Survey on set‐based design (SBD) quantitative methods
Product development efforts now more than ever are in need of methodologies that can address the challenges of increased system complexities, shortening time to market, increased demands in mass customization, market instabilities, geographical barriers, improved innovation, and adaptability to emer...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Systems engineering 2021-09, Vol.24 (5), p.269-292 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 292 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 269 |
container_title | Systems engineering |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Dullen, Shawn Verma, Dinesh Blackburn, Mark Whitcomb, Cliff |
description | Product development efforts now more than ever are in need of methodologies that can address the challenges of increased system complexities, shortening time to market, increased demands in mass customization, market instabilities, geographical barriers, improved innovation, and adaptability to emerging technologies. To address these challenges most companies will need to make key decisions early in the product development life‐cycle. In this early phase there are high levels of information uncertainty and information ambiguity. Under these circumstances many companies will converge too early to a point design (Point Based Design—PBD) which will lead to increased cost and schedule delays due to reworking the design later in the product development life cycle. To overcome these challenges many researchers have proposed the Set‐Based Design (SBD) methodology. However, there has been limited guidance on how to define, reason, and narrow sets while improving the level of ion of the design. To address such concerns, a literature review was conducted. The contributions of this research include: (1) aggregated literature from over 100 sources on quantitative methods (QM) that has not been considered SBD but does support set‐based thinking, (2) consolidated body of knowledge on QM to help industrial practitioners implement SBD, (3) defined gaps and opportunities for future research, and (4) defined strengths and limitations of QM and techniques to define, reason and narrow sets. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/sys.21580 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2568802843</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2568802843</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-d3c32ecca6b9a8cff8bb7dbfb286a2ee21b8ccd7ebce8f08d5f0d872680ddf8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLtOw0AQRVcIJEKg4A8s0ZDCyew6ticlJLykSBSGgmq1j1lwlNiJ1w5yxyfwjXwJBtNSzS3OvSMdxs45jDmAmPjWjwWPEQ7YgMcCwgRjPOwyzDDkYsqP2Yn3KwAOnMOApVlT7akNyiLwVH99fGrlyQaWfP5aBJfZ9WIU7BpV1Hmt6nxPwYbqt9L6U3bk1NrT2d8dsufbm6f5fbh8vHuYXy1DI2YphDYykSBjVKJnCo1zqHVqtdMCEyWIBNdojE1JG0IHaGMHFlORIFjrUEVDdtHvbqty15Cv5apsqqJ7KUWcIILAadRRo54yVel9RU5uq3yjqlZykD9eZOdF_nrp2EnPvudrav8HZfaS9Y1vJ9ZmCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2568802843</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Survey on set‐based design (SBD) quantitative methods</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Dullen, Shawn ; Verma, Dinesh ; Blackburn, Mark ; Whitcomb, Cliff</creator><creatorcontrib>Dullen, Shawn ; Verma, Dinesh ; Blackburn, Mark ; Whitcomb, Cliff</creatorcontrib><description>Product development efforts now more than ever are in need of methodologies that can address the challenges of increased system complexities, shortening time to market, increased demands in mass customization, market instabilities, geographical barriers, improved innovation, and adaptability to emerging technologies. To address these challenges most companies will need to make key decisions early in the product development life‐cycle. In this early phase there are high levels of information uncertainty and information ambiguity. Under these circumstances many companies will converge too early to a point design (Point Based Design—PBD) which will lead to increased cost and schedule delays due to reworking the design later in the product development life cycle. To overcome these challenges many researchers have proposed the Set‐Based Design (SBD) methodology. However, there has been limited guidance on how to define, reason, and narrow sets while improving the level of ion of the design. To address such concerns, a literature review was conducted. The contributions of this research include: (1) aggregated literature from over 100 sources on quantitative methods (QM) that has not been considered SBD but does support set‐based thinking, (2) consolidated body of knowledge on QM to help industrial practitioners implement SBD, (3) defined gaps and opportunities for future research, and (4) defined strengths and limitations of QM and techniques to define, reason and narrow sets.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1098-1241</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6858</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/sys.21580</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>design space exploration ; lean product and process development ; Life cycle product development ; Literature reviews ; new product development ; New technology ; Product development ; Quantitative analysis ; Schedules ; set‐based concurrent engineering ; set‐based design ; systems engineering ; trade‐off analysis</subject><ispartof>Systems engineering, 2021-09, Vol.24 (5), p.269-292</ispartof><rights>2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-d3c32ecca6b9a8cff8bb7dbfb286a2ee21b8ccd7ebce8f08d5f0d872680ddf8a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-d3c32ecca6b9a8cff8bb7dbfb286a2ee21b8ccd7ebce8f08d5f0d872680ddf8a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8082-4250 ; 0000-0001-9569-5295</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fsys.21580$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fsys.21580$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dullen, Shawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verma, Dinesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blackburn, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitcomb, Cliff</creatorcontrib><title>Survey on set‐based design (SBD) quantitative methods</title><title>Systems engineering</title><description>Product development efforts now more than ever are in need of methodologies that can address the challenges of increased system complexities, shortening time to market, increased demands in mass customization, market instabilities, geographical barriers, improved innovation, and adaptability to emerging technologies. To address these challenges most companies will need to make key decisions early in the product development life‐cycle. In this early phase there are high levels of information uncertainty and information ambiguity. Under these circumstances many companies will converge too early to a point design (Point Based Design—PBD) which will lead to increased cost and schedule delays due to reworking the design later in the product development life cycle. To overcome these challenges many researchers have proposed the Set‐Based Design (SBD) methodology. However, there has been limited guidance on how to define, reason, and narrow sets while improving the level of ion of the design. To address such concerns, a literature review was conducted. The contributions of this research include: (1) aggregated literature from over 100 sources on quantitative methods (QM) that has not been considered SBD but does support set‐based thinking, (2) consolidated body of knowledge on QM to help industrial practitioners implement SBD, (3) defined gaps and opportunities for future research, and (4) defined strengths and limitations of QM and techniques to define, reason and narrow sets.</description><subject>design space exploration</subject><subject>lean product and process development</subject><subject>Life cycle product development</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>new product development</subject><subject>New technology</subject><subject>Product development</subject><subject>Quantitative analysis</subject><subject>Schedules</subject><subject>set‐based concurrent engineering</subject><subject>set‐based design</subject><subject>systems engineering</subject><subject>trade‐off analysis</subject><issn>1098-1241</issn><issn>1520-6858</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kLtOw0AQRVcIJEKg4A8s0ZDCyew6ticlJLykSBSGgmq1j1lwlNiJ1w5yxyfwjXwJBtNSzS3OvSMdxs45jDmAmPjWjwWPEQ7YgMcCwgRjPOwyzDDkYsqP2Yn3KwAOnMOApVlT7akNyiLwVH99fGrlyQaWfP5aBJfZ9WIU7BpV1Hmt6nxPwYbqt9L6U3bk1NrT2d8dsufbm6f5fbh8vHuYXy1DI2YphDYykSBjVKJnCo1zqHVqtdMCEyWIBNdojE1JG0IHaGMHFlORIFjrUEVDdtHvbqty15Cv5apsqqJ7KUWcIILAadRRo54yVel9RU5uq3yjqlZykD9eZOdF_nrp2EnPvudrav8HZfaS9Y1vJ9ZmCA</recordid><startdate>202109</startdate><enddate>202109</enddate><creator>Dullen, Shawn</creator><creator>Verma, Dinesh</creator><creator>Blackburn, Mark</creator><creator>Whitcomb, Cliff</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8082-4250</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9569-5295</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202109</creationdate><title>Survey on set‐based design (SBD) quantitative methods</title><author>Dullen, Shawn ; Verma, Dinesh ; Blackburn, Mark ; Whitcomb, Cliff</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2970-d3c32ecca6b9a8cff8bb7dbfb286a2ee21b8ccd7ebce8f08d5f0d872680ddf8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>design space exploration</topic><topic>lean product and process development</topic><topic>Life cycle product development</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>new product development</topic><topic>New technology</topic><topic>Product development</topic><topic>Quantitative analysis</topic><topic>Schedules</topic><topic>set‐based concurrent engineering</topic><topic>set‐based design</topic><topic>systems engineering</topic><topic>trade‐off analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dullen, Shawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verma, Dinesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blackburn, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitcomb, Cliff</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Systems engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dullen, Shawn</au><au>Verma, Dinesh</au><au>Blackburn, Mark</au><au>Whitcomb, Cliff</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Survey on set‐based design (SBD) quantitative methods</atitle><jtitle>Systems engineering</jtitle><date>2021-09</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>269</spage><epage>292</epage><pages>269-292</pages><issn>1098-1241</issn><eissn>1520-6858</eissn><abstract>Product development efforts now more than ever are in need of methodologies that can address the challenges of increased system complexities, shortening time to market, increased demands in mass customization, market instabilities, geographical barriers, improved innovation, and adaptability to emerging technologies. To address these challenges most companies will need to make key decisions early in the product development life‐cycle. In this early phase there are high levels of information uncertainty and information ambiguity. Under these circumstances many companies will converge too early to a point design (Point Based Design—PBD) which will lead to increased cost and schedule delays due to reworking the design later in the product development life cycle. To overcome these challenges many researchers have proposed the Set‐Based Design (SBD) methodology. However, there has been limited guidance on how to define, reason, and narrow sets while improving the level of ion of the design. To address such concerns, a literature review was conducted. The contributions of this research include: (1) aggregated literature from over 100 sources on quantitative methods (QM) that has not been considered SBD but does support set‐based thinking, (2) consolidated body of knowledge on QM to help industrial practitioners implement SBD, (3) defined gaps and opportunities for future research, and (4) defined strengths and limitations of QM and techniques to define, reason and narrow sets.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/sys.21580</doi><tpages>24</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8082-4250</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9569-5295</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1098-1241 |
ispartof | Systems engineering, 2021-09, Vol.24 (5), p.269-292 |
issn | 1098-1241 1520-6858 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2568802843 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | design space exploration lean product and process development Life cycle product development Literature reviews new product development New technology Product development Quantitative analysis Schedules set‐based concurrent engineering set‐based design systems engineering trade‐off analysis |
title | Survey on set‐based design (SBD) quantitative methods |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T14%3A34%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Survey%20on%20set%E2%80%90based%20design%20(SBD)%20quantitative%20methods&rft.jtitle=Systems%20engineering&rft.au=Dullen,%20Shawn&rft.date=2021-09&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=269&rft.epage=292&rft.pages=269-292&rft.issn=1098-1241&rft.eissn=1520-6858&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/sys.21580&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2568802843%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2568802843&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |