Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 625–639 | Cite as

An analogy based estimation framework for design rework efforts

  • Panumas Arundacahawat
  • Rajkumar Roy
  • Ahmed Al-Ashaab


Analogy based estimation framework is developed aiming to estimate design rework efforts which are unnecessary repetition design efforts. Design rework factors were captured from literature reviews and then they were developed to be design rework drivers by mapping with results from semi structure interviews with three companies in automotive industries. There are six design rework drivers for probability occurrence, and there is only one driver for efforts required. Design structure matrix is used to identify interactions and addressed a key critical component or subsystem. The analogy based estimation framework is applied with the water pump development project from an engine manufacturer. The initial statistical validation method called mean magnitude of relative error is implemented and the results are in acceptable range, while experts from company C agreed on the validity of design rework drivers and opportunity to improve the framework. The ultimate goal of this development is to develop a framework to estimate design rework efforts in the product design and development projects at the early stage.


Concurrent engineering Design rework Efforts 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arundachawat, P., Roy, R., Al-Ashaab, A., & Shehab, E. (2009). Design rework prediction in concurrent design environment: Current trends and future research directions, CIRP design.Google Scholar
  2. Ballard, G. (2000). Positive VS negative iteration in design, In Proceedings of the international group for lean construction 8th annual conference (IGLC-8). Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Bashire, H. A. (2000). Models for estimating design effort. PhD Thesis, Canada: McGill University.Google Scholar
  4. Blocher E. J., Chen K. H., Cokins G., Lin T. W. (2005) Cost management a strategic emphasis. McGrawhill, New York, p 61Google Scholar
  5. Bogus S. M., Molenaar K. R., Deikmann J. E. (2006) Strategies for overlapping dependent design activities. Journal of Construction Management and Economics 24: 829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browning T. (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 48(3): 292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning T., Eppinger S. D. (2002) Modelling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 49(4): 428–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Büyüközkan G., Dereli T., Baykasoglu A. (2004) A survey on the methods and tools of concurrent new product development and agile manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 15(6): 731–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakravarty A. (2001) Overlapping design and build cycles in product development. European Journal of Operation Research 134: 392–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho, S. H., & Eppinger, S. D. (2001). Product development process modelling using advanced simulation. In Proceedings of ASME 2001 design engineering technical conferences.Google Scholar
  11. Clark K. B., Fujimoto T. (1989) Lead time in automobile product development explaining the Japanese advantage. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 6: 25–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoedemaker G. M., Blackburn J. D., Wassenhove L. N. V. (1999) Limits to concurrency. Journal of Decision Sciences 30(1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joglekar N. R., Yassine A. A., Eppinger S. D., Whitney D. E. (2001) Performance of coupled product development activities with a deadline. Management Science, 47(12): 1605–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jun H. B., Ahn H. S., Suh H. W. (2005) On identifying and estimating the cycle time of product development process. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 52(3): 336–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jung J.-Y. (2002) Manufacturing cost estimation for machined parts based on manufacturing features. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 13(4): 227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krishnan V., Eppinger S. D., Whitney D. E. (1997) A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Journal of Management Science 43(4): 437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loch C. H., Terwiesch C. (1998) Communication and uncertainty in concurrent engineering. Management Science, 44(8): 1032–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchell V. L., Nault B. R. (2007) Cooperation planning, uncertainty, and managerial control in concurrent design. Journal of Management Science 53(3): 375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Render B., Stair R. M. (2000) Quantitative analysis for management. Prentice Hall International Inc, Englewood Cliffs NJGoogle Scholar
  20. Roemer T. A., Ahmadi R., Wang R. (2000) Time-cost tradeoffs in overlapped product development. Journal of Operation Research 48(6): 860–865Google Scholar
  21. Roemer T. A., Ahmadi R. (2004) Concurrent crashing and overlapping in product development. Journal of Operations Research 52(4): 606–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saaty T. L. (2006) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic Hierachy process. RWS Publication, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith R. P., Eppinger S. D. (1997) Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Journal of Management Science 43(3): 276–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stewart R. D. (1991) Cost estimating. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. Stone R. B., Tumer I. Y., Wie M. V. (2005) The function-failure design method. Journal of Mechanical Design 127: 397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Terwiesch C. H., Loch C. H., Meyer A. D. (2002) Exchanging preliminary information in concurrent engineering: Alternative coordination strategies. Journal of Organization Science 13(4): 402–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang Z., Yan H. S. (2005) Optimising the concurrency for a group of design activities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52(1): 102–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiao R., Si S. (2003) Research on the process model of product development with uncertainty based on activity overlapping. Journal of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(7): 567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yan J. H., Wu C. (2001) Scheduling approach for concurrent product development processes. Journal of Computers in Industry 46: 139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yan H. S., Wang Z., Jiang M. (2002) A quantitative approach to the process modelling and planing in concurrent engineering. Journal of Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 10(2): 97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yassine A. A., Chelst K. R., Falkenburg D. R. (1999) A decision analytic framework for evaluating concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 46(2): 144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yassine, A. A., Whitney, D. E., & Zambito, T. (2001). Assessment of rework probabilities for simulating product development processes using the design structure matrix. ASME 2001 international design engineering technical conferences, computers and information in engineering conferences, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  33. Yassine A. A., Sreenivas R. S., Zhu J. (2008) Managing the exchange of information in product development. European Journal of Operational Research 184(1): 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panumas Arundacahawat
    • 1
  • Rajkumar Roy
    • 1
  • Ahmed Al-Ashaab
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision Engineering CentreCranfield UniversityBedfordUK

Personalised recommendations