Design Process Improvement 2005
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84628-061-0_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Design planning and modelling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Browning and Ramasesh reviewed PD process models in this area; Wynn and Clarkson provided another recent review. These models account for key differences between PD and general business processes, such as: (1) the intent to do something new, once (e.g., design a product) rather than the same thing repeatedly (e.g., take an order, assemble a product, provide a service); (2) the primacy of information as the basis for activity dependencies; (3) the highly cross‐functional and transdisciplinary nature of integrated PD; (4) the greater propensity for parallel, overlapping activities (concurrent engineering); (5) the conditions of higher uncertainty and ambiguity; and (6) the need for greater flexibility and agility in process planning and execution . Although the PD process modeling literature still has much to learn from the general BPM literature (and vice versa), the distinct characteristics of PD processes argue for basing an approach to building PD process models mainly on this second stream.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Browning and Ramasesh reviewed PD process models in this area; Wynn and Clarkson provided another recent review. These models account for key differences between PD and general business processes, such as: (1) the intent to do something new, once (e.g., design a product) rather than the same thing repeatedly (e.g., take an order, assemble a product, provide a service); (2) the primacy of information as the basis for activity dependencies; (3) the highly cross‐functional and transdisciplinary nature of integrated PD; (4) the greater propensity for parallel, overlapping activities (concurrent engineering); (5) the conditions of higher uncertainty and ambiguity; and (6) the need for greater flexibility and agility in process planning and execution . Although the PD process modeling literature still has much to learn from the general BPM literature (and vice versa), the distinct characteristics of PD processes argue for basing an approach to building PD process models mainly on this second stream.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A box is used to represent an activity where the meaning of the arrows varies depending on where they point to. The meaning of the four arrows used in this methodology is as follows: Input : describes the objects or data that are transformed by the activity into output. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many attempts have been made to develop a standard for creating business process models, the most successful of which is the integrated definition (IDEF) . This method originated in 1981 as a part of the U.S. Air Force program for integrated computer‐aided manufacturing (ICAM) . IDEF is a graphical language that identifies the functions that are performed, the different elements required to perform these functions, and the efficiency of the analyzed system .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…initial planning, and throughout the project, i.e. dynamic planning, when the initial plan needs to be modified in response to new events (O'Donovan, Eckert, Clarkson, & Browning, 2005). The project plan represents a particular project, containing relevant practices and deliverables which match the specific product under development.…”
Section: Design Process Models Application Typesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A consistent terminology is expected to help to connect the process, project and activity levels. The provided list of roles and corresponding descriptions is grounded on following sources: Eckert andClarkson (2005), O'Donovan et al (2005), Pahl et al (2007), Browning (2010), Ulrich and Eppinger (2012), and Andreasen et al (2015).…”
Section: Focus Group Goals and Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%