Rework Impacts Evaluation Through System Dynamics Approach in Overlapped Product Development Schedule
Keywords:activity overlapping, system dynamics, rework, product development projects.
AbstractThis work aims to explore a novel framework to analyze the planning concepts in product development projects employing techniques to reduce the lead-time of activities, such as overlapping of a pair of each. With the System Dynamics methodology a model to evaluate the rework fraction needed to accommodate the deviations proportional to the overlapping grade of the activities. A numerical example is provided to demonstrate the validity of the model. Although problems encountered during the project management are dynamic, they have been treated on a static basis, what has as result, chronic schedules delays, overruns and cost overspent persist in follow the managers’ (re)actions. In this work, we have addressed this known problem by introducing and reviewing some characteristics of the concept of rework in overlapped schedules. This consists in observe and capture the relations feedbacks among the original planned project schedule, the overlapping strategy and the inherent uncertainty in a work being done with poor information. To realize this concept, we have faced with many behaviors patterns (e.g. rework, new duration, non-conformity), and analyze the output behavior pattern, produced by the proposed model.
ABDEL-HAMID, T., Madnick, S.E., (1991). Software Project Dynamics: an integrated approach , Prentice-Hall, USA.
AHMADI, R., Roemer, T., Wang, R.H., (2001). Structuring product development model. European Journal of Operational Research , 130, 539-558.
AHMADI, R. & Roemer, T.A., (2004). Concurrent crashing and overlapping in product development. Operations Research , 54(4), 606-622.
BROWNING, T.R., Frickle, E., Negele, H., (2006). Key concepts in modeling product development processes. System Engineering , 9(2), 104-128.
CHAKRAVARTY, A.K., (2001. Overlapping design and build cycles in product development. European Journal of Operational Research , 134, 392-424.
Cho, S.H., Eppinger, S.D., (2005). A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 52(3), 316-327.
Clark, K., Fujimoto, T., (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry , Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
FORD, D.N., Sterman, J.D., (2003). The Liar's Club: concealing rework in concurrent development. Concurrent Engineering: research and applications , 11(3), 211-219.
GERK, J., (2005). Um modelo de programacao nao linear mista inteira para aceleracao e superposicao de atividades em projetos , (in portuguese) PhD Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ.
GERK, J., Qassim, R., (2008). Project Acceleration via Activity Crashing, Overlapping and Substitution. IEEE Transaction in Engineering Management , 55(1), (in press).
HA, A.Y., Porteus, E.L. (1995). Optimal timing of reviews in concurrent design for manufacturability. Management Science , 41(9), 1431-1447.
HENDRICKSON, C., Au, T. (1998). Project Management for Construction: fundamental concepts for owners, engineers, architects and builders , USA: Prentice-Hall.
IBBS, C.W., Lee, S.A., Li, M.I. (1998). Fast-tracking's impact on project change. Project Management Journal, 29(4), 35-41.
KRISHNAN, V.(1993). Design process improvement: sequencing and overlapping activities in product development. PhD Thesis, MIT, Boston, MA.
KRISHNAN, V.(1996). Managing the simultaneous execution of coupled phases in concurrent product development. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 43(2), 210-217.
KRISHNAN, V., Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E. (1997). A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Management Science , 43(4), 437-451.
Loch, C.H., Terwiesh, C. (1998). Communication and uncertainty in concurrent engineering. Management Science, 44(8), 1032-1048.
Lyneis, J., Cooper, K., Els, S.(2001). Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(3), 237-260.
NICOLETTI, S., Nicoló, F.(1998). A concurrent engineering decision model: management of the project activities information flows. International Journal of Production Economics, 54, 115-127.
RODRIGUES, A., Bowers, J. (1996). The role of system dynamics in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 213-220.
ROEMER, T.A., Ahmadi, R., Wang, R.H.(2000). Time-cost trade-offs in overlapped product development. Operations Research, 48(6), 858-865.
SENGUPTA, K., Abdel-Hamid, T. (1993). Alternative conceptions of feedback in dynamic decisions environments: an experimental investigation. Management Science, 39(4), 411-428.
STERMAN, J.D.(1992). System Dynamics Modeling for Project Management. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/ (accessed in March, 20, 2006].
STERMAN, J.D. (2002). All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review, 18(4), 501-531.
STERMAN, J.D. (2000). Business Dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world, New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
ZANGWILL, W., Kantor, P. (1998). Toward a theory of continuous improvement and the learning curve. Management Science, 44(7), 910-920.
ZHANG, H., Qiu, W., Zhang, H.(2006). An approach to measuring coupled tasks strength and sequencing of coupled tasks in new product development. Concurrent Engineering: research and applications, 14(4), 305-311.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2009 Journal of Technology Management & Innovation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.