Post-Certification Engineering Taxonomy and Task Value Optimization in the Aerospace Industry

Abstract: This article proposes a novel taxonomy of post-certification engineering activities as a first step toward true lean product development (PD). Relying on key notions developed in a novel lean engineering performance model, the authors compare the leanness of post-certification versus pre-certification tasks for the design of aerospace parts. Discrete event simulation and integer linear programming models are developed to help ascertain the influence of factors such as multitasking, concurrency, task size, task value, and post-certification budget decision making on lean engineering PD performance. The models developed provide the foundation for enhanced PD performance and the establishment of optimal PD process parameters.

[1]  George Mavrotas,et al.  Multicriteria decision analysis with minimum information: combining DEA with MAVT , 2006, Comput. Oper. Res..

[2]  Yvan Beauregard,et al.  Lean engineering logistics: load leveling of design jobs with capacity considerations , 2008 .

[3]  Lei Zhang,et al.  Utility-Function Model for Engineering Performance Assessment , 2005 .

[4]  Hugh McManus,et al.  Lean Engineering: Doing the Right Thing Right , 2005 .

[5]  Earll M. Murman,et al.  Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT's Lean Aerospace Initiative , 2002 .

[6]  Joseph R. Wirthlin.  Best Practices in User Needs/ Requirements Generation , 2000 .

[7]  Pauline Found,et al.  Staying lean: thriving, not just surviving , 2008 .

[8]  J S Hammond,et al.  Even swaps: a rational method for making trade-offs. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[9]  Scott Gallagher,et al.  The Toyota Way , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[10]  Masataka Yoshimura,et al.  Decision-making support system for human resource allocation in product development projects , 2006 .

[11]  Yvan Beauregard.  A multi-criteria performance study of lean engineering , 2009 .

[12]  Christopher Lettl,et al.  Balancing Creativity and Time Efficiency in Multi-Team R&D Projects: The Alignment of Formal and Informal Networks , 2008 .

[13]  Nelson P. Repenning,et al.  Past the Tipping Point: The Persistence of Firefighting in Product Development , 2001 .

[14]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  Preference Function Modelling: The Mathematical Foundations of Decision Theory , 2010, Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.

[15]  R. Faure,et al.  Introduction to operations research , 1968 .

[16]  Andreas C. Georgiou,et al.  A discrete event simulation model in the case of managing a software project , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Myles Walton.  Strategies for Lean Product Development , 1999 .

[18]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[19]  Joern Hoppmann.  Efficient Introduction of Lean in Product Development Results of the Survey , 2009 .

[20]  David M. Weiss,et al.  Dynamics of concurrent software development , 2009 .

[21]  Eric Rebentisch.  Lean Product Development in the Aerospace Enterprise , 2008 .

[22]  Richard B. Frost.  A Suggested Taxonomy for Engineering Design Problems , 1994 .

[23]  Harry Commandeur,et al.  Understanding new product project performance , 2006 .

[24]  Tyson R. Browning.  Value-based product development: refocusing lean , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Engineering Management Society. EMS - 2000 (Cat. No.00CH37139).

[25]  WalleniusJyrki,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory , 2008 .

[26]  Bohdan W. Oppenheim,et al.  Lean product development flow , 2004, Syst. Eng..

[27]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  The value of assessing weights in multi‐criteria portfolio decision analysis , 2008 .

[28]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  Flexible Product Development , 1999 .

[29]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  The new taxonomy of systems: toward an adaptive systems engineering framework , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[30]  Isabella Wieczorek,et al.  Applying Benchmarking to Learn from Best Practices , 2000, PROFES.

[31]  Troy D. Downen.  Exercising A Multi-Attribute Value Method for Business Airplane Product Assessment , 2005 .

[32]  A. Posner.  Learning to see. , 1955, Eye, ear, nose & throat monthly.

[33]  W. Duncan.  A GUIDE TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE , 1996 .

[34]  Joyce Smith Cooper,et al.  Development of product design requirements using taxonomies of environmental issues , 2002 .

[35]  Reidar Conradi,et al.  Version models for software configuration management , 1998, CSUR.

[36]  Robert A. Slack.  The Lean Value Principle in Military Aerospace Product Development , 1999 .

[37]  Lei Zhang,et al.  Prediction of Engineering Performance: A Neurofuzzy Approach , 2005 .

[38]  Richard J. Park,et al.  Value Engineering: A Plan for Invention , 1998 .

[39]  Computer Staff,et al.  The Machine That Changed the World , 1992 .

[40]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[41]  El-Ghazali Talbi,et al.  Metaheuristics - From Design to Implementation , 2009 .

[42]  Jeff Cox,et al.  The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement , 1984 .

[43]  Günther Ruhe,et al.  Optimized Resource Allocation for Software Release Planning , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[44]  Gul A. Agha,et al.  Strategic directions , 1996, IEEE Parallel Distributed Technol. Syst. Appl..

[45]  Richard Lee Storch,et al.  Improving flow to achieve lean manufacturing in shipbuilding , 1999 .

[46]  Deborah Nightingale,et al.  Lean Enterprise Value , 2002 .

[47]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  On customer value and improvement in product development processes , 2003 .

[48]  Kulwant S. Pawar,et al.  Performance evaluation of new product development from a company perspective , 2001 .