Aerospace System Value Models: A Survey and Observations

Collopy, Paul

doi:10.2514/6.2009-6560

Cited by 73 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Similarly, this trend has been observed in academic research. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] In industry, government, and academia, value-driven design is often portrayed as a response to more traditional (and historical) approaches for designing engineering systems, which rely heavily on requirements and/or cost-related characteristics of a system. Subsequently, these traditional approaches for engineering design, although originally intended to lead to the creation of useful systems, often end up falling short in delivering to their full potential, either by costing too much, or providing less capability than expected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Aligning Perspectives and Methods for Value-Driven Design

Ross¹,

O'Neill²,

Hastings³

et al. 2010

AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a push to use explicit consideration of "value" in order to drive design. This paper conveys the need to explicitly align perspectives on "value" with the method used to quantify "value." Various concepts of value are introduced in the context of its evolution within economics in order to propose a holistic definition of value. Operationalization of value is discussed, including possible assumption violations in the aerospace domain. A series of prominent Value-Centric Design Methodologies for valuation are introduced, including Net Present Value, Multi-Attribute Utility Theory, and CostBenefit Analysis. These methods are compared in terms of the assumptions they make with regard to operationalizing value. It is shown that no method is fully complete in capturing the definition of value, but selecting the most appropriate one involves matching the particular system application being valued with acceptable assumptions for valuation. Two case studies, a telecommunications mission and a deep-space observation mission, are used to illustrate application of the three prior mentioned valuation methods. The results of the studies show that depending on method used for valuation, very different conclusions and insights will be derived, therefore an explicit consideration of the appropriate definition of value is necessary in order to align a chosen method with desired valuation insights.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Aligning Perspectives and Methods for Value-Driven Design

Ross¹,

O'Neill²,

Hastings³

et al. 2010

AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference &Amp; Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the approach introduces non-linear optimisation-type functions, which are also intended to solve one of the major issues related to the use of QFD in design optimisation problems, i.e. the fact that QFD does not accommodate negatives -alternatives that detract from an attribute rather than contribute to it (Collopy 2009). …”

Section: Tools and Methods To Support Concept Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping customer needs to engineering characteristics: an aerospace perspective for conceptual design

Eres

Bertoni

Kossmann

et al. 2014

Journal of Engineering Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designing complex engineering systems, such as an aircraft or an aero-engine, is immensely challenging. Formal systems engineering practices are widely used in the aerospace industry throughout the overall design process to minimise the overall design effort, corrective re-work, and ultimately overall development and manufacturing costs. Incorporating the needs and requirements from customers and other stakeholders into the conceptual and early design process is vital for the success and viability of any development programme. This paper presents a formal methodology, the value-driven design (VDD) methodology that has been developed for collaborative and iterative use in the extended enterprise (EE) within the aerospace industry, and that has been applied using the concept design analysis (CODA) method to map captured customer needs into engineering characteristics and to model an overall 'design merit' metric to be used in design assessments, sensitivity analyses, and engineering design optimisation studies. Two different case studies with increasing complexity are presented to elucidate the application areas of the CODA method in the context of the VDD methodology for the EE within the aerospace sector.

show abstract

“…The most significant approaches in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) include ELECTRE (Roy 1991), multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) ( (Fishburn 1970), (Keeney and Raiffa 1976)), simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) ( (Edwards 2009), (Edwards and Barron 1994)), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty 1980), Weighted Objectives Method (Roozenburg and Eekels 1995), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) (Yoon and Hwang 1995) and simple additive weighting (SAW) (Kirkwood and Corner 1993). Collopy (2009), surveying some of these MCDA techniques used in the development of the value model for engineering design, concluded that it is the user's point of view, adopted in value modelling, that defines the selection of the most appropriate tools. The MCDA techniques utilised in the development of the value model for the conceptual phase of engineering design are presented in the following sections.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value modelling for multi-stakeholder and multi-objective optimisation in engineering design

Papageorgiou

Eres

Scanlan

2016

Journal of Engineering Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The work presented culminates in the development of a value model used in the conceptual phase of engineering design, with the preferences of more than one stakeholder addressed in the Multi-Stakeholder and Multi-Objective Optimization. The "value" of proposed solutions is assessed in an objective way both from performance and economic perspectives, while the optimal solution is identified based on the needs of the user and manufacturer, as major stakeholders. This novel value model for consistent value assessment synthesizes the multiattribute value/utility analysis with the Game Theory and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) assessment methodologies. During the multi-criteria decision analysis, the deficiencies, introduced by the arbitrary numerical scales used in AHP to convert the linguistic preferences of the user between the various attributes to numerical values, are resolved. The preferences of a group of experts/decision makers are synthesized in the group value model through the extraction of weighting factors from the individuals' AHP pairwise comparison matrices. Moreover, Game Theory is used in a hybrid cooperative/bargaining, non-cooperative non-zero sum game between the stakeholders as players, identifying the optimal design through the simultaneous employment of the Nash bargaining solution and the Nash equilibrium.

show abstract

Aerospace System Value Models: A Survey and Observations

Cited by 73 publications

References 14 publications

Aligning Perspectives and Methods for Value-Driven Design

Aligning Perspectives and Methods for Value-Driven Design

Mapping customer needs to engineering characteristics: an aerospace perspective for conceptual design

Value modelling for multi-stakeholder and multi-objective optimisation in engineering design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About