As products are becoming more and more integrated and thus complex, so do design processes. In turn, process management puts more and more focus to continuously rework and improve design processes. Often, complex and confusing process maps or “wallpapers” are the result. Yet, there is little methodical support to systematically identify possible weak spots in such a process map. The focus of this research is the identification of particular patterns in a process map and evaluating them through the systematic application of complexity metrics. These metrics are exclusively targeted on structural characteristics, i.e. patterns of how the different entities of the process are related to each other qualitatively. There are a number of other methodologies, e.g. CPM (critical path method), that evaluate processes quantitatively, for example with a focus to lead times or cost. The metrics proposed here allow for easy examination of a given process map by pointing the user to features of the process that stand out. As such, the metrics do not necessarily indicate whether the occurrence of a certain feature is good or bad, but they only describe the process in a form that makes possible weak spots more easily accessible; a possible example might be spotting the one document that, if faulty, will induce errors into all subsequent tasks that use this one document.     «

As products are becoming more and more integrated and thus complex, so do design processes. In turn, process management puts more and more focus to continuously rework and improve design processes. Often, complex and confusing process maps or “wallpapers” are the result. Yet, there is little methodical support to systematically identify possible weak spots in such a process map. The focus of this research is the identification of particular patterns in a process map and evaluating them through t...     »