1 Incorporating Cooperative Design Strategies into Aerospace Engineering Education Scottie-Beth Fleming Dissertation Proposal Presentation October 1 st,

1

Incorporating Cooperative Design Strategies into Aerospace

Engineering EducationScottie-Beth Fleming

Dissertation Proposal Presentation October 1st, 2014

Advisor: Dr. Amy PritchettCommittee: Dr. Brian German

Dr. Ute Fischer & Dr. Jennifer Turns

2

Aerospace Engineering Design Process

Fabrication

Preliminary Design Detailed DesignConceptual DesignRequirements

Roskam, 1990; Raymer, 2006; Nicolai & Carichner, 2010

Initial aircraft sizing, performance, and

configuration

Advanced technology exploration

Transition to a more static

aircraft configuration

Design and evaluation of technological components

Entrance to full-scale aircraft development

Component fabrication and

integration

3

Aerospace Engineering DesignIndustry has expressed a need for engineering graduates to use

effective approaches to system design, integration, and synthesis

Dutson et al., 1997Images from

http://wonderfulengineering.com/ http://www.geaviation.com/

http://www.airbus.com/http://www.boeing.com/

4

Aerospace Engineering Design EducationCapstone design can cultivate students’ skills to + Collaborate on multidisciplinary teams [ABET student outcome (d)]

+ Communicate effectively [ABET student outcome (g)]

+ Use understanding of the engineering design process to examine the full context of the design problem [ABET student outcome (c)]

ABET, 2014; Woods et al, 2000; Paretti, 2008Images from

http://wonderfulengineering.com/ http://www.geaviation.com/

http://www.airbus.com/http://www.boeing.com/

Senior Design Capstone Course

5

Aerospace Engineering Design Education

Ahmed et al, 2004; Daly et al., 2001; Fleming & Coso, 2014; Gertler, 2014; Griffin, 2005; NTSB, 2013; Oakley et al, 2004; Richey, 2005

Images fromhttp://wonderfulengineering.com/

http://www.geaviation.com/http://www.airbus.com/

http://www.boeing.com/

However, novice aerospace engineers are often unable to+ integrate multidisciplinary design considerations+ translate preferences, constraints, and decisions to others also engaging in the

design process

Senior Design Capstone Course

6

Principles of Cooperative Design

Design process recognizes disciplinary interdependencies and supports multidisciplinary integration

Design process directs all designers to integrate their efforts toward achieving shared high-level goals

Design process promotes integrated design decisions through deliberate collaboration processes

77

Research Goal

To design and evaluate an intervention to enhance cooperative design strategies in

novice aerospace engineers

88

Research Goal

Phase 1: Examine Current Design Practices and Identify Gaps

Phase 2: Design Educational Intervention and Assessment Tools

To design and evaluate an intervention to enhance cooperative design strategies in novice aerospace engineers

Research Question 3What are the appropriate educational interventions to enhance cooperative

design strategies in novice AE designers?

Research Question 1How does aerospace engineering

currently integrate cooperative design strategies into the

complex system design process?

Research Question 2To what extent do novice

aerospace engineers enter capstone courses able to apply cooperative design strategies ?

99

Research Goal




Contribution• Characterize principles of

cooperative design• Define cooperative design

strategies within an AE context

Contribution• Define the necessary

specifications for the design of educational interventions

Contribution• Develop methods for assessing students’ use of cooperative design

approach • Address the gap between aerospace engineering education and

the needs of industry

1010








Research DesignPhase 1:

Examine Current Design Practices and Identify Gaps


11


Literature from Org Behavior, I/O Psych, Education, Design

Aerospace Vehicle Design Case Studies

Frame the design context Identify critical behaviors

RQ1: How does aerospace engineering currently integrate cooperative design strategies into the complex system design process?

Characterize Principles of Cooperative Design

12

Frame the Design Context: Aerospace Engineering Design

Roskam, 1990; Raymer, 2006; Nicolai & Carichner, 2010

Multidisciplinary

Fabrication

Preliminary Design Detailed DesignConceptual DesignRequirements

Aerospace engineering design process is

Integrated Collaborative

13

Designers should have an awareness of component interactions with different disciplines to create a common understanding of complex issues

Identify Critical Cooperative Behaviors:Literature Exploration

Ahmed et al., 2004; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Jordan, 2010; Klein, 2004; Klein, 1990; Marks et al, 2001; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009;

Designers have an awareness of disciplinary interdependencies

Design process is directed by design goals

Design teams should use appropriate collaborative processes

While teams share at least one high-level goal, more detailed goals and design requirements should remain consistent with the high-level goals

Effective teams apply, coordinate, and communicate team member knowledge and skills appropriately

14




Multidisciplinary Integrated Collaborative

Literature Exploration

Awareness of disciplinary interdependencies

Directed by design goals Use of appropriate collaborative processes



15




Principles of Cooperative Design

16




Multidisciplinary Integrated Collaborative

Literature Exploration

Awareness of disciplinary interdependencies

Directed by design goals Use of appropriate collaborative processes



17

Aerospace engineering designers must recognize the value and importance of other disciplines

Griffin, 2005; NTSB 2013 Images from

http://www.af.mil/http://www.boeing.com/

Incorporated expertise from multiple disciplines at start of

design process

Technical system integration led to late delivery and major technical

problems in flight, particularly with the Lithium Ion Batteries


C-5 Galaxy Boeing 787 Dreamliner

18

Design teams should specify and prioritize goals early in the design process, and continuously monitor progress toward mission accomplishment

Griffin, 2005; Richey, 2005 Images fromhttp://www.af.mil/

http://aviationheritagepark.com/


High-level design goal explicitly defined and understood at the

start of the design process

Conflicting high-level design goals caused the Navy to

terminate the F-111B variant

C-5 Galaxy F-111 Aardvark

19

Design teams should develop a collaborative strategy which incorporates information about team resources, member expertise, critical design events, and

the changing nature of the design environment

Baird et al, 2000; NTSB, 2013 Images fromhttp://www.af.mil/

Informal communications across working groups allows for timely task feedback and

reflection

Chief project engineer for 787 recognized communication and

collaboration failures


Rolls-Royce Design Teams Boeing 787 Dreamliner

2020











21

Engineering Students’ Understanding

Student Evaluation #1

Purpose: To gather baseline information on student understanding and utilization of cooperative design strategies

Graffiti WallInformal Instructor Interviews

Fall 2014Week 1 Week 2 Week 13 & 14 Week 15

Spring 2015Week 1

End of Spring 2015

Lectures, Lab sessions, 4 Individual projects

5th individual project Team-based design project

Mid-Term Design Review

Preliminary Analysis

Data Sources:

22


Inquired about common challenges the students faced in the design process

Students anonymously responded to 3 statements written on easel paper and posted on the classroom wall o Define integrated design.o How do aerospace engineers practice integrated design?o Why is an integrated design so difficult to achieve?

Informal Instructor Interviews

Graffiti Wall

23


Self-Efficacy in Design Scale(Carberry et al. 2010)

Interdisciplinary Competence Scale(Lattuca et al., 2012)

with open-ended follow-up question

Scenario-Based Design Task Part 1:Discipline-Based Design Resources

Demographic Information

Scenario-Based Design Task Part 2:Conflicting Design Requirements

Piloted: Summer 2014

Sample: 50 senior engineering studentsDistributed: Fall 2014

Data analysis:• Confirmatory Factor Analysis• Descriptive Statistics• Thematic analysis

o Integrated results of Evaluation 1, informal interviews, and the Graffiti Wall

Student Evaluation #1

24

Engineering Students’ UnderstandingPreliminary Results

• Students exhibited confusion as to how to integrate multidisciplinary considerations into the final design

• Students demonstrated limited strategies of problem decomposition, scoping, and design goal alignment.

• Students expressed importance of justifying design decisions, but lack the necessary skills to communicate design justifications in practice

• Students perceived collaborative decision-making as the most difficult aspect of design integration

Findings supported by another study of a similar population

Coso, 2014

25

Educational Intervention Specifications

① Shall provide students with an integrated view of multidisciplinary design.

② Shall demonstrate methods to align design goals.

③ Shall provide students with an approach for effectively communicating design decisions.

④ Shall model a variety of effective approaches to managing team processes within cooperative design.

2626











27

Intervention/Research Timeline:

Fall 2014Week 1

In-Class Evaluation #1

Week 2 Week 13 & 14

Cooperative Design Strategies Part 1with Reflection-

Based Evaluations

Week 15


Based Evaluations

Spring 2015Week 1

End of Spring 2015

Assessment of Students’

Final Projects

Lectures, Lab sessions,

4 Individual projects

5th individual

project Team-based design project

Facilitated Team

Reflection


Weekly Progress Reports Incorporating Individual Reflection

Proposing 5 Educational Interventions

28


Fall 2014Week 1


Week 2 Week 13 & 14 Week 15


Based Evaluations

Spring 2015Week 1

End of Spring 2015


Final Projects



5th individual


Facilitated Team

Reflection




Based Evaluations

• Addresses intervention specifications:1. Shall provide students with an integrated view of

multidisciplinary design.

2. Shall demonstrate methods to align design goals.

3. Shall provide students with an approach for effectively communicating design decisions.

• Supports and enhances current design curriculum

• Incorporates cognitive and situative pedagogical frameworkso Authentic exerciseso Individual and group exploration of the content

• Assessed through post-intervention student evaluation

Newstetter & Svinicki, 2014

29


Based Evaluations


Fall 2014Week 1


Week 2 Week 13 & 14 Week 15 Spring 2015Week 1

End of Spring 2015


Final Projects



5th individual


Facilitated Team

Reflection




Based Evaluations


• Addresses intervention specification:

4. Shall model a variety of effective approaches to managing team processes within cooperative design.

• Supports and enhances current design curriculum

• Incorporates cognitive and situative pedagogical frameworkso Authentic exerciseso Individual and group exploration

of the content• Assessed through post-

intervention student evaluation

30


Based Evaluations


Based Evaluations


Fall 2014Week 1



End of Spring 2015


Final Projects



5th individual


Facilitated Team

Reflection



• Encourages and supports student application of cooperative design strategies

• Modeled after Agile Project Managemento Short-term goal-settingo Continuous progress updateso Reflective behavior examination and modification

• Piloted in December 2014• Assessed through

• Analysis of report submissions• Design team observations

Drury-Grogan (2014)

31


Based Evaluations


Based Evaluations


Fall 2014Week 1



End of Spring 2015


Final Projects



5th individual




Facilitated Team

Reflection


• Facilitated by a trained “expert” designer• Student design teams will

o Reflect on midterm design review feedback & collaborative processes

o Develop an action-based strategy for the remaining design tasks

• Assessed through o Student interviews o Examination of final design project submission

32


Based Evaluations


Based Evaluations


Fall 2014Week 1



End of Spring 2015

Facilitated Team

Reflection



5th individual




Assessment of Student

Projects


• Integrates cooperative design strategies with instructors’ expectations

• Trained outside judges will examine the student projects based on this rubric.

• Assessed througho Feedback from outside judgeso Feedback from instructors

33


Fall 2014Week 1


Week 2 Week 13 & 14


Based Evaluations

Week 15


Based Evaluations

Spring 2015Week 1

End of Spring 2015


Final Projects



5th individual


Facilitated Team

Reflection



Proposing 5 Educational Interventions

3434

Research Goal











3535

Research Goal



• Examined engineering design process, design cases, & team literature

• Conceptualized cooperative design approaches into four dimensions

• Explored understanding of novice engineering designers

• Outlined gaps in understanding using preliminary observations

• Defined specifications for educational interventions

• Select pedagogy for educational interventions• Design educational interventions• Complete evaluation of intervention impact


3636

Research Goal




Contribution• Characterize principles of

cooperative design• Define cooperative design

strategies within an AE context

Contribution• Define the necessary

specifications for the design of educational interventions

Contribution• Develop methods for assessing students’ use of cooperative design

approach • Address the gap between aerospace engineering education and

the needs of industry

37

Selected References, 1+ ABET. (2013). 2014-2015 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org /+ Ahmed, S., & Wallace, K. M. (2004). Understanding the knowledge needs of novice designers in the aerospace industry. Design

Studies, 25(2), 155–173. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.006+ Baird, F., Circus, D., Moore, C. J., & Jagodzinski, A. P. (2000). An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at Rolls-Royce

Aerospace. Design Studies, 21, 333–355.+ Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing Alternative Conceptualizations of Functional Diversity in Management

Teams: Process and Performance Effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893.+ Carberry, A. R., Lee, H.S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring Engineering Design Self-Efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education,

71–79.+ Daly, J. R., Augustine, N. R., Davis, J. B., Covert, E. E., & Gray, G. J. (2001). Report to the Panel of to Review the V-22 Program.

Arlington, VA.+ Coso, A. E. (2014). Preparing Students to Incorporate Stakeholder Requirements in Aerospace Vehicle Design. Georgia Institute

of Technology.+ Drury-Grogan, M. L. (2014). Performance on agile teams: Relating iteration objectives and critical decisions to project

management success factors. Information & Software Technology, 56(5), 506-515. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.11.003+ Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorenson, C. D. (1997). A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design

Through Project- Oriented Capstone Courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28.+ Fleming, E.S., & Coso, A.E. (2014). Viewing an Interdisciplinary Human-Centered Design Course as a Multiteam System:

Perspectives on Cooperation and Information Sharing. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS14). Purdue

+ Gertler, J. (2014). F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ( JSF ) Program. Washington DC.+ Gibson, J. E., Scherer, W. T., & Gibson, W. F. (2007). How to do Systems Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.+ Griffin, J. M. (2005). C-5A Galaxy Systems Engineering Case Study. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.+ Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review

and proposed intergration. In L. L. Beckowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–101). New York: Academic Press.

http://www.abet.org/

http://www.abet.org/

38

Selected References, 2+ Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal Relationships and Task Performance: An Examination of Mediating Processes in

Friendship and Acquaintance Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 775–790.+ Jordan, S. (2010). Success in Virtual Cross-Disciplinary Engineering Design Teams in Industry. Purdue University.+ Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity : history, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.+ Klein, J. T. (2004). Disciplinary Origins and Differences. Paper presented at the Fenner Conference on the Environment, Australian

Academy of Science, Canberra.+ Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D. B., & Bergom, I. M. (2012). Developing a Measure of Interdisciplinary Competence for Engineers. In 119th

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. San Antonio, TX.+ Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A Temporally Based Framwork and Taxonomy of Team Processes. Academy of

Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.+ Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Dechurch, L. a. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–46. doi:10.1037/a0013773+ Newstetter, W. C., & Svinicki, M. (2014). Learning theories for engineering education practice. In Cambridge Handbook for

Engineering Education Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.+ Nicolai, L., & Carichner, G. E. (2010). Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design: Volume 1. Reston, VA: American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics. + NTSB. (2013). Boeing 787 Battery Investigative Hearing. Washington DC. Retrieved from

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2013/B787_hearing/agenda.html+ Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2004). Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1),

9–34.+ Paretti, M. C. (2008). Teaching Communication in Capstone Design : The Role of the Instructor in Situated Learning. Journal of

Engineering Education, 97(4), 491–503.+ Raymer, D. (2009). Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach. AIAA Education Series. + Richey, G. K. (2005). F-111 Systems Engineering Case Study. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.+ Roskam, J. (1990). Airplane Design, Parts I - VIII. DAR Corporation. + Woods, D. R., Felder, R. M., Rugarcia, A., & Stice, J. E. (2000). The Future of Engineering Education III. Developing Critical Skills.

Chem. Eng. Ed., 34(2), 108–117.

3939

Thank you! Questions?

This work was sponsored by the NSF, grant number DGE-0644493

Documents

1 Incorporating Cooperative Design Strategies into Aerospace Engineering Education Scottie-Beth Fleming Dissertation Proposal Presentation October 1 st,