Engineering Project Management

Siegel, Neil

doi:10.1002/9781119525813

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Technical metrics that will allow for a credible assessment of the progress of the design "Measuring progress on the design" is, in my view, of significantly more importance than books, standards, and training manuals generally recognize. Few texts, for example, talk at all about "measuring design progress" (Siegel) [11] vi .…”

Section: Techniques For Credibly Predicting the Performance Capacity And Other Aspects Of The Resulting Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is the Design Complete?

Siegel¹

2019

Int J Aeronaut Aerosp Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost every software-development and software-intensive system-development methodology calls for the design to reach some level of maturity before the team moves into software and system implementation. Yet data from many sources indicate that a large percentage of software and system-development programs encounter significant difficulties. Data from my own work fixing such problem programs indicates that the major recurring theme across such problem programs is that the design was inadequate for the task at hand; this, of course, should have been detected during the design phase, before the program moved on to implementation, integration, and test. In this paper, I examine indications from a number of real programs to determine why the design is so often inadequate; one of the key findings is that our standard methods, processes, indicators, and metrics for determining if the design is complete are seriously flawed. A proposal for better design-completion indicators is provided, and the implications for practice discussed.

show abstract

Section: Techniques For Credibly Predicting the Performance Capacity And Other Aspects Of The Resulting Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is the Design Complete?

Siegel¹

2019

Int J Aeronaut Aerosp Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Engineering services are project-based and are reasonably treated as creators of innovations (products, service, processes) for almost every organization (business, government; Siegel, 2019). Engineering innovation outlines what it takes to transition a new concept into a successful product, service, or process (Legum et al, 2019).…”

Section: Engineering Project As Service Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value Co-Creation in Engineering Service Innovation: Resources and Capabilities Perspectives

Gegužytė¹,

Bagdonienė²

2021

CEMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This research focuses on firm resources and capabilities used for value co-creation in service innovation. Specifically, I investigated how service innovation is created in an in-ternational engineering company. The aim of this article is to reveal what resources and capa-bilities are employed by a service provider for value co-creation in the innovation project of engineering service and how they vary in particular stages of this project. Methodology: The research is based on qualitative methodology by a multi-case study strate-gy. Focus group discussion with senior managers and semi-structured interviews with project managers of the studied international engineering company were used as concrete data gather-ing methods. Data analysis was conducted using the content analysis method. Findings: The research revealed eight value co-creation activities accomplished by the engi-neering company and client during the engineering service innovation project. The activities are as follows: co-identification of the client’s problem, co-evaluation of ideas, co-defining of client’s requirements, co-analysis of environment, co-design, co-testing, and co-adoption, co-production, and co-activities after the launch. These activities are diffused in different project stages and demand a range of resources: expert knowledge, diagnostic, communication skills, trust, experience, technological equipment, human resources. Moreover, they require diverse capabilities: relational, innovative, analytical, negotiation, knowledge absorptive, planning, organizational flexibility, and cross-cultural. The intensity and variety of using the mentioned resources and capabilities differ relying on the value co-creation activity. Expert knowledge, communication skills as resources, and relational and innovative capabilities were empha-sized by the researchers most often. We hope these findings will represent a step toward a more coherent resource-based view (RBV) and service innovation theories. Implications: The study involved only one Lithuanian engineering company, so the research context may influence the findings. Another limitation is related to the small number of cases and research participants. Originality: Unlike previous studies that revealed the importance of single resources and ca-pabilities for service innovation, this study determined the range of resources and capabilities employed in different activities of engineering service innovation project stages, especially in the value co-creation activities performed by the engineering company and clients. Moreover, research also identified how resources and capabilities vary at different stages of these pro-jects.

show abstract