Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams: Current State, Next Steps and a Vision for the Future

Hihn, Jairus; Chattopadhyay, Debarati; Karpati, Gabriel; McGuire, Melissa L.; Borden, Chester; Panek, John; Warfield, Keith

doi:10.2514/6.2011-7238

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed in Ref. 3, maintaining situational awareness is a key concern in concurrent engineering environments. Typically, the larger the team, the more challenging it is to maintain SA.…”

Section: Situational Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing Distributed Concurrent Engineering Teams: A Descriptive Framework for Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams

Chattopadhyay

Hihn

Warfield

2011

AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference &Amp; Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As aerospace missions grow larger and more technically complex in the face of ever tighter budgets, it will become increasingly important to use concurrent engineering methods in the development of early conceptual designs because of their ability to facilitate rapid assessments and trades in a cost-efficient manner. To successfully accomplish these complex missions with limited funding, it is also essential to effectively leverage the strengths of individuals and teams across government, industry, academia, and international agencies by increased cooperation between organizations. As a result, the existing concurrent engineering teams will need to increasingly engage in distributed collaborative concurrent design. This paper is an extension of a recent white paper written by the Concurrent Engineering Working Group, which details the unique challenges of distributed collaborative concurrent engineering. This paper includes a short history of aerospace concurrent engineering, and defines the terms 'concurrent', 'collaborative' and 'distributed' in the context of aerospace concurrent engineering. In addition, a model for the levels of complexity of concurrent engineering teams is presented to provide a way to conceptualize information and data flow within these types of teams. Nomenclature CE= Concurrent Engineering CET = Concurrent Engineering Team

show abstract

Section: Situational Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing Distributed Concurrent Engineering Teams: A Descriptive Framework for Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams

Chattopadhyay

Hihn

Warfield

2011

AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference &Amp; Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Small, facilitated groups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitatively assess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the trade space through collaborative analysis and use of advanced methods and tools. The A-Team process builds off the experience within JPL and other recent approaches to early concept formulation (Hihn et al, 2011) including best practices of the JPL Innovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering & Formulation Section, Team Eureka, and the Rapid Mission Architecture Team (Moeller et al, 2011) (NASA (2010)).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the science trade space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

Ziemer

Wessen

Johnson

2017

Concurrent Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team. The Architecture Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (Concept Maturity Level 1), initial feasibility assessment (Concept Maturity Level 2), and trade space exploration (Concept Maturity Level 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including the use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram. In the process of developing the Science Return Diagram, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid toward developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 sciencefocused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions, and reveal the mission concept's most compelling science. This article will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.

show abstract

“…Studies of professionals' experiences in cross-disciplinary design have highlighted breakdowns due to differences in goal direction, situation complexity, and team members' self-perceived roles in the collaboration [21,22]. Researchers within aerospace engineering have examined the dynamics of concurrent engineering teams [23], teamwork, adjustment to change, and knowledge management among design team members [24]. However, this and similar research do not specifically address the complexities that arise due to the crossdisciplinary nature of design, which is a particular challenge in the integration of stakeholder concerns in aircraft design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Design Teams in the Integration of Stakeholder Considerations

Coso

Pritchett

2015

Journal of Aircraft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the importance of stakeholder considerations to the aircraft's overall mission and lifecycle performance, this work examines how stakeholder requirements are currently incorporated into the aircraft design process. A case study within an aircraft design firm found that human factors specialists are designated to address specific stakeholder considerations within the design process. This research explores how the perspectives of these specialists are integrated into aircraft design teams. Accounts from 25 semistructured interviews were analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques. The results identify differences between the integration of stakeholder considerations within the pilot compartment group compared to other design groups. These differences can be described through six conditions related to group structure and goals, approaches to cross-disciplinary work, and shared language and mediums of translation among disciplines. These results highlight how to promote the integration of stakeholder concerns in complex systems design through the structure of design teams and groups, their goals, their resources, the choice of team members, and training for future and current design team members.

show abstract

Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams: Current State, Next Steps and a Vision for the Future

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Characterizing Distributed Concurrent Engineering Teams: A Descriptive Framework for Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams

Characterizing Distributed Concurrent Engineering Teams: A Descriptive Framework for Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams

Exploring the science trade space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

Role of Design Teams in the Integration of Stakeholder Considerations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About