make collaborative
corresponding family of products while considering decision-making in product manufacturing more
varying levels of platform commonality within the efficient and effective are network information technol-
product family [32]. And a method for optimizing ogies, the sharing of a common database, and Virtual
product variety has been constructed that addresses Reality (VR) technologies, all of which are shown in the
both combination of modules, and the module attributes second ring from the center in Figure 11. These
of multiple products [33]. An integrated approach to technologies are indispensable for effectively realizing
product module selection and assembly line design/ the concurrent engineering and collaboration concepts
reconfiguration problems has been proposed, to exploit in product manufacturing. For example, from the point
the advantages of product modularity and modular of view of concurrent engineering practice, network
product designs [34]. Finally, emphasis has been placed information technologies and the use of a common
on the need for rapid design supporting systems database enable concurrent and collaborative work and

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

338 M. YOSHIMURA

decision-making among different divisions. From the which satisfaction of constraints is required. Optimiza-
point of view of those engaged in a collaborative tion problems are formulated in order to rationally
process, a variety of experts working at distant locations obtain solutions that satisfy these requirements.
can cooperate more effectively, and thereby enjoy the At present, optimization methods based on mathe-
manifold benefits that collaboration can provide [43,44]. matical programming methods and genetic algorithms
However, networked environments can lead to situa- have been widely developed [51]. At any rate, obtaining
tions where the quantity and diversity of information, solutions for problems formulated as an optimization
in addition to the rapid pace of transfer back and forth, problem is easy, but the judging their quality is
actually increases the difficulty of designer decision- often difficult. In the study of practical methods for
making. In order to reduce such difficulties and stream- obtaining solutions for complex optimization problems,
line collaborative activities so that they become more the response surface method based on the design of
efficient and effective, the use of software agents capable experiments has received much attention recently.
of making simple judgments can help reduce unneces- One of the troublesome problems in complex optimi-
sary loads on personnel. zations for product designs is that many local optimum
An agent-based decision network system has been solutions exist in the feasible design space. In many
proposed for supporting concurrent decision-making cases, obtaining the global optimum solution remains
and collaboration in design [45]. quite difficult, and optimization methods that simply
A Web-based Collaborative Engineering Support and mechanically apply common optimization
System has been developed for supporting Cooperative procedures seldom yield useful results for practical
Work oriented toward the sharing and viewing of problems. This has led some people to discount the
3D data. Regarding the collaborative design and practical potential offered by optimization techniques in
concurrent engineering approaches, such software general. However, by concentrating on the formulation
increases the accessibility of information and streamlines of the optimization problem and how to solve complex
its availability to both expert and non-expert users problems, practical optimization techniques and
operating in a remote mode [46]. truly optimal results can be achieved, as will be
VR technologies are being developed, allowing explained below.
increasingly realistic experiences of designed product One of the most important points in the application of
deployed for use in virtual spaces, under various useful optimization methods is to formulate the problem
circumstances, with models that can be manipulated at being regarded while comprehensively including all
will. Practical applications of VR, such as combining it available engineering knowledge and experiences and
with Computer-Aided Testing, have also been con- to then carefully evaluate the obtained results.
ducted [47]. An overview has been given of a VR-based To maximize the utility of advanced optimization
manufacturing concept and layout planning system that methods, the following goals must be met.
aims to improve productivity and speeding up the design
cycle [48]. 1. To support decision-making of designs from the
conceptual design stage.
2. To grasp and evaluate how the global optimum
6. Optimization and Decision-making solution was obtained.
Technologies for Product Manufacturing 3. To judge the validity of the obtained optimum
solution.
The levels of supporting technologies have evolved 4. To support generating ideas for obtaining more
greatly and become much more sophisticated, however, preferable solutions.
these alone are insufficient for acquiring the best
decision-making results under the evaluative criteria Optimum design methods are often applied to the
explained in section 2. Effective utilization of the opti- improvement of detailed designs, but this implies that
mization methods and methods that support decision- the optimization starts from states where the most of
making, those located in the ring nearest the center of the important design decisions have been already been
the figure in Figure 11, are necessary. made. In order to obtain more preferable design
Figure 12 shows the flow of an optimization solutions, optimization methods should begin from
process that uses CAD and CAE [49,50]. Machine a state where the range of design possibilities is as
product designs normally have criteria such as product broad as possible, namely from the conceptual design
manufacturing cost, operational accuracy, operational stage [52], and an optimization procedure based on a
efficiency, and operational energy cost evaluated under procedural flow of ‘‘Simplification’’, ‘‘Optimization’’,
a condition that the required functions be satisfied. and ‘‘Realization’’, as shown in Figure 4, enables this
These criteria can be classified into two groups, one in [5,6]. To obtain useful guidelines for determining
which better characteristics are required, and one in conceptual designs, First-Order Analysis (FOA) is also

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 339

Product assembly
Designer’s idea Rough sketch Conceptual design Detailed design
model using
using 3-D CAD using 3-D CAD
3-D CAD

CAE using simplified model

CAEusing
FOA and detailed model
Simplified model analysis

Design optimization Design optimization

Figure 12. Flow of design optimization using CAD and CAE.

often useful for transforming structural design problems By considering input and output relationships among
into simplified models, composed, for example, of beam the characteristics and conflicting relationships between
and panel elements [53]. characteristics, the characteristics can be arrayed in
Solutions to goals (2), (3), and (4) above can be groups so that characteristics having conflicting rela-
obtained by using a hierarchical multiobjective optimi- tionships at the same hierarchical level are joined
zation method. In general, when requirements for a together as a multiobjective optimization problem. The
given performance characteristic can be realized without optimizations start from the bottom levels, and resulting
conflicts with the other characteristics, the optimization Pareto optimum solutions are transferred into higher
problem is a simple one where the optimum solution levels. These procedures are repeated until the Pareto
can be easily obtained. The obtained solution is, in optimum solutions at the highest level are obtained.
such cases, often quite similar to what can be achieved Using the Pareto optimum solution set for the perfor-
when relying on the experience and intuition of a mance characteristics at the highest level, the most
decision maker. However, when conflicting relationships practical optimum solution is determined by considering
exist among the performance characteristics, and those the features of the Pareto optimum solutions and the
characteristics have complex interrelationships, optimi- design environment.
zation problems become complicated and finding the Figure 14 shows the correspondence of a solution on
optimum solution is far from easy. Optimizations for the Pareto optimum solution set between the highest
product designs are almost always of this type, where and lowest levels. The optimization method not only
there are conflicting relationships among characteristics, facilitates obtaining the optimum solution, but also
but multiobjective optimization methods can be success- makes uncovering the reasons for the solution easy
fully applied to such problems. and reliable. Furthermore, the optimized results better
In hierarchical multiobjective optimization methods, support designers in their search for further design
multiobjective optimization models are hierarchically improvements. That is, by paying attention to the Pareto
constructed [54]. Figure 13 shows an example of the optimum solutions between simple characteristics at the
hierarchical structure of a machine-tool structure. lowest level, fresh ideas for breaking through the Pareto
The manufacturing cost, accuracy (operational accu- optimum solutions can be more easily discovered. When
racy), and efficiency (operational efficiency) are at the a new idea transforms the line RS to a new Pareto
highest level, and are performance characteristics optimum solution line R0 S0 , this generates a new Pareto
commonly used when evaluating product design solu- optimum line P0 Q0 between the performance character-
tions. At the lowest level, there are combinations of istics at the highest hierarchical level. The impact of this
simple fundamental characteristics, such as structural design change can then be examined based on evalua-
member rigidity and structural weight, joint rigidity and tions of the improvement levels shown in the Pareto
joint contact surface area, machining cost, and so on. optimum solutions.
This method does not directly optimize the perfor- It is natural that use of the supporting systems and
mance characteristics, but each of the performance optimization methods should lead to better decision-
characteristics is decomposed into simpler characteris- making results than relying on decision-makers’ experi-
tics or simpler characteristics are extracted from the ences and intuition. The more important point is that
performance characteristics. The decomposition and even if the decision-making results do not bring about
the extraction procedures are repeated, and the hier- preferable outcomes, the decision-making processes can
archical structure of characteristics is obtained. be traced, and detailed examination of the processes

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

340 M. YOSHIMURA

BOU1

Manufacturing cost Accuracy Efficiency : Characteristic

: Basic Optimization
Material cost Machining cost Displacement Velocity Unit (BOU)

Dynamic : Design variable

Operation
rigidity planning

Structural Static
BOU2 weight rigidity

BOU3

Joint rigidity Machining cost

BOU5
BOU4

Structural Machining cost Machining cost Surface

member rigidity per unit contact area per unit contact area roughness

Structural Maching method

demensions Machining conditions

Figure 13. Example of hierarchical structure of characteristics for hierarchical multiobjective optimization.

P
Decision-making supporting systems can facilitate
f1 P′ logical compromises and capitalize on synergy effects.
Pareto optimum solutions
f2
G f2 between performance characteristics
The following are simple cases where synergy effects
at the highest hierarchical level play an important role:
G′
Q
Q′ 1. Cases where a more preferable solution is obtained
f1 after acquiring a partner’s knowledge or idea.
2. Cases where a more preferable solution is obtained
after altering each participant’s requirements.
3. Cases where a solution is obtained after resolving
conflicting relationships in each participant’s
requirements.
R
R′
fm
Pareto optimum solutions
H between characteristics
fn fn 7. Concluding Remarks
at the lowest hierarchical
H′
S
S′ Product manufacturing now has global consequences,
and potentially profound roles to play in terms of
fm
positive improvements in quality of life and lifestyle,
Figure 14. Correspondence of Pareto optimum solutions between culture formation, conservation of natural environ-
the highest and lowest hierarchical levels. ments, effective utilization of natural resources, the
prosperity of countries, and so on.
can be used to improve the decision-making systems The present circumstances of developing products for
themselves. ruthlessly competitive retail environments make it clear
The most troublesome situation in product manufac- that a traditional reliance on worker experience and
turing decision-making is when several people are joined intuition, and the partial optimization of product
in related endeavor, and they must reach a consensus manufacturing processes, will lead to inferior products
concerning various details in collaborative environ- and undesirable outcomes.
ments. Support systems tailored for use in collaborative Healthy competition among companies stimulates
environment decision-making are needed [55,56], where them to create more preferable and economical
utility analyses and preference functions [57,58] can be products, increases the number of people who have
effectively used. access to better products and helps raise

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 341

living standards. In a similar vein, effective collabora- 8. Werner, F. (2005). Ambiguities in Decision-oriented Life
tion can streamline the creation of better products, Cycle Inventories: The Role of Mental Models and Values,
Dordrecht: Springer
reduce or eliminate manufacturing wastefulness, and
9. Huang, G.Q. (ed.). (1996). Design for X: Concurrent
lead to better conservation of natural resources. Engineering Imperatives, London: Chapman & Hall.
Taking product design and manufacturing to the next 10. Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals
level requires a well-designed decision-making support Vol. I – Integrated Product and Process Organization –,
system, and cultivation of designer and manufacturer New Jersey: Prectice Hall PTR.
sensitivity concerning pressing issues, as well as sincere 11. Prasad, B. (1997). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals
motivation to take the long view and not cut corners. Vol. II – Integrated Product Development –, New Jersey:
One key point of these endeavors is the joint utilization Prectice Hall PTR.
of technologies that support product manufacturing, 12. Yoshimura, M., Itani, K. and Hitomi, K. (1989).
Integrated Optimization of Machine Product Design and
optimization, and collaboration among engineers who Process Design, International Journal of Production
may be in widely separated locations around the world, Research, 27(8): 1241–1256.
who may have different cultures and backgrounds, 13. Ming, X., Yan, J., Lu, W. and Ma, D. (2006). Technology
but are united in the task of creating new products Solutions for Collaborative Product Lifecycle
and harmonizing all aspects of manufacturing. Management - Status Review and Future Trend,
The fundamental concepts of concurrent engineering Concurrent Engineering, 13(4): 311–319.
and collaboration will be become increasingly important 14. Bovea, M.D. and Wang, B. (2003). Identifying
Environmental Improvement Options by Combining Life
for product manufacturing in the 21st century. Cycle Assessment and Fuzzy Set Theory, International
Hopefully, the 21st century will be an age when an Journal of Production Research, 41(3): 593–609.
increasing percentage of the world’s population 15. Yoshimura, M. and Yoshikawa, K. (1998). Synergy Effects
will become free of material want, and be able to of Sharing Knowledge During Cooperative Product
lead productive, even affluent, and secure lives. Design, Concurrent Engineering: Research and
Thus, the importance of system design technologies Applications, 6(1): 7–14.
in the development and improvement of 16. Yoshimura, M., Izui, K. and Kida, S. (2005). Decision
Support System for Selecting Collaborative Product
engineering and industry is bound to increase in the Development Partners, International Journal of
coming years. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications,
13(1): 5–11.
17. Yoshimura, M., Fujimi, Y., Izui, K. and Nishiwaki, S.
References (2006). Decision-making Support System for Human
Resource Allocation in Product Development Projects,
1. Yoshimura, M. (1993). Concurrent Optimization of Product International Journal of Production Research, 44(5):
Design and Manufacture in Concurrent Engineering, 831–848.
Concurrent Engineering, Contemporary Issues and Modern 18. Benhabio, B. (ed.) (2003). Manufacturing – Design,
Design Tools, In: Parsaei, H.R. and Sullivan,W.G., (eds), Production, Automation, and Integration, New York:
Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 159–183. Marcel Dekker.
2. Cohon, L.L. (1978). Multiobjective Programming and 19. Balakrishna, A., Babu, R., Rao, D., Raju, D. and Kolli, S.
Planning, New York: Academic Press. (2006). Integration of CAD/CAM/CAE in Product
3. Eschenauer, H., Koski, J. and Osyczka, A. (eds). (1990). Development System Using STEP/XML, Concurrent
Multicriteria Design Optimization, New York: Springer- Engineering, 14(2): 121–128.
Verlag. 20. Deshayes, L., Dartigues, C., Ghodous, P. and Rigal, J.F.
4. Yoshimura, M. and Izui, K. (1998). Machine System (2003). Collaborative System for Cutting Data
Design Optimization Strategies Based on Expansion Management Based on STEP Standard, Concurrent
and Contraction of Design Spaces, In: Proceedings of Engineering, 11(1): 27–36.
the 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on 21. Kobayashi, M., Yoshimura, M., Nishiwaki, S. and Izui,
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA-98- K. (2004). Collaboration Support System Based
4749, September, St. Louis, USA, pp. 320–330. on Visualization of Communication Processes,
5. Yoshimura, M., Hamada, T., Yura, K. and Hitomi, K. In: Proceedings of DETC’04 ASME 2004 Design
(1983). Design Optimization of Machine-Tool Structures Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers
with Respect to Dynamic Characteristics, Transactions of and Information in Engineering Conference, DET
the ASME, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and C2004-57785, pp. 1–7.
Automation in Design, 105(1): 88–96. 22. Wang, C.B., Chen, Y.J., Chen, Y.M. and Chu, H.C. (2005).
6. Yoshimura, M., Takeuchi, Y. and Hitomi, K. (1984). Knowledge Refinement for Engineering Knowledge
Design Optimization of Machine-Tool Structures Management, Concurrent Engineering, 13(1): 43–56.
Considering Manufacturing Cost, Accuracy and 23. Poolton, J. and Ismail, H.S. (2000). The New Products
Productivity, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Process: Effective Knowledge Capture and Utilisation,
Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 8(2):
106(4): 531–537. 133–143.
7. Poli, C. (2001). Design for Manufacturing: A Structured 24. Sprumont, F. and Xirouchakis, P. (2002). Towards a
Approach, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Knowledge-Based Model for the Computer Aided Design

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

342 M. YOSHIMURA

Process, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application, 41. Yung, K., Ko, S., Kwan, F., Tam, H., Lam, C., Ng, H.
10(2): 129–142. and Lau, K. (2006). Application of Function Deployment
25. Renaud, J., Lefebvre, A. and Fonteix, C. (2004). Model in Decision Making for New Product Development,
Improvement of the Design Process through Knowledge Concurrent Engineering, 14(3): 257–267.
Capitalization: an Approach by Know-how Mapping, 42. Quiescenti, M., Bruccoleri, M., La Commare. U., Noto La
Concurrent Engineering, 12(1): 25–37. Diega, S. and Perrone, G. (2006). Business Process-
26. Taguchi, G. 1(986). Introduction to Quality Engineering: Oriented Design of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Designing Quality into Products and Processes, Tokyo: Systems for Small and Medium Enterprises, International
Asian Productivity Organization. Journal of Production Research, 44(18): 3797–3811.
27. Taguchi, G. (1993). Taguchi on Robust Technology 43. Huang, G.Q. and Mak, K.L. (2003). Internet Applications
Development – Bridging Quality Engineering Upstream, in Product Design and Manufacturing, Berlin, New York:
New York: ASME Press. Springer.
28. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight, P. (1994). 44. Yoshimura, M. and Takahashi, K. (2001). Collaborative
Product Design for manufacture and Assembly, Design among Different Fields in Mobile-agent
New York: Marcel Dekker. Environments, International Journal of Concurrent
29. Ishikawa, H., Yuki, H. and Miyazaki, S. (2000). Design Engineering: Research and Applications, 9(2): 146–154.
Information Modeling in 3-D CAD System for Concurrent 45. Danesh, M.R. and Jin, Y. (2001). An Agent-Based
Engineering and Its Application to Evaluation of Decision Network for Concurrent Engineering Design,
Assemblability/Disassemblability in Conceptual Design, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 9(1):
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 8(1): 37–47.
24–31. 46. Eynard, B., Liénard, S., Charles, S., and Odinot, A. (2005).
30. Otto, K.N. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Web-based Collaborative Engineering Support System:
Engineering and New Product Development, Englewood Applications in Mechanical Design and Structural
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Analysis, Concurrent Engineering, 13(2): 145–153.
31. Park, J. and Simpson, T.W. (2005). Development of a 47. Wickman, C. and Söderberg, R. (2003). Increased
Production Cost Estimation Framework to Support Concurrency between Industrial and Engineering Design
Product Family Design, International Journal of Using CAT Technology Combined with Virtual Reality,
Production Research, 43(4): 731–772. Concurrent Engineering, 11(1): 7–15.
32. Simpson, T.W. and D’Souza, B.S. (2004). Assessing 48. Okulicz, K. (2004).Virtual Reality-Based Approach to
Variable Levels of Platform Commonality Within a Manufacturing Process Planning, International Journal of
Product Family Using a Multiobjective Genetic Production Research, 42(17): 3493–3504.
Algorithm, Concurrent Engineering, 12(2): 119–129. 49. Harrington, J. (1973). Computer Integrated Manufacturing,
33. Fujita, K. and Yoshida, H. (2004). Product Variety New York: Industrial Press.
Optimization Simultaneously Designing Module 50. Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2000). Product Design
Combination and Module Attributes, Concurrent and Development (2nd edn), Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Engineering, 12(2): 105–118. 51. Arora, J.S. (2004). Introduction to Optimum Design (Second
34. Liang, M. (2006). Integrated Planning for Product Module Edition), San Diego, Tokyo: Elsevier.
Selection and Assembly Line Design/Reconfiguration, 52. Yoshimura, M. and Takeuchi, A. (1993). Multiphase
International Journal of Production Research, 44(11): Decision-Making Method of Integrated Computer-Aided
2091–2117. Design and Manufacturing for Machine Products,
35. Yoshimura, M., Yoshida, S., Konishi, Y., Izui, K. and International Journal of Production Research, 31(11):
Nishiwaki, S. (2006). A Rapid Analysis Method for 2603–2621.
Production Line Design, International Journal of 53. Nishigaki, H., Nishiwaki, S., Amago, T., Kojima, Y. and
Production Research, 44(6): 1171–1192. Kikuchi, N. (2001). First Order Analysis – New CAE Tools
36. Yoshimura, M. and Takeuchi, A. (1994). Concurrent for Automotive Body Designers, SAE Paper, No.2001-01-
Optimization of Product Design and Manufacturing Based 0768.
on Information of Users’ Needs, International Journal of 54. Yoshimura, M., Taniguchi, M., Izui, K. and Nishiwaki, S.
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 2(2): (2006). Hierarchical Arrangement of Characteristics in
33–44. Product Design Optimization, ASME Journal of
37. Akao, Y. (1990). QFD – Integrating Customer Mechanical Design, 128(4): 701–709.
Requirements into Product Design, Cambridge, 55. Gupta, J.N.D., Forgionne, G.A. and Mora, M. (ed.)
Massachusetts: Productivity Press. (2006). Intelligent Decision-making Support Systems,
38. Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei Engineering: A New Foundations, Applications and Challenges, Secaucus, NJ:
Ergonomic Consumer-Oriented Technology for Product Springer.
Development, International Journal of Industrial 56. Yoshimura, M. and Kondo, H. (1997). Group Decision
Ergonomics, 15(1): 3–11. Making in Product Design and Manufacturing, In:
39. Yoshimura, M. and Papalambros, P.Y. (2004). Kansei Proceedings of 1997 ASME Design Engineering Technical
Engineering in Concurrent Product Design: A Progress Conferences, September, Sacramento, California, pp. 1–7.
Review, In: Proceedings of the TMCE2004, pp. 177–186. 57. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with
40. Yoshimura, M. and Yanagi, H. (2001). Strategies for Multiple Objectives – Preferences and Value Tradeoffs,
Implementing Aesthetic Factors in Product Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Journal of Production Research, 39(5): 58. Yoshimura, M. and Kondo, H. (1996). Product
1031–1049. Design Based on Concurrent Processing of

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 System Design Optimization 343

Design and Manufacturing Information by School of Engineering at Kyoto University. His

Utility Analysis, International Journal of Concurrent research interests include concurrent optimization of
Engineering: Research and Applications, 4(4): 379–388.
product design and manufacturing, information
systems for manufacturing, collaborative optimization,
concurrent engineering, and the dynamics of
Yoshimura
machine tools and industrial robots. He has published
more than 150 English papers in journals and
Masataka Yoshimura proceedings of the ASME, AIAA, IJPR, CERA
earned his Bachelor of (Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications),
Engineering Degree in Structural Optimization, JSME (Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineers), and JSPE (Japan Society
and Master of Engineering for Precision Engineering), and elsewhere. He has
Degree in Precision Engi- received awards from the JSPE and the Japan
neering from Kyoto Society for the Promotion of Machine Tool
University, and received Engineering, an achievement award from the
his Doctor of Engineering Design Engineering Division of JSME and
Degree from Kyoto Univer- remarkable service awards from Design Engineering
sity in 1976. He is currently Division of ASME. He is ASME, JSME, and JSPE
a Professor in the Graduate Fellows.

Downloaded from [Link] at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016