17 

AdvancesinProductionEngineering&Management ISSN1854‐6250

Volume12|Number1|March2017|pp17–28 Journalhome:apem‐journal.org

https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2017.1.236 Originalscientificpaper

  

Performance modelling based on value analysis for improving product development process architecture  

Yin, F.P.a,b, Gao, Q.a,b,*, Ji, X.a,b aSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China bKey Laboratory of High Efficiency and Clean Mechanical Manufacture, Shandong University, Ministry of Education, Jinan, China   

A B S T R A C T   A R T I C L E   I N F O

Improvingthearchitectureofproductdevelopmentprocess(PDP)isaneffec‐tiveapproachtoimprovePDPperformance.However,performanceisdifficulttomodelbecausethecriterionofperformancesuchasdevelopmentcost,timeandproductqualityareusuallycontradictory.Theobjectiveofthispaperistouseprocess value as the evaluation indicatorofPDPperformance.Thepro‐cessvalueofPDP,aswellastheratioofprocessfunctionandprocesscost,isdiscussed and its quantitativemethod is proposed. The process function isdefinedastheprocesseffectivenesswhichconsiderstheimportanceofeachactivityofPDP,anditsevaluationmethodsbasedonreworktheoryandquali‐ty function deployment (QFD) are given. The simulationmethod is used toillustratetheproposedmodelandanalyzetherelationbetweenarchitectureandprocessvalueofPDP,andanoptimizationmodelforPDParchitectureisprovided.Withthemodel,wecangetasuitablePDParchitecturetobalancethecostandproductfunctionduringproductdevelopment.

©2017PEI,UniversityofMaribor.Allrightsreserved.

  Keywords:ProductdevelopmentprocessProcessperformanceProcessarchitectureValueanalysisEffectivenessModelling

*Correspondingauthor:gaoqi@sdu.edu.cn(Gao,Q.)

Articlehistory:Received20October2016Revised15February2017Accepted18February2017

  

1. Introduction 

Productdevelopmentprocess(PDP)refers to theentiresetofactivities toconvertcustomers'needsintoatechnicalandcommercialsolution[1,2].Theactivitiesandtheirrelationshipsaredescribedbytheprocessarchitecture(ornetwork).AnalyzingandoptimizingthearchitectureishelpfultobuildaPDPwithhighperformance,whichimplies lowdevelopmentcost,short leadtime and high product quality [3, 4].However, these criterions are usually contradictory. Forexample,higherproductqualitymaymeanthatthedevelopmenttimeislongerorcostishigher.Inaddition,highperformanceisanelusivenotion[5].

There have been relevant studies onperformancemeasurement in PDP.Huang andFu [6]proposedaquantitativemodelbasedon signal flowgraphs (SFG), assessingprocess from theaspectsoftime,cost,qualityandrobustness.Punetal.[7]proposedaself‐assessmentmodelofnewproductdevelopmentperformance(NPD)usinganalyticalhierarchyprocess(AHP).Syamiletal. [8]researchedtherelationshipsbetweenproductdevelopmentprocessandprocessper‐formance,andprovidedamodelofprocessperformanceatprojectlevel.Thecostestimating[9],developmentquality [10], productperformance [11], feasibility [12] anduncertainty [13] etc.havealsobeenstudiedbysomeotherresearchers,whichcanreflectoraffecttheperformanceofPDP. Somanymeasures and evaluationmethods for PDP performance lead to an ambiguous

Yin, Gao, Ji  

18  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017

definitionofperformanceinaboveliteratures.Inadditionmostworksfocusedonperformanceatprojectorprogramlevel.

O’Donnell andDuffy [14] considered that the overall performance in design is determinedbothbyperformanceofthedesignsolution(relatedtotheproductdesignparametersorprod‐uctquality),andtheperformanceoftheprocess(relatedtothedurationorcost).Intheirmodel,efficiencyandeffectivenessareas fundamental elementsofperformance.Efficiency is seenastherelationshipbetween theknowledge thatanactivitygainedand theusedresources;whileeffectivenessisrelatedtothedegreehowtheoutputsofknowledgemeetthegoalsofactivities.Themodelprovidesanimprovedperceptionofperformancemeasurement,buttherelationshipbetweenefficiencyandeffectiveness isnotdirect,because their focuses (efficiency focusesonprocess, and effectiveness focuses on solution or product) are different. Accordingly in somecasesitisdifficulttoachievecombinationofthetwovariables.

Withsuccessfulapplicationandgoodeffectsinmanufacturingprocess,leanthinkinghasbeengraduallyextendedtodevelopmentfieldinenterprises.Manyworkshavebeenreportedrecent‐ly[15‐17].Valueisthecoreconceptinleanproductdevelopment(LPD).Theessentialofvalueistoguideimprovementprocesses[18].SomescholarshavetriedtoimprovetheperformanceofPDP through the value analysismethod [19] or value streammethod [20, 21].Browning [22]pointedoutthatvalueisafunctionofboththeproductrecipeandtheprocessthatproducesit.Thatistosayboththeeffectivenessoftheproductandtheefficiencyoftheprocessaffectvalue.

However, thereare two typesof value inproductdevelopment,product value andprocessvalueaccordingtoChase[23].Unfortunately,mostofresearches inthis fieldhave ignoredthedifferencebetweenthem,andmainlyfocusedonproductvalue.Differentfromtheproductvaluewhichisdefinedasacapabilityprovidedtoacustomerattherighttimeatanappropriateprice,processvalueisdefinedastheabilitytoperformwithmaximumqualityatminimumcost.Thequalityisrelatedtoeffectiveness,whilethecostisrelatedtoefficiency,andwasteinPDPcanbeunderstoodasinefficiencyandineffectiveness[18],sotheprocessvalueprovidesanewwaytoevaluateandimprovetheperformanceofPDP.

Thispaper is concernedwithperformancemodellingbybuilding theevaluationmethodofprocessvalue.TheproposedmodelthatdescribestheprocessvalueofPDPintegratestheper‐formanceparameters,suchasdevelopmenttime,processcostandproductqualityorfunction.Itinvolvesthefactorssuchasprocessstructure,reworkconstraints,customerrequirementsandsoon.Inthemodel,weextendO’DonnellandDuffy's[14]conceptofeffectiveness.Inourwork,theprocesseffectivenessofoneactivityisevaluatedbyitsrework.Thereworkevaluationmeth‐odbasedonDesignStructureMatrix(DSM)andthecreationgoalevaluationmethodbasedonQualityFunctionDeployment(QFD)are introducedto themodel.Throughtheoptimizationoftheprocessvalue,PDPcanbeimprovedfromdifferentaspects,suchasresourceallocation,pro‐cessarchitectureimprovement,requirementoptimization,etc.Inthisstudywefocusonimprov‐ingPDPfromtheaspectofprocessarchitectureimprovement.

Theremainderofthispaperisorganizedasfollows.Section2discussestheprocessvalueanditsquantitativemethod.Insection3therelationshipbetweenarchitectureandperformanceofPDPisverifiedbysimulationbasedonasample,andanewoptimizationmodelforPDParchitec‐ture isproposed.Anexampleandsomediscussionsaregiven insection4.Finally, theconclu‐sionsandsomeextendedresearcharepresentedinsection5.

2. Performance modelling based on value analysis 

2.1 Process value 

TheimportanceofoneactivityinPDPdescribestherolethattheactivityplaysduringdevelop‐ingproduct,whichcanbeconsideredas theprocesscreationgoalof theactivitydivided fromtheoverallprocesscreationgoalofPDP.Weuse todenotethecreationgoalofanactivityandtodenotetheoverallprocesscreationgoalofPDP.Therelationshipbetweenthemcanbeex‐

pressedasEq.1.

Performance modelling based on value analysis for improving product development process architecture 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017  19

(1)

Here indicates thenumberofactivities.Whetheranactivity isable toachieve itsgoalsorplayitsroleinPDPdependsontheeffectivenessoftheactivity.Inourmethod,theprocesseffec‐tivenessreferstothedegreeoftherelevancebetweenthecreationandthegoaloftheprocessoractivity.Theeffectivenessof theactivity isdenotedby ,while theeffectivenessof thePDP isdenotedby .TheprocessfunctioncanbeconsideredastheactualcreationofactivityorPDP.Theprocessfunctionofanactivitydenotedby andtheprocessfunctionofPDPdenotedby canbecalculatedasEq.2andEq.3.

∙ (2)

∙ (3)

Inaddition, and havethefollowingrelationship:

(4)

Inourmodel theprocessvalue isdefined as the capability to achieve theprocess creationgoalunderappropriatecost.Theprocessvalueofanactivityrepresentedbytheletter ,andtheprocessvalueofthePDPrepresentedbythesymbol ,areformulatedasEq.5andEq.6.

∙ (5)

∙ ∙∙ (6)

ThecostofPDPincludesbothresourceconsumption andtimeconsumption .InEq.6, and respectively represent theweight of the cost and development time. The performancemodelofPDPwitheffectivenessandprocessvalueisexpressedinFig.1.

Fig.1 Effectivenessandprocessvalue

Yin, Gao, Ji  

20  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017

The firstpart∙ ∙

reflectsthedifferentdevelopmentmodesanddevelopmentmethods.

The second part reflects the uncertainties in a PDP, such as the different architectures, re‐worksandsoon.Sowecanselectsuitableproductdevelopmenttypeandimprovethearchitec‐tureofPDPaccordingtoEq.6.Thispaperonlystudiestheimprovementofarchitectureunderafixedproductdevelopmenttype.Theparameters and canbeconsideredasthestaticinfor‐mation,whichcanbeobtainedthroughprediction.Non‐dimensionaltreatmentforthemispro‐duced inanalysisprocess.Thecost is theaccumulationof the costof all activities inPDP innormalexecutingcase.Itistheexpectedcost,ratherthantheactualcostofexecution,andcanbecalculatedaccordingtoEq.7.

∙ (7)

Here istheexpectedcostofunittimeofactivity ,and istheexpectedworkingtimeofac‐tivity .Generally,coefficientof is1.

The development time is affected by the development process architecture. Assume thatthedevelopmenttimeoncriticalpathofaPDPis ,thecoefficientof canbecalculatedbyEq.8.

(8)

Here is theexpected timeof theproductdevelopmentproject, andcanbe consid‐eredasaconstant.

InFig.1inputandoutputofactivityorPDPareindeterminateanddifficulttoevaluate,sointhenextsectionwewillexplorethedecompositionof andevaluate .

2.2 Decomposing of process creation goal 

ofPDPistheperformanceorfunctionofproductthatmustbecreated.Asabroadconcept,itreflectstheextentofhowmuchtheproducttomeetthecustomerrequirements,includingtech‐nicalparameters,qualityandotherattributes.Sothatistosay, it isbasedonthecustomerre‐quirementsandwillnotbechangedduringdevelopment.Inotherwords,itcanbeseenasacon‐stant.However, ofanactivityisdecomposedfrom ofPDPbasedonitsimportanceduringthedevelopment, anddifficult toquantify.The coefficientof activity ( ) isused to express theimportanceofanactivityduringdevelopment.

Customerrequirementisthestarttoevaluateprocess.OnreferringtoQualityFunctionDe‐ployment (QFD)method,which considers thatmeeting customer requirement is the ultimategoal of product development, this paper establishes the mapping matrix from customer re‐quirement to product function, and the mapping matrix from product function to activities.Throughthesematricesthe canbeevaluated.

BecausetheQFDhasbeenquitemature,itisassumedthatthecustomerrequirementsandallofthemappingmatricesareabletobeestimatedorsetbyexperiencedengineers.Thecustomerrequirementscanbeexpressedby , , … , ,where is the totalnumberof cus‐tomerrequirements,and∑ 1.

Themappingmatrixfromproductrequirementstoproductfunctionis

⋯⋮ ⋱ ⋮

⋯,

where indicates the importance coefficient of product function to realize the customerrequirement .Thesumofeveryrowin is1.Theweightofproductfunctions isexpressedby , , … , .Sotheevaluationcoefficientofproductfunctions( )expressedbyvector

, , … , canbecalculatedwithEq.9.

Performance modelling based on value analysis for improving product development process architecture 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017  21

∙ (9)

Similarly,thematrix

⋯⋮ ⋱ ⋮

⋯,

withsumofeverycolumnbeing1,expressesthemappingmatrixfromproductfunctiontode‐velopmentprocess,and indicatestheimportancecoefficientofactivity torealizetheprod‐uct function . So the evaluation coefficient of product function target of activities ( ) ex‐pressedbyvector , , … , ,canbecalculatedwithEq.10.

∙ (10)

Thenthedecomposingformulaof isgivenasEq.11.

(11)

2.3 Effectiveness evaluating based on R‐DSM 

Theeffectivenessreflectsthedegreeofcompletingtheprocesscreationgoal.IfthecreationgoalcannotbefullycompletedbythePDPortheactivity,thepartthathasnotbeencompletedcanbeconsideredasineffective,whichshouldberetrievedbyreworkprocess.Sowecanevaluatetheeffectivenessofactivitythroughitsrework.

Wesupposethatthecompletiondegreeoftheprocessfunctionoftheactivityisrelatedtothecostandtimetheactivityconsumed.AsshowninFig.2,iftheconsumedtimeandcostiscandtheprocesscreationgoalis ,itwillgettheprocessfunction ∙ .Inotherwords,therewillbe processfunctionlefttobereworked,whichisexpressedas .Similarly,inordertogettheprocesscreationgoal functionwhichcanbetheprocesscreationgoalof therework,

theconsumedtimeandcost( )willbe∙,whichisthereworkeffort.Sothereworkrateof

an activity can be calculated as∙

1 . Therefore the activity effectiveness can be

representedandcalculatedsimplybythereworkrateofactivityasEq.12.

1 (12)

Fig.2 Exampleofrework

Reworkscanimproveproductqualityorfunctions,butprobablyitwillincreasethedevelop‐

ment cost and time.We explain the reworkprobability, rework impact and reworkworkloadusing design structurematrix (DSM)method,which is similarwith Browning and Eppinger’s[24].

ReworkprobabilityisameasureofuncertaintyofonecertainPDParchitecture.Fig.3showsthereworkprobability,impactandratethroughtheDSMrepresentation.

ReworkProbabilityDesignStructureMatrix(RP‐DSM): , representstheprobabil‐ity that activity reworks due to activity for , 1,2,⋯ , and . , repre‐sentsthereworkprobabilityoftheactivity duetothechangeofinformationoutsidethePDP,suchaschangesofcustomerrequirements.

Yin, Gao, Ji  

22  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017

Fig.3 DSMofreworkprobability,impactandrate

Rework Impact Design Structure Matrix (RI‐DSM): , represents the rework per‐

centageofcompletedworkofactivity whenitisduetoactivity orotherreasonsout‐sidethePDP.

Rework Rate Design StructureMatrix (RR‐DSM): , represents the actual reworkeffortofactivity affectedbyactivity orotherreasonsoutsidethePDP.Itisproductof

, and , ,asEq.13.

, , , , 1,2,⋯ , (13)

Supposethereare twoactivities.Activity1 is thepredecessoractivityofactivity2,and thetwoactivitieshaveinformationinteractionwitheachother.Accordingtothearchitecture,activi‐ty1 is executedwithout any information fromactivity2,becauseactivity2mustbeexecutedafteractivity1.Afteractivity2iscompleted,activity1wouldbecausedtorework,andthere‐work rate is 1,2 . So the rework effort of activity 1 caused by activity 2 is ∙ 1,2 . Inotherwords,thereworkrateofactivity1is , 1,2 .Becauseactivity2issuccessoractivi‐ty of activity 1, and its rework is caused by the change of activity 1. The change quantity is∙ 1,2 , therefore, the rework effort of activity 2 is

∙∙ ∙ 2,1 , equivalent to

∙ ∙ 2,1 .Inotherwords,thereworkrateofactivity2is , ∙ 1,2 .Similarly, if activity 1 and activity 2 are parallel, theywill be executedwithout any infor‐

mationprovidedbyanotheractivity.Soreworkrateofactivity1is , 1,2 ,whilereworkrateofactivity2is , 2,1 .

Fromtheaboveanalysis,thefollowingconclusionscanbedrawn:

(1) Ifactivity istheupstreamactivityofactivity for , 1,2,⋯ , ,thereworkrateofac‐tivity is , ,andthereworkrateofactivity is ∙ , .

(2) Ifactivity andactivity areparallel,thereworkrateofactivity is , ,andthere‐workrateofactivity is , .

Use to show the precedence relationship between activity and . If activity is the up‐streamactivity of activity , 1.Otherwise, 0. And for all , 1,2,⋯ , , 1and 0.Sotheaboveconclusionscanbeexpressedas:

, , ∙ 1 ∙ , ∙ 1 0 & 1 (14)

Inaddition,theRR‐DSMonlyexpressesthereworkrateofoneactivitywhenitisdirectlyaf‐fectedbyotheractivities.However,inpracticeanactivityusuallyisinfluencedbymultipleactiv‐itiesandsomeactivitiesindirectly.Therefore,itisnecessarytodetermineatotalreworkrate( )ofanactivityunderaspecificPDParchitecture.

Supposethattherearethreeactivities1,2and3,andthereworkrateofactivity1causedbyactivity2and3are , and , respectively.Thustheratethatactivity2doesn'tcauseactivity1toreworkis1 , ,whiletheratethatactivity3doesn'tcauseactivity1toreworkis.That’stosay,theratethatactivity1doesn'treworkis 1 , ∙ 1 , .Inotherwords,thetotalre‐

Performance modelling based on value analysis for improving product development process architecture 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017  23

work rate ( ) of activity 1 is1 1 , ∙ 1 , . So the effectiveness of activity canbeexpressedasEq.15andEq.16.

1 1 , , 1,2,⋯ , (15)

1 , , 1,2,⋯ , (16)

AccordingtoEq.1,Eq.2,Eq.3,Eq.4andEq.11,wecangetthecalculationprocessfortheef‐

fectivenessofonePDPas∑

∑

∑ ∙

∑

∑ ∙ ∙

∑ ∙.Because isaconstantand

∑ 1,sowecangettheformulafor asEq.17.

∙ (17)

3. Optimization model for PDP 

3.1 Computational study 

AnillustrativesampleispresentedfordemonstratingthevalueofPDPanalysis.Thesamplehasthreecustomerrequirements,fourproductfunctionsandfiveactivities.TherequiredinputdataarelistedinFig.4.ThereworksduetoreasonsoutsideofPDParenotconsidered.Forsimplicity,assumethatbothGandCare1,andallthecostsandprocesscreationgoalsofactivitiesareeval‐uatedwiththestandardizedcoefficient.Boththeweightofthecostandtheweightofdevelop‐menttimeare0.5.Theexpectedleadtimeoftheproductdevelopmentis30.

Fig.4 Exampleofrework

AllpossiblePDPprocessarchitecturesareconstructedandtheprocessvaluesarecalculated.

Andtheprocesssimulationsarecarriedoutforallthearchitectures.EachofPDPprocessarchi‐tectures issimulatedby1000times,andthemeanvalueof thesesimulationresults isusedasthe final simulation of the architecture. All of the simulation programs are implemented inMATLAB7.0.

Fig.5showsthesimulationresultsofallthedifferentprocessarchitectures.Theprocessval‐uesarecalculatedbytheformula(6)‐(17),andthecostsanddurationareobtainedbysimula‐tion. The figure depicts both cost and duration show decreasing trendwith the increasing ofprocess value. This concludes that the PDP architectureswith high process value have betterperformance. So development process can be improved by optimizing the PDP architecturebasedonthevalueanalysis.

Yin, Gao, Ji  

24  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017

Fig.5 Simulationresultsanalysisofthecomputationalstudy

3.2 Optimization model for PDP 

Basedon theelementsdiscussedabove,wepropose theoptimizationmodel forPDParchitec‐tureasfollows:

max:∙ ∙

∙ (18)

subjecttoEq.8,Eq.9,Eq.10,Eq.13,Eq.14,Eq.15,Eq.16and

1 , 1,2,⋯ , (19)

1 0 , 1,2,⋯ , (20)

TheoptimizationmodelfocusesontheeffectsofPDParchitectureontheprocessvaluewhichcanexpresstheperformanceofPDP.Inthemodel,theresourcerequirementsareassumedstaticandunlimited, and the customer requirements, process goals, reworkprobability and activitydurationcanbeestimated.Theoptimizationvariablesare ,forall , 1,2,⋯ , and .AllparametersaresummarizedinTable1.Eq.19showsthatthereisnocircuit inthenetworkofPDP.

4. Example application 

Inordertoverifythefeasibilityoftheproposedoptimizationmodel,thedevelopmentprocessofarefrigeratorisstudiedasanexample.ThePDPoftherefrigeratorhas18activitiesanditsde‐tailedinformationisgiveninFig.6.Throughanalysis,wesortedoutthecustomerrequirementsandtheproductfunctions,showninFig.7.Fig.8(a)givestheinitialarchitectureofthePDP.Withtheincreasingofcompetitivepressureitisnecessarytoshortenthedevelopmentcycleandre‐ducethecost.Theexpectedleadtimeis200days. 

Performance modelling based on value analysis for improving product development process architecture 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017  25

Table1ModelparametersParameters DefinitionandDescription

ProcessvalueofPDP OverallprocesscreationgoalofPDP,whichcanbedecomposedinto theprocesscreationgoalsof

activities( ).If isevaluatedwiththestandardizedcoefficient, wouldbe1. ExpectedtotalcostofPDP,whichisthesumofthecostofeachactivity( ).If isevaluated with

thestandardizedcoefficient, wouldbe1. Developmenttimethatexpressedwiththestandardizedcoefficient. ThedevelopmenttimeoncriticalpathofaPDP. Theexpectedleadtimeoftheproductdevelopmentproject.

TheweightofPDPcost. TheweightofPDPduration. EffectivenessofthePDP,whichisthedegreetowhatthecreationduringtheprocessrelatestothe

overallprocesscreationgoalofthePDP. ProcessfunctionofthePDP,whichistheactualcreationofthePDP. Theevaluationcoefficientofproductfunctions . Theevaluationcoefficientofcustomerrequirement Theweightofproductfunction . Thecoefficientofactivity whichisusedtoexpresstheimportanceofanactivity. Themappingmatrixfromproductrequirementstoproductfunction. Themappingmatrixfromproductfunctiontodevelopmentprocess. Creationgoaloftheactivity andevaluatedwiththestandardizedcoefficient. Costoftheactivity .Sometimesitcanbeevaluatedwiththestandardizedcoefficient. Durationofactivity . Effectivenessofactivity Processfunctionofactivity ,whichistheactualcreationandcalculatedusing ∙ ., Theactualreworkeffortofactivity affectedbyactivity for , 1,2,⋯ , ., If ,itistheprobabilitythatactivity isreworkedaffectedbyactivity for , 1,2,⋯ , ,and

elseitisthereworkprobabilityoftheactivity causedbythechangeofinformationoutsidethePDP.

, The rework percentage of completedwork of activity ,when activity is reworked affected byactivity ,orotherreasonsoutsidethePDP.

Thetotalreworkrateofactivity underaspecificPDParchitecture., Thereworkrateofactivity affectedbyactivity orother reasonsoutsideundera specificPDP

architecture. Totalnumberofactivities. Totalnumberofproductfunctions. Totalnumberofrequirement.

ItcanbeseenfromFig.6,someactivitiesinteractwitheachother.Therearetwomaincou‐

plingactivitiesgroups,oneis(5,6,10,14),andtheotheris(4,9,13).ThemappingmatrixFAsofthemshowninFig.9areobtainedbyAnalyticHierarchyProcess(AHP).Theoptimizationmod‐elsareestablishedforthetwocoupledactivitiesgroups,andtheimprovedarchitecturesshowninFig.8(b)isobtained.

Usingthegivenparameters,theprocesssimulationforthearchitecturesbeforeandaftertheimprovementisperformed.Thesimulationruns1000timesforeacharchitecture.Thesimula‐tionresultsaregiveninTable2.

Fig.6 Detailedinformationoftherefrigeratordevelopment

Yin, Gao, Ji  

26  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017

Fig.7 Customerrequirementsandtheproductfunctions

(a)Initialarchitecture(b)improvedarchitecture

Fig.8 ArchitecturesofPDP

Fig.9 MappingmatrixFAsofthetwocouplingactivitiesgroups

Table2Simulationresults

Item Initialscheme ImprovedschemeProcessvalue 0.748 0.793Costbysimulation 9,099 8,730Durationbysimulation 210 194

Comparedwith the initial scheme, thecostof the improvedscheme is reducedby369,000RMB(1US$=6.86RMB),andthedevelopmenttimeisshortenedby16days.

TheperformanceofPDPandthevalueconcepthavereceivedconsiderableattention in thepreviousliteratures.However,noonehasstudiedthesetwotogether.Thisstudyconcludesthatthe PDP with maximum process value has good performance because of its lower cost andshorterdevelopmentperiod.The asacomprehensive indicator isnotonlyrelatedto theprocess cost, process time andproductquality, but also related to the customer requirement,reworkprobabilityandtheproductdevelopmentprocessarchitecture.Underthegoalofmaxim‐izingprocessvalue,wecanimprovePDPfromdifferentaspectsbydifferentoptimizationvaria‐bles.

TheproposedmodelissuitableforimprovingPDPofproductslikerefrigeratorfromthepro‐cess architectureaspect. Theseproductshave strongmarket characteristics, andhavematureandstabledevelopmenttechnology.Theirdevelopmentprocessgoalsarecertain,andtheirde‐velopmentresourcesarerelatively fixed.Thecustomerrequirementscanbeobtainedthroughmarket research,while the reworkprobability and impact betweenactivities canbe obtainedthrough statistical analysis based on historical data. Enterprises that produce these productsmustdevelopandlaunchnewproductsrapidlyinordertooccupythemarket,andalsoneedtoimplementlow‐coststrategyinordertomaximizeprofitability.

Theoptimizationmodelcanalsobeusedtosolveotherimprovementproblembyadjustingconstrainsandoptimizationvariables.Forexample,intheengineeringtoorder(ETO)enterpris‐

Performance modelling based on value analysis for improving product development process architecture

es like mould enterprises, shipyards, etc., multiple products usually are being developed simul-taneously, and this causes competition of sharing resource. In such situation, the optimization goal is still maximizing the process value, but the variables and constraints should be changed. Variables that represent resource allocation will be added to the model as an optimization vari-able, and the variables represent process architecture (𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖) will be used as constraints. Thus, the changed model can be used to solve the resource allocation problem.

5. Conclusion The research studies the performance modelling of PDP based on value analysis. The proposed process value of PDP used to express process performance is a comprehensive indicator of cost, time and function. In the specific quantitative method of the process value, process function is evaluated by process creation goal and effectiveness. To estimate the effectiveness of activities, an evaluation method of rework is introduced, and to estimate the process creation goal of activities, a method referring to QFD is used. We demonstrate the analyzing procedure of process value and verify the relationship between architecture and value of PDP by simulation method based on an example. The simulation results show that the PDP architectures with high process value, have low development cost and short development time. To improve the PDP architecture, an optimization model is provided. Through the model, we improve a refrigerator development process.

Although studies such as this paper have led to a deeper thinking and understand of the pro-cess value and performance of PDP, the empirical research of the value evaluation method and optimization model should be carried out, and simulation and genetic algorithm should be fur-ther studied in the future.

Acknowledgement This work was supported by Shandong Science and Technology Major Project No. 2015ZDXX0103A01 and the Nation-al High-Tech Research and Development Projects (863) under Grant No. 2013AA040204.

References [1] Unger, D., Eppinger, S. (2011). Improving product development process design: A method for managing infor-

mation flows, risks, and iterations, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 22, No. 10, 689-699, doi: 10.1080/ 09544828.2010.524886.

[2] Fu, L., Jiang, P., Cao, W. (2013). Modeling and performance analysis of product development process network, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1489-1502, doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2013.02.006.

[3] Browning, T.R., Eppinger, S.D. (2002). Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 49, No. 4, 428-442, doi: 10.1109/ tem.2002.806709.

[4] von Hippel, E. (1990). Task partitioning: An innovation process variable, Research Policy, Vol. 19, No. 5, 407-418, doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(90)90049-c.

[5] Cedergren, S., Wall, A., Norström, C. (2010). Evaluation of performance in a product development context, Busi-ness Horizons, Vol. 53, No. 4, 359-369, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2010.03.001.

[6] Huang, H.-C., Fu, T.-T. (2006). On the quantitative evaluation and simulation of product development processes, In: The 36th CIE Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, 532-543.

[7] Pun, K.F., Chin, K.S., Yiu, M.Y.R. (2010). An AHP approach to assess new product development performance: An exploratory study, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, 210-218.

[8] Syamil, A., Doll, W.J., Apigian, C.H. (2004). Process performance in product development: measures and impacts, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, 205-217, doi: 10.1108/14601060410549892.

[9] Chwastyk, P., Kołosowski, M. (2014). Estimating the cost of the new product in development process, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 69, 351-360, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.243.

[10] Tarhan, A., Yilmaz., S.G. (2014). Systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of incremental process and agile process, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 56, No. 5, 477-494, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2013.12.002.

[11] Osteras, T., Murthy, D.N.P., Rausand, M. (2006). Product performance and specification in new product develop-ment, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, 177-192, doi: 10.1080/09544820500275735.

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017 27

Yin, Gao, Ji

[12] Bause, K., Radimersky, A., Iwanicki, M., Albers, A. (2014). Feasibility studies in the product development process, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 21, 473-478, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.128.

[13] León, H.C.M., Farris, J.A., Letens, G., Hernandez, A. (2013). An analytical management framework for new product development processes featuring uncertain iterations, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, 45-71, doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.004.

[14] O’Donnell, F.J., Duffy, A.H.B. (2002). Modelling design development performance, International Journal of Opera-tions & Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 11, 1198-1221, doi: 10.1108/01443570210450301.

[15] Liker, J.K., Morgan, J. (2011). Lean product development as a system: A case study of body and stamping devel-opment at Ford, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, 16-28, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2011.11431884.

[16] Rauch, E., Dallasega, P., Matt, D.T. (2015). Axiomatic design based guidelines for the design of a lean product development process, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 34, 112-118, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2015.07.005 .

[17] Pullan, T.T., Bhasi, M., Madhu, G. (2013). Decision support tool for lean product and process development, Pro-duction Planning & Control, Vol. 24, No. 6, 449-464, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.633374.

[18] Kirner, K.G.M., Lindemann, U. (2013). Assessing the performance of product development processes in a multi-project environment in SME, In: Chakrabarti, A., Prakash, R. (eds.), ICoRD'13: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engi-neering, Springer, India, 797-808, doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-1050-4_63.

[19] Leber, M., Bastič, M., Mavrič, M., Ivanišević, A. (2014). Value analysis as an integral part of new product develop-ment, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 69, 90-98, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.207.

[20] Tyagi, S., Choudhary, A., Cai, X., Yang, K. (2015). Value stream mapping to reduce the lead-time of a product de-velopment process, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, 202-212, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014. 11.002.

[21] Agyapong-Kodua, K., Ajaefobi, J.O., Weston, R.H., Ratchev, S. (2012). Development of a multi-product cost and value stream modelling methodology, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50, No. 22, 6431-6456, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2011.648777.

[22] Browning, T.R. (2003). On customer value and improvement in product development processes, Systems Engi-neering, Vol. 6, No. 1, 49-61, doi: 10.1002/sys.10034.

[23] Chase, J.P. (1999). Value creation in the product development process, Masters thesis in Aeronautics and Astro-nautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

[24] Browning, T.R. (2000). Value-based product development: Refocusing lean, In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Engineering Management Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 168-172, doi: 10.1109/EMS.2000.872495.

28 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 12(1) 2017