傳統建築工程設計分析流程中，各分析領域間往往需透過專業技師彼此經過冗長的溝通協調過程，以及反覆的進行系統全分析，才能確定各領域的修正方向及調整方式，而達成分析領域間平衡的目的。
有鑑於此，本研究期望一方面在整體設計分析流程方面，透過設計結構矩陣的排程規劃方法，建立一套系統整合評估架構；另一方面，則在單一分析領域，以住宅型建築外殼耗能分析評估為例，利用實驗設計及近似解模式的方法，提出一套有效整合分析流程的評估模式，並進一步探討此評估模式與系統整合評估架構間的連結方式，以提供各分析領域間溝通協調時之依據。此外，本研究之系統整合架構及分析評估模式，同時亦可節省傳統設計分析流程上之系統全分析過程，因此，透過本研究之成果，得以大幅提升整體設計分析流程之效率。

In the design and analysis processes of traditional architectural engineering, it usually takes the experts among diffirent disciplines a long time to communicate, coordinate and repeatedly make systematic full analysis so that we can decide which aspect to amend and which way to adjust. This process is time-consuming.
In view of what is mentioned above, in the aspect of integrated design and analysis process, we expect to establish a set of evaluation framework of system integration through the scheduling way of Design Structure Matrix method（DSM）. Further more, the energy analysis evaluation of housing ENVELOPE was taken for example, we adopt the way of DOE and approximation model to bring up a set of evaluation model of effectively integrating analysis process, and further probe into the connecting method between this evaluation model and the evaluation framework of system integration so that we can provide the basis for communication and coordination among analysis disciplines. In addition, the framework of system integration and the model of analysis evaluation in this research can reduce the processes of systematic full analysis in the process of traditional design and analysis. Therefore, we can substantially improve the efficiency of the process of integrated design and analysis through this research.

[Rush，1986] Richard D. Rush, The Building Systems Integration Handbook”, AIA, ISBN:047186238X, New York: Wliey, 1986
[McCord, 1993] K. R. McCord and S. D. Eppinger, Managing the integration problem in concurrent engineering, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, Working Paper No. 3594, 1993
[Augenbroe, 1994] Augenbroe, G.L.M., An overview. First ECPPM Conference, The COMBINE project, Dresden. Thesis proceedings, 1994.
[Pimmler, 1994] T. U. Pimmler and S. D. Eppinger, Integration analysis of product decomposition, in Proc. ASME 6th Int. Conf. on Design Theory and Methodology, Minneapolis, MN, 1994.
[Sobieski, 1995] Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski- Sobieski, ”Multidisciplinary Design Optimization-Some Formal Methods ,Framework Requirements, and Application to Vehicle Design” , Int. J. Vehicle Design(Special Issue), pp. 3-22, 1995
[Corea, 1996] Gehan Corea, Multiproject scheduling using SAS/OR software, SUGI Proceedings, SAS Institute inc., Cary, NC, 1996
[Haftka, 1996] Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski and Raphael T. Haftka, “Multidisciplinary Aerospace Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments”, 34th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, AIAA Paper No. 96-0711, January 15-18, 1996.
[Stelmack, 1997] Marc A. Stelmack and Stephen M. Batill , ”Concurrent subspace optimization of mixed continuous/discrete systems”, AIAA paper AIAA-97-1229, AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC 38th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf., Kissmmee, Florida, April 1997.
[Sobieski, 1998] Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, “Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis”, Proceedings of the Seventh AIAA / USAF / NASA / ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA Paper no. 98-4916, September, 1998.
[Kodiyalam, 1998] Srinivas Kodiyalam, Evaluation of Methods for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, Phase I, NASA/CR-1998-208716, September 1998
[Balling, 1998] Rawlings M. and Balling R., “Collaborative optimization with disciplinary conceptual design,” AIAA-1998-4919, AIAA / USAF / NASA / ISSMO Symposium on.
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 7th, St. Louis, MO, Sept. 2-4, 1998.
[Batill, 1998] Stephen M. Batill, Xiong Qing Yu and Marc A. Stelmack, “An application of concurrent subspace design to the preliminary design of a low-reynolds number UAV”, AIAA-1998-4917, September 1998.
[Carrascosa, 1998] M. Carrascosa, S. D. Eppinger, and D. E. Whitney, “Using the design structure matrix to estimate product development time”, in Proc. ASME Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. (Design Automation Conf.), Atlanta, GA, 1998.
[Rask, 1998] I. Rask and S. Suunersjo, “Design structure matrices for the planning of rule-based engineering systems”, in Proc. Eur. Conf. on Integration in Manufacturing, Goteborg, Sweden, 1998.
[Lewis, 1999] Robert Michael Lewis, “Comparative Properties of Collaborative Optimization and Other Approaches to MDO” , NASA/CR-1999-209354 ICASE Report No. 99-24, July 8-9, 1999.
[Kodiyalam, 2000] Srinivas Kodiyalam and Charles Yuan, ”Evaluation of Methods for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, Part 2”, NASA/CR-2000-210313, pp. 51, November, 2000.
[Yuan, 2000] Charles Yuan, “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization”, NASA/CR-2000-210313, November, 2000.
[Kodiyalam, 2001] S. Kodiyalam, “Multidisciplinary aerospace systems optimization-Computational aerosciences（CAS）project” , NASA/CR-2001-211053, September, 2001.
[Browning, 2001] Tyson R. Browning , “Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new direction” , IEEE transactions on engineering management, Vol. 48, No. 3, Augest, 2001.
[Munoz, 2002] Jules Richrdo Munoz, Sorin Costiner, Shubhro Ghosh, Nikunj Gupta, Benoit Olsommer and Mauro Atalla, “Multidisciplinary optimization of hierarchical processing systems, implementation in iSIGHT”, United Technologies Research Center, iSIGHT User Conference, 2002.
[Perez, 2004] Ruben E.Perez, “Overview of Multidisciplinary Optimization Methods with Applications”, March 29, 2004.
[Usan, 2005] Massimo Usan, “Automotive component product development enhancement through multi-attribute system design optimization in an integrated concurrent engineering framework”, M. S. Aeronautical Engineering , Polytechnic of Turin, Submitted to the system design and management program in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of science in engineering and management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February, 2005.