Research Papers

An Approach to Determine Important Attributes for Engineering Change Evaluation

[+] Author and Article Information
Chandresh Mehta

Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
e-mail: mehtacr@umich.edu

Lalit Patil

e-mail: lpatil@illinois.edu

Debasish Dutta

e-mail: ddutta@illinois.edu
Mechanical Science and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received November 21, 2010; final manuscript received January 8, 2013; published online March 26, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Olivier de Weck.

J. Mech. Des 135(4), 041003 (Mar 26, 2013) (17 pages) Paper No: MD-10-1436; doi: 10.1115/1.4023551 History: Received November 21, 2010; Revised January 08, 2013

Enterprises plan detailed evaluation of only those engineering change (EC) effects that might have a significant impact. Using past EC knowledge can prove effective in determining whether a proposed EC effect has significant impact. In order to utilize past EC knowledge, it is essential to identify important attributes that should be compared to compute similarity between ECs. This paper presents a knowledge-based approach for determining important EC attributes that should be compared to retrieve similar past ECs so that the impact of proposed EC effect can be evaluated. The problem of determining important EC attributes is formulated as the multi-objective optimization problem. Measures are defined to quantify importance of an attribute set. The knowledge in change database and the domain rules among attribute values are combined for computing the measures. An ant colony optimization (ACO)-based search approach is used for efficiently locating the set of important attributes. An example EC knowledge-base is created and used for evaluating the measures and the overall approach. The evaluation results show that our measures perform better than state-of-the-art evaluation criteria. Our overall approach is evaluated based on manual observations. The results show that our approach correctly evaluates the value of proposed change impact with a success rate of 83.33%.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Joshi, N., Ameri, F., and Dutta, D., 2005, “Systematic Decision Support for Engineering Change Management in PLM,” Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, ASME.
Gunther, S., and Ramsey, N., 2004, “Managing obsolescence: Value Engineering Change Proposal Proves Its Worth,” Defense AT&L magazine, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 40–41.
Verband Der Automobilindustrie (VDA) and Prostep Ivip Association and Strategic Automotive Product Data Standards Industry Group (SASIG), 2006, VDA 4965—Engineering Change Management (ECM), 2.0 ed.
Huang, G. Q., Lee, W. Y., and Mak, K. L., 2003, “Current Practice of Engineering Change Management in Hong Kong Manufacturing Industries,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 139, pp. 481–487. [CrossRef]
Giarratano, J. C., and Riley, G., 1998, Expert Systems: Principles and Programming, 3rd ed., Course Technology, Boston, MA.
Mehta, C., and Patil, L., 2008, “An Information-Theoretic Approach to Determine Important Attributes for Engineering Change Evaluation,” 2008 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
Mehta, C., Patil, L., and Dutta, D., 2009, “STEP in the Context of PLM,” Advanced Design and Manufacturing Based on STEP (Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing), Springer, London.
Mehta, C. R., 2010, “Knowledge-Based Methods for Evaluation of Engineering Changes,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
ISO, 2005, “ISO/IS 10303-240: Product Data Representation and Exchange: Application Protocol: Process Plans for Machined Products,” ISO TC 184/SC4/WG 3 N1461.
Bralla, J. G., 1999, Design for Manufacturability Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, USA.
Chang, T.-C., 1990, Expert Process Planning for Manufacturing, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Boston, MA.
Yang, S.-C., Patil, L., and Dutta, D., 2010, “Similarity Computation for Knowledge-Based Sustainability Evaluation of Engineering Changes,” ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conferences.
Rutka, A., Guenov, M., Lemmens, Y., Schmidt-Schäffer, T., Coleman, P., and Rivière, A., 2006, “Methods for Engineering Change Propagation Analysis,” 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences.
Clarkson, P. J., Simons, C., and Eckert, C., 2004, “Predicting Change Propagation in Complex Design,” J. Mech. Des., 126(5), pp. 788–797. [CrossRef]
Cohen, T., Navathe, S. B., and Fulton, R. E., 2000, “C-FAR, Change Favorable Representation.,” Comput.-Aided Des., 32(5–6), pp. 321–338. [CrossRef]
Wanstrom, C., and Jonsson, P., 2006, “The Impact of Engineering Changes on Materials Planning,” J. Manuf. Technol. Manage., 17(5), pp. 561–584. [CrossRef]
Lee, H. J., Ahn, H. J., Kim, J. W., and Park, S. J., 2006, “Capturing and Reusing Knowledge in Engineering Change Management: A Case of Automobile Development,” Inf. Syst. Front., 8(5), pp. 375–394. [CrossRef]
Joshi, N., 2007, “Methodologies for Improving Product Development Phases Through PLM,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jain, A. K., Duin, R. P. W., and Mao, J., 2000, “Statistical Pattern Recognition: A Review,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 22(1), pp. 4–37. [CrossRef]
Witten, I. H., and Frank, E., 2005, Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Quinlan, J. R., 1986, “Induction of Decision Trees,” Mach. Learn., 1, pp. 81–106. [CrossRef]
Wong, S. K. M., and Yao, Y. Y., 1992, “An Information-Theoretic Measure of Term Specificity,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 43, pp. 54–61. [CrossRef]
Liu, H., and Yu, L., 2005, “Toward Integrating Feature Selection Algorithms for Classification and Clustering,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 17(4), pp. 491–502. [CrossRef]
Shannon, C. E., 1948, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27, pp. 379–423 and 623–656. [CrossRef]
Yao, Y. Y., 2003, “Information-Theoretic Measures for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,” Entropy Measures, Maximum Entropy Principle and Emerging Applications, Karmeshu, ed., Vol. 119 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, New York, pp. 115–136.
Huang, J.-J., Cai, Y.-Z., and Xu, X.-M., 2008, “A Parameterless Feature Ranking Algorithm Based on MI,” Neurocomputing, 71, pp. 1656–1668. [CrossRef]
Eriksson, T., Kim, S., Kang, H.-G., and Lee, C., 2005, “An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Feature Selection in Speaker Recognition,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., 12, pp. 500–503. [CrossRef]
Narendra, P. M., and Fukunaga, K., 1977, “A Branch and Bound Algorithm for Feature Subset Selection,” IEEE Trans. Comput., C-26(9), pp. 917–922. [CrossRef]
Dorigo, M., and Stutzle, T., 2004, Ant Colony Optimization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Huang, J., Cai, Y., and Xu, X., 2007, “A Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Feature Selection Wrapper Based on Mutual Information,” Pattern Recognit. Lett., 28, pp. 1825–1844. [CrossRef]
Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. C., 1995, “Particle Swarm Optimization,” IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942–1948.
Meyer, K. D., Nasuto, S. J., and Bishop, M., 2006, “Stochastic Diffusion Search: Partial Function Evaluation in Swarm Intelligence Dynamic Optimisation,” Stigmergic Optimization, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 185–207.
Dorigo, M., and Stutzle, T., 2002, “The Ant Colony Optimization Metaheuristic: Algorithms, Applications and Advances,” Handbook of Metaheuristics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 251–285.
Al-Ani, A., 2005, “Feature Subset Selection Using Ant Colony Optimization,” Int. J. Comput. Intell., 2, pp. 53–58. [CrossRef]
Basiri, M. E., Ghasem-Aghaee, N., and Aghdam, M. H., 2008, “Using Ant Colony Optimization-Based Selected Features for Predicting Post-synaptic Activity in Proteins,” Evolutionary Computation, Machine Learning and Data Mining in Bioinformatics, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 12–23.
Sivagaminathan, R. K., and Ramakrishnan, S., 2007, “A Hybrid Approach for Feature Subset Selection Using Neural Networks and Ant Colony Optimization,” Expert Syst. Appl.: Int. J., 33, pp. 49–60. [CrossRef]
Jensen, R., 2006, “Performing Feature Selection With ACO,” Swarm Intelligence in Data Mining, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 45–73.
Mehta, C., Patil, L., and Dutta, D., 2010, Database of Engineering Changes and Domain Rules, https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/lpatil/www/Research/ECM/Data/KnowledgeBaseForECEvaluation.pdf
Intelligence, G. M., 2008, Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES), Software.
Kapur, J. N., and Kesavan, H. K., 1992, Entropy Optimization Principles With Applications, Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA.
Meyer, B., 2008, “Hybrids of Constructive Metaheuristics and Constraint Programming: A Case Study With ACO,” Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 151–183.
Doerner, K., Hartl, R. F., and Reimann, M., 2003, “CompetAnts for Problem Solving—The Case of Full Truckload Transportation,” Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 11(2), pp. 115–141.
Dorigo, M., and Gambardella, L. M., 1997. “Ant Colony System: A Cooperative Learning Approach to the Traveling Salesman Problem,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 1(1), pp. 53–66. [CrossRef]
Giachetti, R., 1998, “A Decision Support System for Material and Manufacturing Process Selection,” J. Intell. Manuf., 9, pp. 265–276. [CrossRef]
Cebon, D., and Ashby, M. F., 1997, “The Optimal Selection of Engineering Entities,” Technical Report No. CUED/CEDC/TR 59, Cambridge University Engineering Department.
Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Partial illustration of a typical STEP-compliant data model for capturing the knowledge associated with a change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Two examples ECs of type change in shape from the database of 17 ECs. The entire data are available at Ref. [38]. A few attribute-values associated with old and new instance of the part are shown below the corresponding picture.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Problem input, output and the components of our overall approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A typical attribute selection method (adapted from Ref. [23])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Constituents of IAS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Ten datasets created from 17 ECs in database. These datasets are utilized for evaluating approaches discussed in this paper.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Tandem solution generation procedure followed by a pair of agents. Agent z is from group Z and agent u is from group U. The important attribute set determined by the pair z and u is the set Apz∪Apu. The two agents exchange information during the iterative selection process.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Nonzero portions of matrix tex for the case study and evaluation. The matrix tex captures the information about attributes that are mutually exclusive. The first row and column of each matrix indicates the attribute integer id. All the empty cells have zero values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Overall loss in predicting impact and effect attributes values using various subset evaluation criteria

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Nonzero portions of matrix tin for the case study and evaluation. The matrix tin captures the information about attributes that are mutually inclusive. The first row and column indicates the attribute integer id. All the empty cells have zero values.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In