The purpose of this exploratory paper is to analyze how complexity of an artifact affects designing processes of its mechanical, electric, and software sub‐systems.
Based on existing empirical research and frameworks of axiomatic design, product architecture, and product development process, the paper proposes a simple model of functional and structural design to examine how engineers' ways of thinking differ among mechanical, electric and software engineers.
This paper argues that products and artifacts tend to become complex (often with integral architecture) when customers' functional requirements become more demanding and societal/technological constraints become stricter, and that complex mechanical products are often accompanied by electronic control units with complex functions. This implies that designing complex mechanical products often requires intensive coordination among mechanical, electric and software engineers. This, however, is not easy, as engineers' way of thinking is often different among the three areas: mechanical engineers want to complete structural design information first to build prototypes; electrical and software engineers (the latter in particular) request complete functional information first.
In order to solve the above‐mentioned mechanical‐electrical‐software coordination problem, engineers need to share basic design concept of the product in question. Heavy‐weight product managers who infuse the product concept to the project members might be the key to this coordination. Companies may need to make sure that their product development processes are friendly to all of the three groups of engineers.
Although designing complex artifacts has been a popular research theme since H. Simon's seminal work, issues of organizational coordination for developing complex products, with increasing managerial importance, need further research. With an empirical case of the automobile and electronic products, the present paper is unique in that it combines frameworks of product development processes, product architectures, and organizational capabilities.
