Technology Assessment in Software Development Projects Using a System Dynamics Approach: A Case of Application Frameworks

Hernández, José Ignacio Muñoz; Olaso, José Ramón Otegui; López, Alejandro Gutiérrez

doi:10.5772/54498

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two different methods of capturing changes in the staff level can be encountered in literature: modeling of hiring and turnover over time (Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Williford & Chang, 1999) and resource allocation over different parts of the project (Black & Repenning, 2001;Joglekar & Ford, 2005;Repenning, 2000;Taylor & Ford, 2006).…”

Section: Purpose Of Rework Cycle Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phase Concurrency (Ford & Sterman, 1998aKasperek et al, 2014;Le et al, 2012; S. Lee & Sung Lim, 2007;Lin, 2006;Lin et al, 2008;Nasirzadeh et al, 2013;Parvan et al, 2013;Powell et al, 1999;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Ruutu et al, 2011) Human Factors (Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Kasperek et al, 2014;Laverghetta & Brown, 1999;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Ruutu et al, 2011;Williford & Chang, 1999) Staffing (Black & Repenning, 2001;Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Joglekar & Ford, 2005;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Repenning, 2000;Taylor & Ford, 2006;Williford & Chang, 1999) Outsourcing (Lisse, 2013) Testing (Lin et al, 2008;Rahmandad & Hu, 2010) Tipping Point (Rahmandad & Al., 2005;Taylor & Ford, 2006) Cost and Schedule Foresight (Cooper & Lee, 2009;Lyneis et al, 2001) Process Improvement (D'Avino et al, 2005;Repenning & Sterman, 2002) Various studies exist on the topic of Phase Concurrency (Krishnan et al, 1997;…”

Section: Purpose Of Rework Cycle Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skill Level (Cooper et al, 2002;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013) Morale (Cooper et al, 2002;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999) Synergy (Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999) Group Size (Kasperek et al, 2014;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999) Process Factors Available Work (Cooper et al, 2002;Ford & Sterman, 1998a;Joglekar & Ford, 2005;Kasperek et al, 2014;Le, 2013;Lin, 2006;Parvan et al, 2013;Ruutu et al, 2011) Completed Work in Previous Phase (Lin et al, 2008) …”

Section: Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Testing (Lin et al, 2008) Testing, Change Approval (Rahmandad & Hu, 2010) Error Rectification (Lin, 2006) Phase Task Change (Laverghetta & Brown, 1999) Hiring (Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999) Hiring & Training (Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Williford & Chang, 1999) Change Generation (Parvan et al, 2013) Change Generation & Discovery (S. Lee & Sung Lim, 2007) Hiring & Training, Completed Work, Expended Effort (Lisse, 2013) Error Generation, Hiring & Training (Ruutu et al, 2011) SFC3) Consideration of influence of process concurrency in multi-phase projects…”

Section: Co-processes Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two factors that are most commonly reflected in rework cycles are skill levels of employees (Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Ruutu et al, 2011) and effects on the productivity resulting from group effects (Kasperek et al, 2014).…”

Section: Purpose Of Rework Cycle Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Structure‐Based System Dynamics Analysis of Engineering Design Processes

Kasperek

Schenk

Kreimeyer³

et al. 2016

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamic process behavior of Engineering Design Processes (EDPs) needs to be understood in order to distribute resources appropriately as well as for cost and schedule calculation. Currently, structural and behavioral modeling approaches are used in the context of EDP management. In many use cases, it is essential to have at hand both the static structural view and the dynamic behavioral one. Currently, however, the two modeling approaches cannot be sufficiently combined. Within this work, a framework for the structure‐based System Dynamics analysis of EDPs is presented. It uses structural models as a basis for constructing System Dynamics models to simulate the process behavior and thereby supports understanding the correlation of process structure and behavior. This framework was iteratively developed by conducting case studies and consists of three layers, a five‐step procedure and special support for the transformation of the models. For the validation, a subset of the design process at a large German commercial vehicle manufacturer has been chosen. Based on the application of the framework during a six‐month project at the company, the industrial experts rated the framework as beneficial for the purpose of optimizing EDPs. Furthermore, they stated that the transparent representation of the sequence of the process, influencing factors and control variables in combination with the quantitative data had improved their understanding of the overall process.

show abstract