Advertisement

Modelling the planning system in design and development

  • Mark P. De Lessio
  • David C. Wynn
  • P. John Clarkson
Original Paper

Abstract

Engineering design and development projects involve a multitude of plans in various formats. Such documents are created, used and updated throughout a project. We argue that the interactions among plan documents, their content, their stakeholders and the planning processes can be usefully perceived as a planning system. The planning system is instrumental in coordinating a design and development project and thus strongly influences how it unfolds. In this article, a survey tool is developed to assess a planning system from its stakeholders’ perspective. Results from the survey are analysed using Multiple-Domain Matrix (MDM) methodology to derive insights and suggestions for improvement. The approach is developed and demonstrated through a case study in a company that develops advanced electronic scientific instruments.

Keywords

Planning system Design and development Employee survey Multiple domain matrix Change propagation Case study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge past and present collaborators for discussions on engineering design planning, especially Nicholas H.M. Caldwell and Claudia M. Eckert. We also thank the Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for sharing their insights. Special acknowledgement is due to all participants in the study at Company X, who wish to remain anonymous. Figure 1 is reproduced from Research in Engineering Design, Planning development processes for complex products, vol. 21, 2010, p. 160, Claudia M. Eckert and P. John Clarkson, ©Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009. With permission of Springer.

References

  1. Ackoff R (1970) A concept of corporate planning. Long Range Plan 3(1):2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albers A, Braun A (2011) A generalised framework to compass and to support complex product engineering processes. Int J Prod Dev 15(1–3):6–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartolomei JE, Hastings DE, de Neufville R, Rhodes DH (2012) Engineering systems multiple-domain matrix: An organizing framework for modeling large-scale complex systems. Syst Eng 15(1):41–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman TS, Snell S (2011) Management: leading and collaborating in a competitive world. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Boag DA, Rinholm BL (1989) New product management practices of small high technology firms. J Prod Innov Manag 6(2):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2007) The statistical mechanics of complex product development: empirical and analytical results. Manag Sci 53(7):1127–1145CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browning TR (2016) Design structure matrix extensions and innovations: a survey and new opportunities. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 63(1):27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browning TR, Eppinger SD (2002) Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(4):428–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarkson PJ, Simons C, Eckert CM (2004) Predicting change propagation in complex design. J Mech Des 126(5):788–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Lessio MP (2012) Assessing the complex product design process planning activity. PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2010) Planning development processes for complex products. Res Eng Des 21(3):153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckert CM, Wynn DC, Maier JF, Albers A, Bursac N, Xin Chen HL, Clarkson PJ, Gericke K, Gladysz B, Shapiro D (2017) On the integration of product and process models in engineering design. Des Sci 3(3):1–41Google Scholar
  14. Eppinger SD, Whitney DE, Smith RP, Gebala DA (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des 6:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman LP, Page AL (1984) Principles vs. practice in new product planning. J Prod Innov Manag 1(1):43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hales C, Gooch S (2011) Managing engineering design, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Karniel A, Reich Y (2013) Multi-level modelling and simulation of new product development processes. J Eng Des 24(3):185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein G, Miller TE (1999) Distributed planning teams. Int J Cognit Ergon 3(3):203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kusiak A, Chow WS (1987) An efficient cluster identification algorithm. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 17(4):696–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindemann U, Maurer M, Braun T (2009) Structural Complexity Management: an approach for the field of product design. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Donovan BD, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ, Browning TR (2005) Design planning and modelling. In: Clarkson PJ, Eckert CM (eds) Design process improvement: a review of current practice. Springer, London, pp 60–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OED (2001) Oxford english dictionary. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. PMI (2001) A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® GUIDE), 4th edn. Project Management Institute Inc., Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  25. Pocock J (1962) PERT as an analytical aid for program planning–its payoff and problems. Oper Res 10(6):893–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roelofsen J, Baumberger C, Lindemann U (2007) An approach towards situation specific planning of design processes. In: Bocquet JC (ed) Proceedings of ICED 07, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, Aug 28–31, Design Society, pp 193–194Google Scholar
  27. Saunders MNK, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2009) Research methods for business students, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapiro D, Curren MD, Clarkson PJ (2016) DPCM: a method for modelling and analysing design process changes based on the applied signposting model. J Eng Des 27(11):785–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Ulrich K, Eppinger S (2015) Product design and development, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Walonick D (2004) Survival statistics. StatPac Incorporated, NorthfieldGoogle Scholar
  32. Wind YJ (1982) Product policy: concepts, methods, and strategy. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2009) Design project planning, monitoring and re-planning through process simulation. In: Norell Bergendahl M, Grimheden M, Leifer L, Skogstad P, Lindemann U (eds) DS 58-1: proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Aug 24–27, Design Society, vol 1, pp 25–36Google Scholar
  34. Wynn DC, Eckert CM (2017) Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Res Eng Des 28(2):153–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wynn DC, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2006) Applied Signposting: a modeling framework to support design process improvement. In: ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Sep 10-13, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, vol 4a, pp 553–562Google Scholar
  36. Wynn DC, Wyatt DF, Nair SM, Clarkson PJ (2010) An introduction to the Cambridge Advanced Modeller. In: Heisig P, Clarkson PJ, Vajna S (eds) Proceedings of the 1st International MMEP Conference, Cambridge, UK, July 19–20, Cambridge University Engineering DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  37. Yu TL, Yassine AA, Goldberg DE (2007) An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms. Res Eng Des 18(2):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management of Technology and InnovationNew York UniversityBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Design CentreUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations