Design of Complex Engineered Systems
Design of Complex Engineered Systems
复制标题
复杂工程系统的设计
DOI：
10.1115/1.4003033
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
A. R. McGowan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Bloebaum;A. R. McGowan
许多过去的社论讨论了设计的定义，指出了个人和行业之间的广泛差异。我们坚持这样一个定义，即承认设计是一个对可用的选择做出合理决定的问题，以实现一个人的既定偏好。在他的杂志即将发行的特刊中，将邀请以“设计复杂的工程系统”为主题的研究文章。这就引出了一个问题：这是一个复杂的工程系统？此外，这种系统的独特设计挑战是什么？我们将复杂系统定义为那些紧密耦合的相互作用现象产生集体行为的系统，这种集体行为不能通过简单的艺术行为的总和来获得。本质上，这些是高度跨学科的系统，其中固有耦合的存在可能导致不合理的结果。复杂系统可以是生物人体、自然雨林、航空航天工程、海军建筑、钻井平台和医疗设备。人类在国防、环境可持续性、医学进步和人类繁荣方面的需求不断增长，总的来说，这些都是工程系统复杂性增加的驱动因素。然而，无论是为跨尺度的特定行为设计新材料，还是为大规模的运输系统设计新材料，都涉及到许多相互作用的学科，固有的耦合会对传统的结构化分层设计过程造成严重破坏。此外，今天几乎没有空间让过时的组织方法植根于单一学科的优势。一般来说，目前在工程设计中解决复杂性的努力倾向于通过更多的过程来管理复杂性，而不是试图通过理论来严格理解它，甚至利用它来提高系统性能。虽然他依赖于传统的方法和过程绑定到一个特定的组织结构可能会有不利的结果，在他较小的规模，失败是放大了大量的复杂产品。今天，最常见的系统工程方法包括在需求驱动的框架中使用层次分解。即使这种方法在用于大型复杂系统（如军用飞机）时，即使是最微妙的实现，也可能导致数亿美元的成本超支和大量的时间延迟，使项目倒退数年，甚至导致项目取消。我们能够而且必须扭转这种局面。复杂工程系统的广泛和快速增长的流行意味着设计理论和方法的关键差距具有普遍和破坏性的影响，从小到大的规模。现在，我们的工程设计界比以往任何时候都更必须伊势解决这些问题的挑战。不过
Many past editorials have discussed definitions of design, ointing out the wide variation across individuals and industries. e adhere to a definition that recognizes design to be a matter of aking rational decisions regarding available alternatives in order o achieve one’s stated preference. In an upcoming special issue of his journal, research articles on the topic of “designing complex ngineered systems” are being invited. This begs the question: hat is a complex engineered system? Further, what are the nique design challenges of such systems? We define complex systems to be those for which tightly oupled interacting phenomena yield a collective behavior that annot be derived by the simple summation of the behavior of the arts. In essence, these are highly interdisciplinary systems in hich the existence of inherent couplings potentially leads to irational results. Complex systems may be biological human ody , natural rain forests , or engineered aerospace, naval arhitectures, drilling platforms, and medical devices . Growing human needs in national defense, environmental susainability, medical advancements, and human prosperity, in genral, have been drivers in the increased complexity seen in engieered systems. However, whether one is designing a new aterial for a particular behavior across scales or a large-scale ransportation system, involving numerous interacting disciplines, he inherent couplings wreak havoc with the practice of imposing traditional structured hierarchical design process. Further, there s little room today for an antiquated organizational approach ooted in single discipline superiority. In general, present efforts to address complexity in engineering esign tend toward managing the complexity through more proesses rather than attempting to rigorously understand it through heory or even exploit it to improve system performance. While he reliance on traditional methodologies and processes tied to a articular organizational structure can have detrimental results at he smaller scale, the failures are magnified substantially for largecale complex products. Today, the most common system engieering approaches involve using a hierarchical decomposition ithin a requirements-driven framework. Even the most meticuous implementation of this approach when used for large-scale omplex systems such as military aircraft can still lead to mindoggling cost overruns in the hundreds of millions of dollars and ubstantial time delays that set projects back by years or even ead to project cancellation . We can and we must reverse this attern. The widespread and rapidly growing prevalence of comlex engineered systems means that the critical gaps in design heory and methodology have pervasive and damaging impacts rom small to large scales. Now, more than ever, our engineering design community must ise to the challenge of addressing these issues. However, what