1 

Critical Analysis of Design

Theories
P.S. Padliya1, Y. Naikvade2, D.D. Ghosh3

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo,
USA

Abstract
Traditional design processes have been described to follow an ‘Algorithmic’ approach
wherein a set of systematic sequence of steps is to be followed. Dr. Nam Suh’s concept
created a new school of design approach – ‘Axiomatic’ approach, which has the foundation on
the premise that there are generalised principles which govern the underlying behaviour of the
system. In this paper we have given an introduction of the axiomatic design process and
other methodologies – Pahl and Beitz Systematic Design, Pugh’s Total Design and Decision
Based Design., This will be followed by the critical analysis of the afore mentioned methods to
find out shortcomings (if any), ways to mitigate them and finally attempt to adapt the
strengths of these methods along with other techniques to develop a more robust method of
design.

Key words – axiomatic design, systematic approach, total design, and decision based design

Authors to whom all correspondence should be addressed

1
Person Number – [37410540], Email – punitsur@buffalo.edu
2
Person Number – [37351725], Email – yuvrajra@buffalo.edu
3
Person Number – [37420971], Email – dipanjan@buffalo.edu

Introduction
There are two ways to approach design:-

‐ Algorithmic: Prescribes the ‘proper’ design process.

‐ Axiomatic: Provides generalised principles that govern the behaviour.

Axiomatic design elevates engineering design to a science, governed by a few basic rules, and
from what has been an art integrated with engineering analysis. Axiomatic design approach is
based on the interplay between ‘what we want to achieve’ and ‘how we choose to achieve it’
[1].

This paper can be divided in to five sections. The first section explains the Dr. Suh’s Axiomatic
Design in detail. However, due to the limitations on the scope of this paper only the basic
procedure has been focused upon. Section 2 explains the framework of other methodologies
briefly. Section 3 presents the comparison of the methodologies. In this section we have also
attempted to highlight the salient features of each method that we agree with, and point out
the lacunae in these methods. The solutions of these lacunae have been touched upon. Section
4 talks about the conclusion that we have drawn after studying the various methods i.e. the
design methodologies are not competing in nature instead, if integrated together they would
lead to better results. This section thus proposes a better strategy to design. It should be
 2 
 
noted that even after integrating the four techniques, some of the lacunae still persist. Hence
the adoption of some other powerful techniques has been advised. Section 5 summarizes the
findings and presents the conclusions.  

1. Overview of Suh’s Axiomatic Approach

 
1.1 Preliminary concepts of Axiomatic Design

Axiomatic approach consists of the following concepts [1]:

‐ Design world consists of distinct domains: Consumer, Functional, Physical and Process
‐ The design process involves mapping between the domains
‐ Each domain is defined (or characterised) by a characteristic vector which can be
decomposed by zig - zagging between the domains. The characteristic vectors
associated with each domain are:
i) Consumer Attributes
ii) Functional Requirements
iii) Design Parameters
iv) Process Variables
‐ The mapping process involves creative conceptualization which must satisfy the design
axioms

Figure 1 shows the vectors associated with each domain along with the mapping

Figure 1 Domains in Axiomatic Design and Mapping [1]

The characteristics of the mappings are as follows:

‐ Consumer to Functional domain mapping is an interpretation of the needs of
customers which result in the formulation of the objective functions
‐ Functional to Physical domain mapping is interpreted as core design activity. The
design parameter will represent the concept of the design
‐ Physical to Process domain mapping describes the process by which the required
design parameter can be obtained

Mapping between each domain must satisfy the design axioms – Independence Axiom and
Information Axiom.
 3 
 

1.2 Design Axioms

Axioms are fundamental truths that are always observed to be valid and for which there
are no counter examples or exceptions. According to axiomatic design the process of
mapping should conform with the following two axioms [1]:
‐ Independence Axiom: During the mapping process one to one mapping between
the attributes of two domains should be maintained.
‐ Information Axiom: Minimize the information content of the design, that is select
the simplest product.
The applications of the two axioms are pre-emptive in nature.

1.3 Domain mapping process [1][2]

As per the independence axiom there should be one to one mapping between the attributes
of two domains. We can describe each domain in the form of attribute vector. Figure 2
shows the mapping process.

Figure 2 Mapping Process [1]

Let [FR] = [FR1 FR2 FR3]T and [DP] = [DP1 DP2 DP3]T be the attribute vector of functional
requirements and design parameters respectively and ‘x’ denote dependence of attribute
in one domain on the attribute of other domain while ‘0’ denote no dependence. Then
according to Independence theorem the mapping relation can be described by the
following matrix relationship

[FR] = [A] [DP]

1 0 0 1
2 0 0 2
3 0 0 3

Here [A] is the design matrix. Similar mapping process exists between design parameter
matrix [DP] and process domain [PV], where [B] is the design matrix.

Depending on the type of design matrix systems can be classified as follows [2]:
‐ Decoupled system
‐ Partial decoupled system
‐ Coupled system

Figure 3 shows the three systems depending on the type of design matrix
 4 
 

Figure 3 Mapping Process

As per the independence axiom a good design will always have case (a) as the design
matrix, but complex systems may have case (b) although it is not desirable. Case (b)
shows that the solution set depend on the order in which it is solved. The design matrix is
formulated using the decomposition process.

1.4 Decomposition Process

The highest level of design equation is called Design Intent. Decomposition is a process of
transforming Design Intent into Realizable design details [3]. This process involves zig-
zagging from what domain to how domain until FR is satisfied. At each level, one DP is
selected to satisfy one FR. Subsequently, that DP imposes a constraint on the next level
down. The process stops when the next level is obvious. This level is known as the Leaf
[3].

Figure 4 Decomposition process

During the processes of domain mapping and decomposition the independence axiom
should always be satisfied. Once we get alternate design we apply information axiom to
select the best design.

1.5 Independence Axiom [1]

The information axiom provides a method of quantifying the best design out of all the
possible choices that satisfy the independence axiom. This axiom compares the design
range stated by the FR to the system design range which is dependent on the DP meeting
 5 
 
the requirement. As stated in [4], the information content I for an uncoupled design with n
FRs can be expressed as: ∑ log where pi is the probability of DPi satisfying FRi.

The probability of success can be computed by specifying the Design Range for the FR and
by determining the System Range that the proposed design can provide to satisfy the FR.
This is shown in Figure 5. The overlapping region called as the Common Range is the only
region where the design requirements are satisfied. The information content can then be
expressed as I = log (Asr/Acr) where Asr denotes the area under the System Range and Acr
is the area under Common Range. As Asr = 1 in most cases, ∑ log

Figure 5 Design Range, System Range and common

Range (Information Axiom) [1]

2. Overview of other design processes

 
2.1 Overview of Pahl and Beitz Systematic Design

Pahl and Beitz [5] developed a systematic ‘function to form’ method of engineering design.
In this method the overall function is broken down into sub-functions. Individual solutions
are then obtained for each sub-function. These individual solutions are then combined to
achieve overall objective.

Figure 6 Pahl and Beitz problem – solution Figure 7 Pahl and Beitz model of the design
decomposition structure [5] process [6]
 6 
 

2.2 Overview of Pugh’s Total Design

Stuart Pugh took design one step further by introducing the theory of Total Design.
According to Stuart Pugh, design is the integration of the two cultures – Arts and Sciences.
He states that ‘Design is not like Mathematics or Physics’; it does not represent a body of
knowledge; it is the activity that integrates the bodies of knowledge present in Arts,
Sciences and their Derivatives’ [6] and further quotes that ‘... it is only the balance and
distribution of arts and science contents which distinguishes one from another’ [6]. Stuart
Pugh understood the importance of Total Design and sensed the need to integrate
academia and industry. Pugh’s concept of total design states that marketing,
manufacturing, finance, research are all part of the design process and every aspect should
be considered in design.

Figure 8 Pugh’s Activity Model of Total Design [6]

2.3 Overview of Decision Based Design (DBD)

A relatively new development in the field of design is the emergence of ‘Decision Based
Design’ (DBD). DBD focussed on the primary aim of any artefact producing firm: to make
profit. DBD has the following two activities at its core [7]:
‐ Determine all possible options
‐ Choose the best option
The framework of DBD, proposed by Hazelrigg [7] is based on the utility theory. DBD cares
about uncertainty and risk in the design process.

Figure 9 Decision Based Design system framework [7]

 7 
 
3. Comparison and Constructive criticism of Design methodologies

If we closely look at Systematic Approach design model we can compare it to a waterfall

model, where the result is obtained in a systematic manner in a top down approach,
although iteration is allowed in the process but it is not recommended.

3.1 Salient features of Systematic Approach

Some of the key basic concepts which can be universally adopted as per our opinion and
stated by Pahl and Beitz are [5]:
‐ Design is about converting three things :- Energy, Materials, Signals
‐ Types of designs :- Original, Adaptive, Variant
‐ Design methodology should reflect the findings of cognitive psychology and
ergonomics. Although we do consider that Systematic Approach has not explained
the technique to integrate these in detail.

3.2 Lacunae of Systematic Approach

Some of the lacunae which we would like to point are:

‐ Manufacturing considerations not taken into account
‐ Lack of using prototyping method to test the design
‐ Absence of the explanation of bottom up approach to integrate the solution
‐ Absence of mechanism of choosing between alternate designs
‐ Impact of design processes on other engineering activities and activities pertaining
to the organization not being taken into account.
‐ Since the core for the Systematic approach is the function to form matchup, the
criteria of a successful design is that the form and structure of the final design
realises the requirements of the function. The method doesn’t take into
consideration how the form looks like and the process to obtain the form in
physical. The evaluation system is also inadequate and qualitative in nature.
‐ Systematic approach has a very strict design algorithm which can reduce the
creativity involved and lead to stagnancy.
‐ The system is inflexible and not good for drastic changes.

3.3 Salient feature of Total Design Method

Total design method however takes into account many other activities and is an integration
of people, products and organisations. Being a Total approach, the model could overcome
many of the lacunae of Systematic model. The major impact we consider is the use of the
evaluation matrix to compare and evolve with new design solutions while in Systematic
approach it was based on economic and technical criteria, VDI guidelines [5] and never
involved group discussions to evaluate the alternatives. Considering the Total Design model
many designs which were engineering marvels and results of the Systematic approach
were actually a failure if we evaluate according the Total Design approach. The best
example of this can be the Sinclair C5 vehicle model [6].

3.4 Lacunae in Total Design Method

Total design also had some lacunae, some of them as per our opinion are:
‐ Being a Total design approach and taking the larger picture into consideration, the
model is too vast to meet deadlines which form a very critical part of market
currently.
 8 
 
‐ The model heavily depends on group discussions and qualitative comparisons to
come to a conclusion on choosing a particular concept that can be carried forward.
‐ Studies in economics and Decision Field theory have shown that a number of
irrationalities come into play during the process of group decision making.
‐ Although Total design gives a framework for design, it lacks in defining the clarity
of steps and how to transition between the steps. Explanation of information
transfer between the steps has not been provided clearly.
‐ The approach gives the designer an insight into various spheres which he/she
needs to consider but the approach speaks little about how to execute the steps.
‐ Because of the dynamics within the group many advantages of working in groups
are often lost.
‐ Groups with same structure may come up with different styles and produce a
different output which shows the qualitative attribute of evaluation method.
However we do observe potential advantage in this, as scope of exploration and
evaluation increases and better design solutions can be obtained.
‐ The selection of concept as a datum for evaluation is one of the most critical steps
and is also a very difficult step.

3.5 Salient features of Axiomatic Approach

From the above analysis it can be clearly seen that a need of a quantitative evaluation
procedure was needed in the design activity. Axiomatic approach fulfils this requirement to
some extent. Some of the salient features of Axiomatic approach over the above two
according to us are:
‐ Above methods can be considered as a confluence of art and design principles
where art has an analogy with creativity and design principles corresponds to the
modelling of the components. Need of a scientific and mathematical approach to
design was fulfilled by Axiomatic Design [3].
‐ Design practices prior to Axiomatic approach were based on empirical relations
relying on trial & error and heuristics and hence time consuming [3].
‐ The algorithmic approach including the above two methods were difficult to apply
at conceptual level and were more suitable for level of detailed design and were
less effective if many functional requirements were to be satisfied [3].
‐ It can be clearly seen that Axiomatic method was influenced by the concept of Total
design as it took into consideration the people factor and organisation factor in the
process of product creation and did not just focus on the design activity.
‐ The two axioms of Axiomatic approach proved to be a great tool in evaluating
design solutions in a quantitative manner.
‐ In the above two methods integration of the sub systems has not been explicitly
mentioned which has been taken care of in the Axiomatic Design as shown in
Figure 10 [8].
‐ Axiomatic Approach is scalable and can be used for Flexible systems as well [3].
‐ Since Axiomatic Design is modular and each module corresponds to independent
functional requirement, it provides a very clear demarcation of each functional
requirement. So axiomatic design is very suitable for customisation [3]. For
example in case of laptops, where the end products remains the same i.e. a laptop,
but the configuration of the laptop can be different as per the customer’s
requirement. So, if a product is to be designed with some FR’s different, axiomatic
design addresses this design and integration very well .
 9 
 

Figure 10 V model approach of Axiomatic Design [8]

‐ Every product according to product life cycle graph will face a stagnancy phase as
shown in Figure 11 and there is a need of revitalization.

Figure 11 Product Life Cycle Graph

The Systematic approach and the Total design approach have not explicitly
mentioned about revitalization which is important from an organisation’s point of
view as no organisation would like to see it product facing the decline phase. Suh
provided a mechanism wherein he states that if there is scope of providing
additional functionality in a product and is not needed currently, then do not
provide it and make it available later [3]. This approach is adopted by product
families. Example of this is Gillette Razor where the organisation initially came up
with Single blade razor, reinvigorated the sales by introducing Twin blade razor,
continued the trend with Triple blade razor and currently has come up with Fusion
Proglide Power razor which is made for intricate parts although all are part of the
same family of Razors.
‐ Although Systematic Design states the use of electronic media, it cannot be
implemented in an automated way. But electronic platforms can be used to assist
the methodologies like creating CAD models. The same goes for Total design model
as well, but Axiomatic design being mathematical in nature has been described in a
logical manner and implemented in a software framework. The architecture of the
software implementation is shown in Figure 11. This is one of the biggest
advantages and leaps in the design methodologies where an ideology has been
automated and implemented [2].
 10 
 

Figure 12 Software architecture of Axiomatic approach [2]

The commercial softwares available are [9]:

a. Acclaro DFSS
b. Acclaro Scheduler
c. Acclaro Sync
‐ Axiomatic approach is suitable for different fields – Manufacturing, Materials,
Software, Organisation, Systems unlike the above methods.
‐ Axiomatic approach takes into consideration the manufacturing processes. This can
be seen in the following equations:
[FR] = [A][DP] ......FR to DP mapping
[DP] = [B][PV] ......DP to PV mapping
Thus [FR] = [A][B][PV] ......FR to PV mapping
The above equation is known as the Design for Manufacturing [2]
‐ In case of fixed system, the information content can be given as follows:
Isystem = -Σlog(pleaf) + Ia
Where, Ia is the information associated with the ‘assembly of the modules’ [3].
Thus, Suh’s theory clearly addresses the issue related with the integration of
various modules which is not addressed directly in any of the previous theories.
This minimizes the integration issues which would be created while assembling the
parts which are typically designed by different design teams in the industry.

3.6 Lacunae in Axiomatic Approach

Axiomatic approach being robust and versatile does have some lacunae and the following
are some of the lacunae according to us
‐ Although Axiomatic approach is mathematical and quantitative in approach, the
process of zig-zagging which defines the quality of mapping depends upon the
designer’s creativity and experience and hence is qualitative in this sense and
hence a new user designer would need time to adapt to the use of the technique
and produce good results.
‐ According to Axiomatic approach the design matrix should ideally be a diagonal
matrix or a triangular matrix. But many times even a sparse matrix is also
 11 
 
desirable [2] [3]. However in such a case the solution of the DP depends on the
solution order. The same case arises in case of decoupled matrix.
‐ According to Axiomatic approach, mapping of Customer Attribute to Functional
Requirement should be done in a Solution Neutral Environment [3]. This is
practically infeasible as designers will always be influenced by some existing
product or nature at least. For example Bio-mimicry robots like the octopus robot
are designed based on the morphological structure of octopus and is successful in
many activities and hence violates the statement.
‐ Sometimes qualitative attributes are associated with a design. Being mathematical
in approach these qualitative attributes will not be taken into account.
‐ Axiomatic design tries to get a design solution which is independent and has least
information content. Also according to axiom 2 the designer will try to select a
parameter which has the highest probability of being successful i.e., considering
probability of success as the objective function the designer will try to maximise it.
In case of multi-attribute problems the designer can face a trade off situation
where the functions can be conflicting with each other. Axiomatic design has no
explanation of how to solve these trade-offs and how to map these trade-offs to
the design variables that is the design space.
Below is the graphical representation of the FR and DP [2]. In practical situation
there can two points A and B on the design space, when integrated can produce a
conflicting situation and will need trade off. Axiomatic design process has not
explained the procedure to handle such situations. Example can be high fuel
efficiency and high power requirement of an automobile are two conflicting
objectives which needs trade off.

Figure 13 Graphical relationship and showing trade off situation

‐ Axiomatic approach considers transforming the customer attributes (CA) to

functional requirements (FR) as the most important step which then leads to the
mapping of functional requirements to design parameters (DP). However according
to us the customers’ influence on the product ends at this stage of mapping CA to
FR as the methodology is domain specific. Considering that the mapping process is
very subjective to the experience of the designer the consideration of human factor
gets introduced. Because of this it may happen that the translation CA to FR was
not properly executed which may lead to erroneous solution and the customer may
not be satisfied with the end results. In short an iteration step to check the
satisfaction of customer from DP domain should be introduced as shown in Figure
14.
 12 
 

 
Figure 14 Introduction of iteration steps from DP to CA

‐ By using independence axiom designer is able to optimise individual attributes, but

often this axiom cannot be fully met in real design practice.
‐ As stated earlier axiomatic theory tends towards automation and a major work is
described in [10] where the concept of a machine capable of developing designs is
conceived. For this the design knowledge of many designers must be stored in a
database to check for all possible solutions. This actually contradicts the term
thinking machine which is not able to make decisions and is merely a search engine
model. Hence although there is a scope of automation it is not possible to develop
a thinking machine as human factor which has been neglected by Suh should
always be considered.
‐ One basic flaw in Axiomatic Design is independence which is subjective in nature
and needs decision making which has not been considered by Suh.
‐ Axiomatic Process does not include cost as a functional requirement but however
states that it should considered as a constraint. But sometimes according to the
customer’s voice cost has to be considered as a functional requirement.

3.7 Salient features of Decision Based Design

Axiomatic Approach introduced the concept of quantitative analysis of design, but has
not taken into consideration the human factor and uncertainty involved. Decision based
design realizes that decision making is a critical step involved in quantitative analysis.
Some of the salient features which we would like to state are below.
‐ If we have a closer look at Systematic approach, it s observed that the customers’
views and requirements are not taken into account adequately. Although there is a
scope of iteration stated but it is not recommended. On the other hand demand
modelling, customer views and requirements are the most important factors in
design according to the DBD process. The evaluation system is all about satisfying
the customer’s need as well as generating profit.
‐ The authors clearly see the influence of Total Design on DBD as it takes into
consideration the overall impact. DBD suggests that design is not only a multi-
disciplinary process; it is rather an omni-disciplinary process [7].
‐ Total Design explains group discussions to evaluate selection criteria, i.e., group
would arrive at a rational decision which is generally not the case as proved by the
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem [7]. These decisions are often made based in
experience and instinct of the designer. There is no mathematical justification for
these decisions. Thus Total Design evaluation method as the authors have already
stated earlier is qualitative and subjective. This is the reason why the same design
tool may lead to completely different results depending on the person who is using
it and the decisions he/she makes during the process. On the other hand Decision
Based Design quantifies this decision making process using axioms that underlie
the value theory.
 13 
 
‐ DBD realizes that while teaching engineering design, the students should be trained
to handle the uncertainty. This is very necessary since uncertainty is always
associated with design as products or utilities are always designed for the future.
‐ Methods like Quality Function Deployment, Design for Manufacture, Design for
Assembly, Design for Quality, Concurrent Engineering, Pahl and Beitz, Suh, etc. all
require functional specifications of product as the starting point. None of the
methods provide mathematically consistent and logically correct insights on optimal
specification of product nor do they address the issue of inevitable trade-off like
product cost and product performance. DBD gives a mathematical basis for making
these trade-offs under conditions of uncertainty and risk, thus enabling the
designer to utilize the previously mentioned design technique efficiently.
‐ DBD provides a method for modelling the uncertainty and ranking the various
alternatives by taking into consideration the uncertainty and risk involved.
‐ DBD provides data as to which analytic equations are relevant and areas where the
experimentation should be focused to improve the analytic model. In other words it
pin-points the design options or variables within an option which should be focused
on to achieve maximum benefits in trade-offs.
‐ DBD helps to find the design variable which will result in the best combination of
the desired attributes.
‐ DBD does not provide an optimization methods or algorithms but helps in
formulating the objective function.

3.8 Lacunae in Decision Based Design

Like other methods even DBD has some lacunae. Some of them according to us are
mentioned below.
‐ DBD does not resolve the central problems of classical group decision making like
change in the result depending on the voting method used [11].
‐ Although it models the uncertainty, it cannot provide solution or framework to
eliminate it completely from the design. In other words it cannot provide a method
to make the design independent of the uncertainty [11].
‐ DBD does not help in determining the constraints or range for the trade-offs. Also it
does not provide the functional relationship between the design variables and
performance attributes. Experimentation and engineering analysis is still needed to
arrive at these values [11].
‐ DBD cannot be employed during the creative or configuration stage, but can enable
the designer to think in terms of function rather than form [11].
‐ Although a framework has been developed for DBD, this theory is still in the
development stages and a number of questions need to be answered to facilitate
smooth implementation of this technique. Some of the prominent issues are – ways
to develop flexible design representations so as to ensure that all design options
are explored, computational capabilities needed for the extensive optimisation,
inertia to change from the industry [12].
‐ The integration of DBD approach in today’s product design infrastructure would
require some major changes which may not be accepted readily by the industry
[12].

3.9 Comparison for Original, Variant and Adaptive Design

As stated in section 3.1 we completely agree with the three types of designs – Original,
Adaptive and Variant. In the following table we have ranked the methodologies for
generating the above three design types
 14 
 
Systematic Axiomatic Decision
Total design
design design based design
Original design XX XX XXXX XX
Adaptive design XXX XXXX XXX XXXX
Variant design XXX XXXX XXX XXXX

Table 1 Rating different methods for different types of design

Ratings: X=Poor, XX=Moderate, XXX=Good, XXXX=Very Good, XXXXX=Excellent

4. Unification of design methodologies

Considering the above analysis it is evident that no single method is sufficient enough for a
perfect design. Hence we have made an attempt to unify the methods considering the strong
points and to eliminate or mitigate the lacunae of the others. We have not limited the work to
only the four design methodologies described above but have expanded to include other
methods based on the study and results of others research in the area.

As seen, Axiomatic theory does a good job in considering customer, functions, physical and
process domain, however lacks the influence of the company and the importance of decision
making. Interface with the company is important as the product is developed with the
intention to generate profit for the company as stated in Total Design Theory and Decision
Based Design. As stated by Marston, et.al in [13], axiomatic approach in combination with
decision based design yields good results for variant design. Magrab has used axiomatic
approach for solving design problem in combination with Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in
[14] and stated that when appropriated, the design requirements may be classified based on
the functional requirements i.e., the requirements must be firstly established and used for
organising the design requirements. Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) is a powerful
technique and the links between axiomatic approaches has been established by Yang, et.al in
[15]. We adapt some features of the above work in the proposition of new framework. Figure
15 shows the proposed model

Figure 15 Proposed model of a new framework

As seen from the Figure 15 the basic framework consists of Company (Company Objectives),
Customer Domain, Functional Domain, Physical Domain and Process Domain. We use the QFD
method during the mapping process from customer domain to functional domain where the
requirements are ranked according to the relative importance. During the zig-zagging process
when a designer has selected an FR and wants to identify alternative DPs to achieve it, TRIZ
 15 
 
can be helpful. The axioms of axiomatic approach should be satisfied. During these processes
when faced with uncertainty, the process moves towards the DBD framework to quantitatively
solve the uncertainty. As stated in section 3.5, Systematic approach is more suitable for
detailed design stage. Hence during the formulation of the design parameters the systematic
approach should be adopted. In this case as well, under uncertainty the framework adopts
decision theory. As stated in 3.6 axiomatic process lacks the interaction of the physical domain
and the customer domain, hence in the framework we have introduced this interface. We again
adopt TRIZ during the mapping of Physical and Process Domain. Process Domain considers
processes like manufacturing which may involve variation and failures. We have introduced the
application of Statistical process control and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in this domain to
solve the problems arising due to variation and to ensure quality. As the goal of developing the
design is related to the company, all the domains have an interface with the company domain.
Since the qualitative nature of evaluation is minimum and mathematical in nature, there is
scope of automation of this framework. This framework is also versatile in all fields like
manufacturing, software, materials, etc.

5. Conclusion
In this paper we presented a brief overview of four design methodologies – Systematic
Approach to Design, Total Design Methodology, Axiomatic Approach, and Decision Based
Design. We listed some of the salient features and lacunae in each of the methodologies and
proved that none of these methods are sufficient to produce a good design on their own. We
strongly feel that these methods are not competing with each other and can produce better
results if used in combination with each other. We feel that Axiomatic Approach provides the
most robust framework, hence we have used it as a foundation and integrated it with other
powerful techniques adapted from Systematic Approach, Total Design, Decision Based Design,
Quality Function Deployment, Statistical Process Control, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis to
propose a new framework for design activity which is not only concentrated on the detailed
design procedure but also emphasizes on the interface between customer i.e., people,
company objectives i.e., organisation, products, uncertainty i.e., decision making and quality.

References

[1] D.A. Gebala, N.P. Suh, “An Application of Axiomatic Design”, Research in Engineering
Design, 1992

[2] N.P. Suh, “The Principles of Design”, Oxford University Press, 1990

[3] N.P. Suh, “Axiomatic Design Advances and Applications”, Oxford University Press, 2001

[4] N.P. Suh, “Axiomatic Design of Mechanical Systems”, ASME Journal of Mechanical
Design, June 1995, Vol. 117/5

[5] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, L Wallace, L. Blessing, “Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach”,

Third Edition, Springer, 2007

[6] S. Pugh, “Creating Innovative Products using Total Design: The Living Legacy of Stuart
Pugh”, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Reading MA, 1996

[7] Hazelrigg, G.A., “An Axiomatic Framework for Engineering Design”, ASME Journal of
Mechanical Design, 1999

[8] Web Link of “MIT Courseware” - http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-

882-system-design-and-analysis-based-on-ad-and-complexity-theories-spring-
2005/lecture-notes/lec309.pdf, accessed on 24-Feb-2011
 16 
 

[9] Web Link “Axiomatic Design Solutions INC” –

http://www.axiomaticdesign.com/products/default.asp, accessed on 24-Feb-2011

[10] N. Suh, “Design of Thinking Machine”, Annals of CIRP, 39/1, 145-148, 1990

[11] D.L. Thurston, “Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design with
Utility Analysis”, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 2001

[12] H.J Wassenaar, W. Chen, “An Approach to Decision Based Design with Discrete Choice
Analysis”, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 2003

[13] M. Marston, B. Bras, F. Mistree, “The Applicability of the Axiomatic and Decision Based
Design Equations in Variant Design”, Proceeding of DETC: ASME Design Engineering
Technical Conferences, 1997

[14] E.B Magrab, “Integrated Product and Process Design and Development: The Product
Realization Process”, New York, USA, CRC Press, 1997

[15] K. Yang, H. Zhang, “A Comparison of TRIZ and Axiomatic Design”, TRIZ Journal, 2000