Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference

Implementation of Departmental Flow Analysis for Project

Task Coordination
Lukasz Mazur
Industrial Extension Service (IES)
North Carolina State University (NCSU)
Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

Shi-Jie (Gary) Chen

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA

Abstract
In complex projects, project managers need to consider every possible rework (or feedback connections)
throughout the entire project life cycle in order to complete the project in a shorter time and lower cost
without sacrificing the quality of the outcome. Design structure matrix (DSM) has been found effective in
revealing project task structure and flow. The objective of this paper is to show managers how a
departmental flow analysis can help enhance project task coordination among related departments after project
task structure and flow are identified by DSM. The effectiveness of departmental flow analysis is
demonstrated by an industry example.

Keywords
Project Management, Project Task Flow, Departmental Flow Analysis, Design Structure Matrix (DSM)

1. Introduction
Engineering projects often require a great deal of effort during the planning and designing stages to
eliminate any unnecessary rework. The difficulties in coordinating project task structure do not simply arise
from engineering complexity, but also steam from cooperation capabilities between the departments. In
complex projects, project managers need to consider every possible rework (or feedback connections)
throughout the entire project life cycle in order to complete the project in a shorter time and lower cost
without sacrificing the quality of the outcome. Design Structure Matrix (DSM) has been found effective in
identifying relationships among project tasks (i.e. independent, dependent, and interdependent relations)
and revealing the entire project task structure [1-5]. Much research has demonstrated the effectiveness of
DSM in the past [6-17]. The objective of this paper is to show managers how a departmental flow analysis
can help enhance project task coordination among related departments after project task structure and flow are
identified by DSM. The effectiveness of departmental flow analysis is demonstrated by an industry
example.

2. The Industry Example

The example is taken from an industry company that designs, manufactures and distributes different types
of industrial and commercial furnaces. First, the entire project is decomposed into 27 tasks and the
relationships among them are also established, which are done by meeting with managers and members
from different functional departments involved in the new furnace design and manufacturing. It should be
noted that the project decomposition and task relationship establishment provide critical information for the
study that have to be handled by the experienced managers and engineers with care if satisfactory results
are desired. Table 1 shows the project task information including task relationships and the responsible
department(s) of each task. For example, Task 1 (Customer Order/Price Negotiations) is related to Task 5
and needs to provide information input to Task 5. Task 1 is to be executed in Selling Department (SD).

557
 Mazur and Chen

Table 1: Project Task Information

Task No. Task Description Relationship Department(s) Responsible for Task
1 Customer Order/Price Negotiations 5 Selling Dept. (SD)
Design Testing Dept. (DTD)
Order Specification Analysis for
2 1 Design Dept. (DD)
Production Feasibility
Services and Installation Dept. (SID)
3 Technical Concept Proposition 1 Selling Dept. (SD)
4 Price Evaluation 1 Selling Dept. (SD)
Procurement Dept. (PrcD)
Technology Dept. (TD)
5 Project Initiation 6, 7
*Planning Coordinator (pc)
Design Testing Dept. (DTD)
6 Project Design Documentation 8, 9, 10 Design Dept. (DD)
7 Project Components Documentation 11 Design Dept. (DD)
8 Project Specification Check 9, 10, 26 Design Dept. (DD)
9 User Manual Documentation 24 Design Dept. (DD)
Past Experience Technology
10 11 Archival Office (AO)
Consultation
8, 12, 16,
11 Technology Documentation 17,18, 19, 20, Technology Dept. (TD)
21, 22
Evaluation/Selection of
12 13, 15 Selling Dept. (SD)
Procurement Partners
13 Material Procurement Ordering 14 Selling Dept. (SD)
15, 17, 18, 20,
14 Material Procurement Receiving Inventory Dept. (ID)
21
Project Material Evaluation/
15 8 Design Testing Dept. (DTD)
Specification Changes
Evaluation/Selection of Supply Supply Chain Management Dept.
16 17
Chain Management Partners (SCMD)
Detail Analysis of Supply Chain Supply Chain Management Dept.
17 19, 22
Management Value Proposition (SCMD)
Detail Analysis of Firms Value
18 19, 22 Production Dept. (PD)
Proposition
19 Assembly of Furnace Subparts 20, 21, 22 Production Dept. (PD)
20 Assembly of Main Furnace Part 21, 22 Production Dept. (PD)
21 Final Assembly 8, 22 Production Dept. (PD)
22 Final Testing 8, 23 Service and Installation Dept. (SID)
23 Disassembly and Painting 24 Production Dept. (PD)
24 Transportation 25 Distribution Dept. (DistD)
25 Assembly over the Customer Site 26 Service and Installation Dept. (SID)
26 Furnace Assembly Inspection 8, 27 Service and Installation Dept. (SID)
27 Final Meeting - *Technical Director (td)
Note: the * at task 5 and 27 represents a person (not department) responsible for task.

3. Project Task Flows

According to the task input/output relationships in Table 1, Figure 1 shows the unordered DSM task flow
for the 27-task project (with 44 progressive and 8 feedback connections) before applying the ordering
algorithm. It should be noted that more feedback connections entail more potential rework. Additionally,
the more tasks in the feedback loop the more expensive and lengthy rework will be needed, which usually
result in higher cost and longer time for a project to complete. Figure 2 shows the ordered DSM task flow
for the 27-task project, which contains only two feedback connections comparing to eight feedbacks from
the original structure. It should be noted that the second feedback loop between Tasks 8 and 26 in Figure 2

558
 Mazur and Chen

contains only six tasks comparing to 19 tasks in the original loop in Figure 1, thus the extra rework time
and cost required for this new feedback loop are significantly reduced. The ordering algorithm applied is
based on a genetic algorithm developed by the authors of this paper that we do not include in this paper due
to page limitation.
Cluster A
1

4
5

7
Cluster B
8
9

10

11

12

13
14

15

16

17
18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26
27

Figure 1: Unordered DSM Task Flow for the 27-Task Project

3
4

6 C lu ste r B
10

11

12

16
13

14

18

15

17
19

20

21

22

8
23

24

25

26
27

Figure 2: Ordered DSM Task Flow for the 27-Task Project

559
 Mazur and Chen

4. Departmental Flow Analysis

In order to improve the project completion time and cost (time and cost data are not presented in this paper
due to page limitations), project managers need to consider the weight of each feedback connection in the
project, such as the probability of a feedback to happen and/or the number of loops (or iterations) that a
feedback connection should incur. A higher feedback probability with more feedback iterations means a
stronger weight should be given to the feedback connection, which will significantly increase the project
time and cost. Figures 3 and 4 present the project task flows among departments (i.e., departmental flows)
for the original DSM task flow (Figure 1) and the structured task flow (Figure 2), respectively. Task
numbers from 1 to 27 are within circles. The abbreviations within squares stand for the names of the
departments where the tasks are performed. The solid and dashed lines represent the progressive and
feedback connections, respectively. Performing departmental flow analysis helps us to evaluate the weights
of feedback connections (possible rework). In general, the feedback connections involving the tasks that
belong to the same department tend to have less iteration than those feedbacks with the tasks from different
departments. In addition, those departments being willing to share and cooperate with each other in a
feedback loop are also likely to have less iteration than the departments that lock themselves up from
cooperation. In Figure 3, Tasks 3 and 4 (both having a feedback connection to Task 1) are expected to
receive better coordination and cooperation with Task 1 because these three tasks belong to the same
department (SD). However, handling the feedback connection from Task 2 to Task 1 is more difficult
because Task 2 involves three different departments (DTD, DD, and SID) that all have to deal with the
department (SD) of Task 1. Therefore, the feedback connection of Task 2 to Task 1 is given a stronger
weight than the feedbacks of Task 3 to Task 1 and Task 4 to Task 1.

Figure 3: Departmental Flow for the Original DSM Task Flow

Compared with the departmental flow in Figure 3, it can be seen in Figure 4 (the structured DSM task flow)
that the level of cooperation among departments is much improved which should lead to significant rework
elimination.

560
 Mazur and Chen

Figure 4: Departmental Flow for the Structured DSM Task Flow

Table 1 summarizes the improvements that can be visually noticed while comparing the unordered vs.
ordered departmental flow diagram presented in Figure 3 and 4.

Table 1: Noticeable Improvements on Departmental Flow Diagrams

Departmental Flow for the Departmental Flow for the
Original DSM Structured DSM
Number of Feedback Loops 8 2
Number of departments involved
6 3
in Feedback Loops

Specifically, the feedback loops in Figure 3 involve six functional departments (DTD, DD, SID, SD, TD,
and PD) for cooperation, which is more difficult for managers to coordinate: DTD, DD, and SID with SD
(between Tasks 1 and 2); TD with DD (between Tasks 8 and 11); DTD with DD (between Tasks 8 and 15);
PD with DD (between Tasks 8 and 21); SID with DD (between Tasks 8 and 22); and SID with DD
(between Tasks 8 and 26). In contrast, the two feedback loops in Figure 4 need only three functional
departments (DD, AO and SID) to cooperate with each other during project execution: DD with AO
(between Tasks 8 and 10) and SID with DD (between Tasks 8 and 26). For example, Task 10, when
undertaken by the AO department, is expected to maintain a close communication with the DD department
where Task 8 belongs in order to avoid the unnecessary rework. Moreover, Task 6, which provides
information input to Task 10, also belongs to the DD department. Therefore managers should give more
emphasis to the level of cooperation and communication between the departments of AO and DD. The

561
 Mazur and Chen

above examples show that departmental flow analysis based on DSM task flow is able to improve the
project performance that results in less bureaucratic processes, better coordination for information
exchange, and thus reduces the total time and cost of the project by eliminating unnecessary rework.

5. Conclusion
For complex projects, it is critical to consider the feedback connections among tasks because much rework (or
iteration) will be involved that usually leads to a significant increase of the project time and cost. In this study,
we have shown how design structure matrix and departmental flow analysis are able to help improve
project task flow and reduce the number of feedbacks so that the overall project time and cost are reduced
as potential benefits. The results from the industry example demonstrate the effectiveness of departmental
flow analysis, which highlights the areas of close-related departments where much attention should be paid by
the managers in order to enhance the level of cooperation and avoid unnecessary rework. It is also important that
the appropriate communication and information exchange channels are well established for all feedback
connections to make sure the effective cooperation among the related departments.

References
1. Steward, D.V., 1981, System analysis and management: Structure, strategy and design. Petrocelli
Books, Inc., Princeton, NJ.
2. Steward, D.V., 1981, The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex
systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 28, 71-74.
3. Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E., Smith, R.P., and Gebala, D.A., 1994, A model-based method for
organizing tasks in product development, Research in Engineering Design, 6, 1-13.
4. Rogers, J.L., 1996, Integrating a genetic algorithm into a knowledge-based system for ordering
complex design processes, NASA, Hampton, VA, TM-110247.
5. Rogers J.L., 1997, Reducing design cycle time and cost through process resequencing,
International Conference on Engineering Design, Tampere.
6. Kusiak, A., Larson, T.N., and Wang, J., 1994, Reengineering of design and manufacturing
process, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 26, 521-536.
7. Kusiak, A., Wang, J., He, D.W., and Feng, C., 1995, A structured approach for analysis of design
processes, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology - Part
A, 18, 664-673.
8. Krishnan, V., 1996, Managing the simultaneous execution of coupled phases in concurrent
product development, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43, 210-217.
9. Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S.D., and Whitney, D.E., 1997, A model-based framework to overlap
product development activities, Management Science, 43, 437-451.
10. McCulley, C., Hulme, K., and Bloebaum, C.L., 1997, Simulation-based development of heuristic
strategies for complex system convergence, Applied Mechanics Review, 50, 117-124.
11. Ahmadi, R., Roemer, T., and Wang, R., 2001, Structuring product development processes,
European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 539-558.
12. Browning, T.R., 2001, Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and
integration problems: a review and new directions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 48, 292-306.
13. Yassine, A., Whitney, D., and Zambito, T., 2001, Assessment of rework probabilities for design
structure matrix (DSM) simulation in product development management, Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
14. Chen, S.J., and Lin, L., 2002, A project task coordination model for team organization in
concurrent engineering, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 10(3), 187-203.
15. Chen, S.-J., & Lin, L., 2003, Decomposition of interdependent task group for concurrent
engineering, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44(3), 435-459.
16. Mazur, L., Chen, S.-J., Sasiadek, M., Kielec R. and Semik W., 2005, Project Task Coordination
Using Design Structure Matrix and Genetic Algorithm, Proceedings of Portland International
Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, Oregon.
17. Chen, S.-J., 2005, An Integrated Methodological Framework for Project Tasks Coordination and
Team Organization in Concurrent Engineering, Concurrent Engineering: Research and
Applications, 13(3), 185-197.

562