IE interfaces (산업공학)

Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers (대한산업공학회)
권호 표지

Dynamic Task Sequencing of Product Development Process in a Multi-product Environment

다중 프로젝트 상황에서 제품개발 업무의 동적 순서결정

  • Kang, Chang-Muk (Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hong, Yoo-Suk (Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 20070100
  • Accepted : 20070500
  • Published : 2007.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As the market rapidly changes, the speed of new product development is highlighted as a critical element which determines the success of firms. While firms endeavor to accelerate the development speed, frequent iterations in a development process hinders the effort of acceleration. For this reason, many previous researches tried to find the optimal structure of the development process which minimizes the number of iterations. However, such researches have a limitation in that they can be applied to only a single-project environment. In a multi-project environment, waiting time induced by lack of resources also delays the process as well as the iterations do. In this paper, we propose dynamic sequencing method focusing on both iterations and waiting time for reducing the durations of development projects in a multi-project environment. This method reduces the waiting time by changing the sequence of development tasks according to the states of resources. While the method incurs additional iterations, they are expected to be offset by the reduced waiting time. The results of simulation show that the dynamic sequencing method dramatically improves the efficiency of a development process. Especially, the improvement is more salient as projects are more crowded and the process is more unbalanced. This method gives a new insight in researches on managing multiple development projects.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdelsalam, H. and Bao, H. (2006), A simulation-based optimization frame-work for product development cycle time reduction, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 69-85
  2. Adler, P., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., and Schwerer, E. (1995), From project to process management: An empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time, Management Science, 41(3), 458-484 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.3.458
  3. Ahmadi, R., Roemer, T., and Wang, R. (2001), Structuring product development processes, European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 539-558 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00412-9
  4. Anavi-Isakow, S. and Golany B. (2003), Managing multi-project environments through constant work-in-process, International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 9-18 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00058-8
  5. Browning, T. and Eppinger, S. (2002), Modeling impats of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development, IEEE Transactions on Management, 49(4), 428-442 https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2002.806709
  6. Cho, S. and Eppinger, S. (2006), A simulation-based process model for managing complex design design projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering management, 52(3), 316-328
  7. Cohen, J., Golany, B. and Shtub, A. (2005), Managing stochastic, finite capacity, multi-project systems through the cross-entropy methodology, Annals of Operations Research, 134(1), 183-199 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-005-5730-1
  8. Elonen, S. and Artto K. (2003), Problems in managing internal development projects in multi-project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 395-402 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00097-2
  9. Eppinger, S., Whitney, D., Smith R., and Gebala, D. (1994), A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development, Research in Engineering Design, 6(1), 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588087
  10. Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S., and Whitney, D. (1997), A model-based framework to overlap product development activities, Management Science, 43(4), 437-451 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.437
  11. Murty, K. (1995), Operations research: Deterministic optimization models, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
  12. Narahari, Y., Viswanadham, N., and Kumar, V. (1999), Lead time modeling and acceleration of product design and development. IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, 15(5), 882-896 https://doi.org/10.1109/70.795793
  13. Roemer, T., Ahmadi R., and Wang, R. (2000), Time-costtrade-offs in overlapped product development, Operations Research, 48(6), 858-865 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.48.6.858.12396
  14. Roemer, T. and Ahmadi R. (2004), Concurrent crashing and overlapping in product development, Operation: Research, 52(4), 606-622 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0125
  15. Smith, R. and Eppinger, S. (1993), Charateristics and models of iteration in engineering design, International Conference on Engineering Design, The Hague, Netherlands, 17-19, August
  16. Smith, R. and Eppinget, S. (1997a), Identifying controlling featues fo engineering design iteration, Management Science, 43(3), 276-293 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.3.276
  17. Smith, R. and Eppinger, S. (1997b), Apredictive model of sequential iteration in engineering design, Management Science, 43(8), 1104-1120 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.8.1104
  18. Ulich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2003), Product design and development, McGraw- Hill, NewYork
  19. Wheelwright, S. and Clark, K. (1992), Creating project plans to focus product development, Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 70-82