A MODEL FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DESIGN PROJECT ISSUES. THE CASE OF CNES MICROSATELLITES DESIGN C. BELLEVAL, I. DENIAUD, C. LERCH BETA, CNRS UMR 7522 Strasbourg University
CRECOS 2010- Helsinki
Agenda State of the art Innovating design characteristics Myriade Case (microsatellites design) Contradictions Network Requirements System Design Analysis Model Conclusions and Future Works
System Engineering
State of the art Design Approaches Traditional Approach Simon, 1969: Design is problem solving Pahl & Beitz, 1988: sequential model, complicated products Problems Product-system and project-system complexity Taking into account of the system effect Taking into account of all stakeholders
New Approaches Liu, 2000: problem structuring stage Cross, 2001: co-evolution problem - solution Schön, 1995: thinking after action + thinking while acting Hatchuel & al. 2002: C-K theory, expanded rationality
Innovating Design Characteristics The problem statement is not defined or ill-defined, and
unsolved: Hatchuel, 2002 ; Choulier, 2008 The problem to be solved is contradictory Exploratory process The objective is built during the design process New knowledge development: Lerch, 1998 Design of a new and adapted solution Multidimensional Approach: Nightingale 2000, Robin and Girard 2006, IPPOP project Interdisciplinary communication (Concurrent engineering)
System Engineering Context
System Engineering Co-operative and interdisciplinary process of problem solving (AFIS)
Process implemented to define, make evolving and check the definition of the system (AFIS)
Forsberg and Mooz Model
Myriade Case CNES 1998: a line of microsatellites Non-functional Requirements Physical Requirements Weight < 120 kg; volume < 1 m3; power on-board 100 W
Service Quality Requirements Development costs < 3 million € Design and execution time: two years Operational life cycle > 2 years Commercial off the Shelf – COTS Operational and Maintenance Requirements Autonomy, control since the ground, etc. Verification and Validation Requirements Tests, inspections, etc.
Contradictions Network ORGANIZATION
dimensions
Ambidexterity excluded ex ante
(3b)
Organisational Contradiction
TECHNICAL
Systeme Requirements and Constraints
COGNITION
(1)
Cooperation with SSTL excluded (no preliminary spin-in)
Technical Contradiction
Innovating Solution
(2)
Organis. Blocking (4b)
(4c)
Technical Blocking
(4a) Cognitive (3a) Contradiction
Cognitive Blocking
Organis. Arbitration (5c) Technical Arbitration (5a) Cognitive Arbitration (5b) !me
Program Setup
On-board Computer Design
Program Stall
Downgrading Requirements
Myriade Case Organisational requirements and project management requirements Concurrent engineering New acceptable risks redefinition Quality management Organisational Ambidexterity
Cognitive requirements Engage its actors in an evolution of their action theories (Argyris and Schön 1978)
Double-loop organisational learning
Projects Organisation Mission Success First
Space: hostile environment
Faster: synchronization with the other sectors
Better: Equipment Miniaturization
Equipments Redundancy
Important weight
Long design time
Cheaper: Duplicate the projects number (Economy of scale and variety)
SPOT 5
Weight: 3 000 kg Design Time: 10 years Estimated Cost: 120 million €
DEMETER
Weight:130 kg Design Time: 12 month Estimated Cost 3 million €
Requirements System Requirement 1..*
Functional Requirement
1..*
Non-Functional Requirement
1..*
Project 1..* Requirement
Cognitive 1..* Requirement
1..*
1..*
1
1
1..*
Product 1..* 1..*
Function
1..* 1..*
Functional Architecture
1..* 1..*
1..* 1..*
0..1 1
Components 1..* 1..*
Physical Architecture
Project
0..*
1
Organisation 1
0..*
Design Analysis Model Needs Analysis
Requirements Control
[completeness = false] [completeness = truth]
Propose an Architecture
Remove Contradiction
[contradiction = truth] Contradiction
[blocking = false]
Analysis [contradiction = false]
Design Verification Requirements Arbitration
[arbitration = truth] [arbitration = false]
Accept Solution
[blocking = truth]
Solution Give up
Conclusions Co-evolution of the problem and its solution During the requirements deployment in design
project, the constraints appeared in 3 dimensions: technical, organisational and/or cognitive
The interactions between the 3 dimensions generate
contradictions which influence the strategic direction of design project. Contradictions are propagated from one dimension to another
Compromise and overcome contradictions are thus
strategic choices for a design project. They must both take into account in the design project analysis model
Future Works Integration of our model in a design project management software Decision representation which integrates various points of
view: organization/product/project. The presented UML models can be transformed into relational model and implemented in a relational database making it possible to manage the integrity of the data and to keep the memory of the innovating design project Verified requirements with each stage of design process and lead us to a validated solution in the form of simulated virtual prototype Identify and analyze in detail the contradictions using system engineering tools Overcome technical, organisational and cognitive contradictions appeared during design project