Rework Quantification and Influence of Rework on Duration and Cost of Equipment Development Task
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Connotation and Main Influencing Factors of Equipment Development Task Rework
3.1. Connotation and Classification of Rework
3.2. Main Factors Affecting Rework
3.2.1. Uncertainty
- (1)
- Market uncertainty: Equipment development task participants may not have an accurate understanding of the actual market demand. A deep understanding of the development task and its market demand leads to continuous revisions of market demand estimates during the implementation of the equipment development task.
- (2)
- Technical uncertainty: We need new technological breakthroughs in equipment development tasks. However, the application of new technologies or breakthroughs in new technologies is subject to considerable uncertainty and can lead to technological uncertainties in equipment development tasks.
- (3)
- (4)
- Uncertainties in the interrelationship between participating parties: Equipment development tasks require the collaboration of many participating parties. There are uncertainties in their relationships.
- (5)
- Uncertainties caused by human factors: Uncertainty caused by human factors comprises uncertainty due to limited human capabilities, subjective prejudices, and even work negligence.
- (6)
- Estimated uncertainty: Any equipment development task will involve the estimation of costs, duration, and quality, and such estimated data involve uncertainties [12].
3.2.2. Complexity
- (1)
- Technical complexity: The complexity of a technology can be described by considering the integration of the technical components and technological innovation. In general, the higher the degree of integration and innovation, the higher is the complexity of the technology.
- (2)
- Organizational complexity: Baccarin claims that organizational complexity originates from the difference and interdependence between units within an organization [20]. Organizational differences include horizontal, vertical, and spatial distribution differences.
- (3)
- Number of sub-tasks: An equipment development task is a systematic project. A complete implementation process requires the coordination of various sub-tasks, resources, and other elements. The number of sub-tasks will directly affect the level of difficulty involved in coordinating the equipment development task.
- (4)
- Complexity of sub-tasks: An equipment development task consists of many sub-tasks. In general, the more complex the sub-tasks, the more complex is the overall equipment development task.
- (5)
- Information complexity: The information required for equipment development tasks includes both internal and external information. Internal information consists mainly of input from participating units, users, suppliers, and other divisions or departments. External information mainly consists of information acquired from government policies, the economic environment, and market conditions.
- (6)
- Target complexity: An equipment development task must achieve not only targets such as duration, cost, and quality on a management level but also technical, economic, and security goals at the functional level, while also meeting the goals of national/regional economic development, social stability, and national defense security. Thus, development tasks have a diversity of goals, which are both interrelated and interactive.
4. Confirmation of Rework Parameters and Development Task Simulation
4.1. Representation of Rework Parameters
4.1.1. Representation of Foreseeable Rework Parameters
4.1.2. Representation of Hidden Rework Parameters
4.1.3. Representation of Actual Rework Parameters
4.2. Determination of Rework Parameters
4.3. Development Task Simulation
5. Case Study on the Influence of Rework
5.1. Description of the Case Study
5.2. Effect of Rework Type on Duration and Cost
5.3. Impact of Hidden Rework Parameters on Duration and Cost
6. Conclusions and Outlook
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rao, R.; Zhang, X.P.; Shi, Z.P.; Luo, K.Y.; Tan, Z.F.; Feng, Y.F. A systematical framework of schedule risk management for power grid engineering projects’ sustainable development. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6872–6901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T. Competitive and sustainable manufacturing in the age of globalization. Sustainability 2016, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasm, O.A.; Yassine, A. Product development network modelling extensions to the cycle elimination method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 119, 321–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynn, D.C.; Eckert, C.M. Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Res. Eng. Des. 2017, 28, 153–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meier, C.; Browning, T.R.; Yassine, A.A.; Walter, U. The cost of speed: Work policies for crashing and overlapping in product development projects. IEEE T. Eng. Manag. 2015, 62, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browning, T.R. Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE T. Eng. Manage. 2001, 48, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browning, T.R. Design structure matrix extensions and innovations: A survey and new opportunities. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2016, 63, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yassine, A.A.; Whitney, D.E.; Zambito, T. Assessment of rework probabilities for simulating product development processes using the design structure matrix(DSM). In Proceedings of the ASME 2001 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 9–12 September 2001; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Steward, D.V. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1981, 3, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, C.; Marle, F. Dealing with project complexity by matrix-based propagation modelling for project risk analysis. J. Eng. Des. 2013, 24, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Q.; Zheng, L.; Kherbachi, S. Multi-domain integration of team-product-function and organization clustering in product development project. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2018, 38, 1557–1565. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, R.; Crawford, L.; Ward, S. Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 687–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, T. Context-adaptive agility: Managing complexity and uncertainty. IEEE Softw. 2005, 22, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A.D.; Loch, C.H.; Pich, M.T. Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2002, 30, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, C.; Johansson, S.; Löfström, M. Project relationships–A model for analyzing interactional uncertainty. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.L.; Moon, Y.B. Modeling and managing engineering changes in a complex product development process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 63, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Q.; Lu, T.; Yao, T.; Zhang, B. The impact of uncertainty and ambiguity related to iteration and overlapping on schedule of product development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 827–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.L.; Yang, N.D. Literature review on definition of concept, analysis of characteristics, identification of types and measure methods of project complexity. Manag. Rev. 2013, 25, 133–141. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, Y.J.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Jiao, B. A supernetwork-based model for design processes of complex mechanical products. Sustainability 2016, 8, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baccarini, D. The concept of project complexity—A review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1996, 14, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.B.; Luo, L.; Wang, H.L.; Le, Y.; Shi, Q. Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 610–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch-Rekveldt, M.; Jongkind, Y.; Mooi, H.; Bakker, H.; Verbraeck, A. Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical, Organizational and Environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 728–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebentisch, E.; Schuh, G.; Riesener, M.; Breunig, S.; Pott, A.; Sinha, K. Assessment of changes in technical systems and their effects on cost and duration based on structural complexity. Procedia Cirp 2016, 55, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browning, T.R.; Eppinger, S.D. Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2002, 49, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdelsalam, H.M.; Rasmy, M.H.; Mohamed, H.G. A simulation-based time reduction approach for resource constrained design structure matrix. Int. J. Model. Optim. 2014, 4, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S.H.; Eppinger, S.D. A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2005, 52, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.L.; Tan, Y.J.; Yang, Z.W. Simulation modeling of high-end equipment development task influenced by multiple uncertainty factors. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2018, 40, 1265–1273. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Luo, J.X. A simulation-based method to evaluate the impact of product architecture on product evolvability. Res. Eng. Des. 2015, 26, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karniel, A.; Reich, Y. Multi-level modelling and simulation of new product development processes. J. Eng. Des. 2013, 24, 185–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maier, J.F.; Wynn, D.C.; Biedermann, W.; Lindemann, U.; Clarkson, P.J. Simulating progressive iteration, rework and change propagation to prioritise design tasks. Res. Eng. Des. 2014, 25, 283–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiry, M. Sensemaking in value management practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, M.A.; Kishawy, H.A. Sustainable manufacturing and design: Concepts, practices and needs. Sustainability 2012, 4, 154–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galal, N.; Moneim, A. A mathematical programming approach to the optimal sustainable product mix for the process industry. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13085–13103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abbreviation | Explanation |
---|---|
DSM | design structure matrix |
FRP | foreseeable rework probability |
FRI | foreseeable rework impact |
PHR | proportion of sub-tasks that may contain hidden rework |
HRP | hidden rework probability |
HRI | hidden rework impact |
ARP | actual rework probability |
ARI | actual rework impact |
EMDM | extended multi-domain matrix |
F_DSM | function design structure matrix |
C_DSM | component design structure matrix |
O_DSM | organization design structure matrix |
EDMM | extended domain mapping matrix |
FEL | future event list |
WL | wait list |
ID | Sub-Task Name | Duration (Days) | Cost (US$k) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Do | Dm | Dp | Co | Cm | Cp | ||
1 | Prepare Preliminary DR&O | 1.9 | 2 | 3 | 8.6 | 9 | 13.5 |
2 | Create Preliminary Design Configuration | 4.75 | 5 | 8.75 | 5.3 | 5.63 | 9.84 |
3 | Prepare Surfaced Models & Internal Drawings | 2.66 | 2.8 | 4.2 | 3 | 3.15 | 4.73 |
4 | Perform Aerodynamics Analyses & Evaluation | 9 | 10 | 12.5 | 6.8 | 7.5 | 9.38 |
5 | Create Initial Structural Geometry | 14.3 | 15 | 26.3 | 128 | 135 | 236 |
6 | Prepare Structural & Notes for FEM | 9 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 11.3 | 12.4 |
7 | Develop Freebody Diagrams & Applied Loads | 7.2 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 15 |
8 | Perform Weights & Inertia Analysis | 4.75 | 5 | 8.75 | 8.9 | 9.38 | 16.4 |
9 | Perform S&C Analyses & Evaluation | 18 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 22.5 | 24.8 |
10 | Develop Freebody Diagram & Applied Loads | 9.5 | 10 | 17.5 | 21 | 22.5 | 39.4 |
11 | Establish Internal Load Distributions | 14.3 | 15 | 26.3 | 21 | 22.5 | 39.4 |
12 | Evaluate Structural Strength, Stiffness, & Life | 13.5 | 15 | 18.8 | 41 | 45 | 56.3 |
13 | Preliminary Manufacturing Planning & Analyses | 30 | 32.5 | 36 | 214 | 232 | 257 |
14 | Prepare UAV Proposal | 4.5 | 5 | 6.25 | 20 | 22.5 | 28.1 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, X.; Tan, Y.; Yang, Z. Rework Quantification and Influence of Rework on Duration and Cost of Equipment Development Task. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3590. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su10103590
Zhang X, Tan Y, Yang Z. Rework Quantification and Influence of Rework on Duration and Cost of Equipment Development Task. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3590. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su10103590
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Xilin, Yuejin Tan, and Zhiwei Yang. 2018. "Rework Quantification and Influence of Rework on Duration and Cost of Equipment Development Task" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3590. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su10103590