Concurrent Engineering Approach to Reducing Design Delivery Time
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 131, Issue 11
Abstract
A common method used to reduce project delivery time is to overlap sequential activities. Evolution and sensitivity characterizations of design activities provide a practical tool for identifying overlapping opportunities. The faster the evolution of information in an activity, the less risky it is to begin a downstream activity before the upstream activity is finalized. Also, the lower the sensitivity to changes in upstream information, the less risky it is to overlap activities. A methodology for determining the evolution and sensitivity of design activities has been developed through a series of expert interviews. The evolution of an activity can be determined by evaluating the levels of design optimization, constraint satisfaction, external information exchange, and standardization. The sensitivity of an activity can be determined by evaluating activity constraints, input variables, and the level of design integration. This framework for characterizing design activities in terms of evolution and sensitivity will lead to significant reductions in project delivery times.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the financial support received for this study from the K. Stanton Lewis Endowment Fund at the University of Colorado and from the National Science Foundation (Award No. NSF0324342). The writers would also like to thank the case study participants for volunteering their time to this study.
References
Ballard, G. (2000). “Positive vs negative iteration in design.” IGLC-8, Brighton, U.K.
Blackburn, J. D. (1991). Time-based competition: The next battleground in American manufacturing, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Bogus, S. M. (2004). “Concurrent engineering strategies for reducing design delivery time.” PhD dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
de la Garza, J. M., Alcantara, P., Jr., Kapoor, M., and Ramesh, P. S. (1994). “Value of concurrent engineering for A/E/C industry.” J. Manage. Eng., 10(3), 46–55.
Eldin, N. N. (1997). “Concurrent engineering: A schedule reduction tool.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(3), 354–362.
Krishnan, V. (1996). “Managing the simultaneous execution of coupled phases in concurrent product development.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 43(2), 210–217.
Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S. D., and Whitney, D. E. (1995). “Accelerating product development by the exchange of preliminary product design information.” ASME J. Mech. Des., 117, 491–498.
Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S. D., and Whitney, D. E. (1997). “A model-based framework to overlap product development activities.” Manage. Sci., 43(4), 437–451.
Loch, C., and Terwiesch, C. (1998). “Communication and uncertainty in concurrent engineering.” Manage. Sci., 44(8), 1032.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement, Continuum, London.
Pena-Mora, F., and Li, M. (2001). “Dynamic planning and control methodology for design/build fast-track construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(1), 1–17.
Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent engineering fundamentals: Integrated product and process organization, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Ritchie, J., and Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, Sage, London, 336.
Roemer, T. A., Ahmadi, R., and Wang, R. H. (2000). “Time-cost trade-offs in overlapped product development.” Oper. Res., 48(6), 858–865.
Songer, A. D., Diekmann, J., Hendrickson, W., and Flushing, D. (2000). “Situational reengineering: Case study analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(3), 185–190.
Terwiesch, C., Loch, C. H., and De Meyer, A. (2002). “Exchanging preliminary information in concurrent engineering: Alternative coordination strategies.” Org. Sci., 13(4), 402–419.
White, E., Behara, R., and Babbar, S. (2002). “Mine customer experiences.” Qual. Prog., 35(7), 63–67.
Yassine, A. A., Chelst, K. R., and Falkenburg, D. R. (1999). “A decision analytic framework for evaluating concurrent engineering.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 46(2), 144–157.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage, London.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 131 • Issue 11 • November 2005
Pages: 1179 - 1185
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: May 4, 2004
Accepted: Jan 31, 2005
Published online: Nov 1, 2005
Published in print: Nov 2005
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.