Key concepts in modeling product development processes

  • Authors:
  • Tyson R. Browning;Ernst Fricke;Herbert Negele

  • Affiliations:
  • M.J. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 298530, Fort Worth, TX 76129;BMW Group, Knorrstrasse 147, 80788 Munich, Germany;BMW Group, Knorrstrasse 147, 80788 Munich, Germany

  • Venue:
  • Systems Engineering
  • Year:
  • 2006

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper provides a foundation for modeling the set of activities and their relationships by which systems are engineered, or, more broadly, by which products and services are developed. It provides background, motivations, and formal definitions for process modeling in this specialized environment. We treat the process itself as a kind of system that can be engineered. However, while product systems must be created, the process systems for developing complex products must, to a greater extent, be discovered and induced. Then, they tend to be reused, either formally as standard processes, or informally by the workforce. We distinguish and clarify several important concepts in modeling processes, including: product development versus repetitive business processes, descriptive versus prescriptive processes, activities as actions versus deliverables as interactions, standard versus deployed processes, centralized versus decentralized process modeling, “as is” versus “to be” process modeling, and multiple phases in product development. We also present a basically simple yet highly extendable and generalized framework for modeling product development processes. The framework enables building a single model to support a variety of purposes, including project planning (scheduling, budgeting, resource loading, and risk management) and control, and it provides the scaffolding for knowledge management and organizational learning, among numerous other uses. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 9: 104–128, 2006This paper would not be possible without the benefits of uncounted interactions with professional and academic colleagues over the past decade. We thank the many participants in our tutorials at the 2001–2003 International Symposia of INCOSE for their helpful comments and feedback. We also thank Andy Sage for his comments and advice and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions, all of which improved the paper.