Managing The Development of Complex Product Systems An Integrative Literature Review

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO.
6, DECEMBER 2021 1619
Managing the Development of Complex Product

Systems: An Integrative Literature Review
Ali A. Yassine
Abstract—Drastic increases in the scale and complexity of of the product, people, and process and the interdependencies
engineered systems present many new challenges for the product between each domain. Consequently, PD is a complex socio-
development (PD) and engineering design communities. PD is technical system and necessitates an innovative approach to
characterized by the development of large, multidisciplinary,
and networked systems that cannot be embraced by a single advance the practices within the field [208].
group or organization. Appropriate PD management principles In this article, the author adopts the PD framework presented
can circumvent many of the difficulties that arise during the PD by Yassine and Bradley [208], which considered PD as an
process. In this article, the author presents an integrative literature outcome of the dynamic interaction between various analysis
review that includes theories, models, and tools that can be used
domains, namely, the product, process, and people domains, as
to manage complex PD. The review is structured around three
PD analysis domains: product, people, and process. The review illustrated in Fig. 1. The product domain consists of the various
does not identify all the publications in any one PD domain, but hardware (and software) modules and components that make up
instead addresses critical issues that exist within each domain the desired final product system. These modules may be related
and at the intersection of these domains. By reviewing these to each other through interactions that vary both by type and the
representative papers and creating a critical discussion around
degree of interaction. The process or project domain consists
them, the intent is to provide an overview of the available theories,
models, and tools for PD practitioners, while simultaneously of the related activities that are required to carry out the PD
identifying opportunities for future research. project. The people domain consists of the people assigned to
Index Terms—Multidomain analysis, product architecture, perform the various project activities. The three domains, as
product decomposition, product development (PD) process, shown in Fig. 1, are interconnected by various dependencies
product development teams. and information flows. Importantly, the development organiza-
tion executes the development process, which implements the
I. INTRODUCTION product architecture. PD managers and engineers must under-
SHIFT in the locus of competition from a process stand and account for the interdependencies, relationships, and
A focus (leveraging economies of scale) to a customer focus
(catering closely to diverse customer needs with customized and
information exchanges, not only within each domain but also
across domains [46], [88], [177].
configurable products), coupled with vast advances in informa- PD practitioners can benefit from this review by being exposed
tion and communication technologies, has resulted in drastic to the various theories and tools that can help them to improve
increases in the scale and complexity of engineered systems. their PD management practices. Also, this review makes practi-
These changes have brought many new challenges and opportu- tioners aware of the mutual interdependence between the various
nities to the product development (PD) and engineering design analysis domains. For example, putting an effort on managing
communities. Complex PD is characterized by the development the PD process (to reduce iteration and rework) may fail without
of large, multidisciplinary, distributed, and networked systems a simultaneous effort to organize the PD teams executing the
that cannot be embraced by a single group or organization [152], process or proper choice of the product decomposition. Ad-
[153]. Traditionally, research in product design and development ditionally, this review should be beneficial to researchers by
has focused on the “technical” aspects of design (e.g., optimal identifying questions for future research.
settings of design vectors) at the expense of the “softer” side, for Krishnan and Ulrich [92] provided a classic review of the
example, project or system management and the social aspects various historical decisions that were made in the PD literature.
of the design process [31], [89], [165]. Today, PD is an amalgam The decision-based review framework considered decisions re-
lated to product strategy and planning, PD organization, and
project management. This is similar to the three-domain analysis
Manuscript received September 21, 2018; revised April 23, 2019; accepted
July 10, 2019. Date of publication August 7, 2019; date of current version August framework adopted in this review except that Krishnan and
20, 2021. This work was supported by the University Research Board at the Ulrich [92] employed a marketing perspective for the product
American University of Beirut. Review of this manuscript was arranged by domain decisions (e.g., the firm’s target market, product mix,
Department Editor X. I. Quan.
The author is with the Department of Industrial Engineering and Manage- project prioritization, and resource allocation), and the author
ment, American University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon (e-mail: assumes an engineering perspective, where a product domain
[email protected]). is expressed as a collection of interacting modules and compo-
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. nents. Furthermore, these decisions are discussed independently
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2019.2929660 by Krishnan and Ulrich, [92], and in this article, the author argues
0018-9391 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 13:56:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1620 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2021
revealed an overarching theme that underscored the importance

of studying the product, process, and people domains, and their
interconnected relationships to understand and improve the PD
practices and outcomes [133], [189]. However, the field lacks
an integrative framework and needs a discussion of the theories,
techniques, and research opportunities at the intersection of these
domains.
When surveying the literature and selecting the publications
to include in this review, a semistructured process was adopted
[187]. First, a superset of publications was collected, which
contained a list of influential papers. The superset was based
on the author’s prior knowledge and expertise in the various
domains of the proposed PD framework. It was assembled
by searching the tables of contents of a broad set of journals
spanning the academic fields of engineering design, operations
management, systems engineering, and engineering and project
management, and was combined with more than 20 years of
Fig. 1. Complex product design and development (adapted from [208]).
experience in the PD field.3 The references from the publication
superset were then used to identify additional relevant sources.
Relevant papers were selected and the references in these papers
that these decisions are complex and interesting because the
were also scrutinized for additional applicable references to
three domains are intertwined in PD.
supplement our literature review.
Yassine and Wissmann [213] proposed a similar framework to
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In
classify the research domains surrounded and impacted by the
Sections II–IV, existing models, methods, and tools from the
product architecture. Their framework was constructed along
literature that can be applied to each domain are described
two dimensions: “Facet of the firm” and “What is managed.”
and discussed. This article does not attempt to identify all the
The facet dimension indicated which system element (i.e., orga-
publications or models in a specific domain, but instead focuses
nization, product, or consumer) a piece of research considered,
on obtaining a representative collection of papers that define,
and the second dimension categorized how value was created
explain, and describe the useful models, methods, and tools.
by the facet (managing portfolios, establishing a structure, or
The discussion on domains is followed by a critical review
executing processes). As a result, the proposed framework in
of the literature to expose complex issues, research problems,
this review is an in-depth exploration of components from the
and models that exist at the intersection of these domains in
larger framework proposed by Yassine and Wissmann [213].
Sections V and VI). Section VII concludes the article.
The ZOPH model to describe a PD environment, developed by
Negele et al. [130], identified the same three domains as the ones
II. PRODUCT/SYSTEM DECOMPOSITION AND ARCHITECTURE
discussed here, in addition to the goals and tools domains [27].1
Similarly, Lindemann and Maurer [105] used a multidomain ap- System decomposition is a divide-and-conquer solution strat-
proach that considered the complexity cycle for multiple factors egy that entails breaking the problem (system) into smaller
including market complexity, product complexity, process com- and simpler subproblems (subsystems), solving the simplified
plexity, and organizational complexity. They proposed a scheme subproblems, and then combining or integrating the subsolutions
in which these domains were connected by the information- to generate a solution to the original problem [148]. An ideal
sharing activity that took place within an organization. More re- decomposition has coordination benefits because it enables in-
cently, Bartolomei et al. [11] identified and defined the domains dependent problem solving within each module and assures that
that are common to all engineering projects, which included all modules will fit together through the use of standardized inter-
the social, technical, process, environmental, and functional faces [14]. The standardization of component interfaces is based
domains.2 Notably, the conserved social, technical, and process on a firm’s architectural knowledge and decouples architectural
domains correspond to our people/product/process triad. Finally, knowledge-based processes from component-level knowledge
recent reviews of the design structure matrix (DSM) method that is used to develop specific modules during the PD [155].
by Eppinger and Browning [50] and Browning [23], [25] were Unfortunately, in most nontrivial engineered systems, it is of-
organized around a similar framework. Product, organization, ten difficult to perform an ideal decomposition. Subproblems
and process DSMs were discussed. Reviewing the literature cannot be solved in complete isolation from each other. Instead,
1 The tools domain is defined as the technologies that are used (e.g., compu- 3 These journals include (as recommended by similar PD literature reviews,
tation, communication, visualization, etc.) by the people to complete the work including by Krishnan and Ulrich [92], Browning [25], and Wynn and Eckert
to execute the product. The goals domain is associated with the goal hierarchies [201]): ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Design Studies, Research in
and requirement tradeoffs that are made in the remaining four domains [27]. Engineering Design, Journal of Engineering Design, Management Science,
2 The environmental domain is defined as all the exogenous components that Production and Operations Management, European Journal of Operational
affect or are affected by the engineering system, and the functional domain Research, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, Systems
corresponds to the goals domain in the ZOPH model [11]. Engineering Journal, and Journal of Product Innovation Management.
YASSINE: MANAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX PRODUCT SYSTEMS: AN INTEGRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW 1621
the solution for one subproblem affects the solutions for the product changeability and evolvability [103], [111], complex
remaining subproblems. Therefore, it is essential to coordinate systems [55], [56], and network science [175], [176] literature.
individual subproblem solutions to guarantee that the resulting Modularity has been used to understand, manage, and design
designs align with each other and to ensure that the subsystem the complex PD projects [218]. Modular product designs also
designs collectively comprise an overall design that is optimal allow for a platform strategy [150]. A platform is a set of
for the entire system. modules and components that support variety and evolvability
In his seminal work, Simon [162] argued that a complex in a product. The architecture of platform products is usually
system can be organized and explained using decomposition composed of a set of core, persistent modules with low variety
to identify and reduce a system into its redundant elements. (which we call the platform), and a set of peripheral modules
He proposed using a hierarchic model where a complex system with high variety that can quickly generate product derivatives
is recursively decomposed into subsystems until an elementary through the addition or substitution of the peripheral modules
level is reached. The criterion for reduction is functionality. [10]. Alternatively, design change management studies have fo-
Subsystems are decomposed functionally, and similarities are cused on measuring component changeability by considering the
collapsed together to achieve hierarchical levels. He also defined change propagation that occurs from direct or indirect influences
near decomposability as a property of complex systems, which [69], [80]. Product evolvability is defined as the ability of the
occurs when the interactions between subsystems in a complex product design to subsequently generate heritable performance-
system are weaker than the interactions within them. Around the improving variations [111]. Both Luo [111] and Fricke and
same time, influential work by Alexander [4], which described Schulz [61] applied the NK model, which demonstrated that the
relationship diagrams as a useful method for managing com- product architecture affected the ability of a product design to
plexity, also established a new way of thinking about designing evolve in the future.4 Sosa et al. [175], [176] used social network
complex engineered systems. Years later, Steward [179], [180], analysis (SNA) techniques to analyze the statistical properties of
Kusiak and Park [95], and Eppinger [49] proposed decomposing component networks. They showed that there is a link between
the design process into an interacting set of activities. Further- the structural properties of components (i.e., component modu-
more, the activities and their interactions could be captured using larity) and their redesign potential [175]. They also highlighted
a matrix-based representation called the DSM. They showed the link between the structural properties of components and
that analyzing this matrix provided a useful method to simplify the product quality [176]. In summary, using complex systems,
the complexity of the engineering design process. Notably, in SNA, or other quantitative approaches to understand and manage
the field of multidisciplinary design optimization, decomposi- modularity, design change propagation, and product evolvability
tion of the optimization problem into smaller subproblems is are all promising approaches that merit further investigation
a necessary first step that influences how the subproblems are and opens new and interesting research avenues. The principal
coordinated through common design variables [7], [96], [123]. issues and research opportunities discussed in this section are
Several tools exist in the engineering design literature to illustrated in Fig. 2, which also includes selected representative
decompose a product system into smaller elements [64]. Some publications.
of the widely used tools are DSM [144], function structure
diagrams (FSD) [181], [182], and modular function deployment III. ORGANIZING FOR PD: DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
(MFD) [54]. Despite their potential benefits, these tools are
The design and development of complex product systems,
limited by guidelines and heuristics, they lack an explicit metric
including automobiles and airplanes, require the collaboration
to measure modularity, and they rely on an undirected search
of hundreds of experts from diverse technical backgrounds to
for modules. Additionally, their outcomes heavily depend on
complete a common mission or objective [192]. These experts
the background and expertise of the user (e.g., [135], [181],
are usually divided into various PD teams [6]. Including different
and [182]). Consequently, these methods are likely to result
professionals on the team combines the knowledge and expertise
in nonoptimal and/or nonunique product decompositions [77].
of various functional areas to effectively exchange ideas, quickly
Indeed, experiments applying DSM, FSD, and MFD to the same
resolve design conflicts, and successfully develop new products.
example with identical inputs showed that they can produce
Therefore, team members must possess both technical and team
significantly different results [76]. Holtta and Salonen [76]
skills, including communication, to perform successfully as a
reported that the computerized DSM method was the most
group [129].
reproducible approach, followed by the FSD heuristic-based
Literature on teams is abundant and comes from diverse fields
approach, whereas the MFD approach was the least repro-
including product and software development, management and
ducible. However, more research is needed to develop com-
organization sciences, and social psychology [48], [57], [100],
petent methodologies to assist in generating optimal product
[131], [157]. These studies normally describe team size and
decompositions and suggesting sensible product architectures.
composition, team dynamics, team performance, successful
Specifically, research regarding decomposition granularity, doc-
umenting interfaces, clustering metrics, and clustering methods
are of great significance. 4 Kauffman [86] introduced the NK model, based on Boolean networks, where
The product architecture literature has strong connections to the performance of individual nodes is determined by the nodes themselves and
the state of the other nodes to which they are connected. The model depends on
modularity, [9], [19], product family design and platforming two parameters: N, the number of elements in the network, and K, the number
[150], [163], [164], design change management [39], [66], [90], of elements that a node depends on.
Fig. 2. Research opportunities and representative publications in each domain and at domain intersections (adapted from [206]).
team characteristics, methods for selecting team members, and models, simulation and computational organizational models,
successful team member and leader characteristics (personality) and network-based models (i.e., graph-based models, DSM-
[129]. Furthermore, this literature can be classified as either based models, and SNA-based models).
qualitative and empirical or mathematical and computational Mathematical models for forming PD teams are divided into
[68]. Here, the author focuses on the quantitative PD literature, two general approaches [43]. The first approach is based on
which includes models and methodologies to form and analyze minimizing the required communication flow and coordinating
the performance of development teams using optimization the needs among various development participants [126]. The
second approach is based on individual team member character- results of the MBTI survey, combined with other ratings (i.e.,
istics, where team members are selected because they possess a multifunctional knowledge and working relationship) that were
favorable characteristic, such as a professional skill or person- obtained using the analytic hierarchy process, were integrated
ality trait [199]. Appropriately, van de Water et al. [194] refer to into an ILP model that predicted an optimal team composition.
the values prioritized in these approaches as functional roles and Similarly, Fitzpatrick and Askin [226] used the Kolbe conative
team roles. The functional role is related to an individual’s func- index to measure the drive and character of individuals, which
tion in the organization and is normally based on their experience consequently, reflected the quality of the composed team.
and expertise. However, functional roles do not consider the way Computational and simulation approaches [70], [81], [104],
people interact with one another, and thus, the proposed notion [151] have contributed detailed models of the organizational and
of team roles is also important. The team role is described in the intraorganizational communication that supports organizational
context of the team member behavior and includes the ability engineering for project teams. Agent-based approaches have
for communication, coordination, and cooperation. attempted to simulate complex innovation and decision interac-
Early work on teams using quantitative analysis dates back tions among different actors in an organization [32], [125]. For
to Marschak [116] and Radner [146], [147]. Marschak [116] example, Jin and Levitt [81] built an agent-based model (ABM)
introduced team theory and motivated the development of the [called the virtual design team (VDT)] that simulated microlevel
field. Additionally, Marschak introduced a solution technique information processing and designer coordination. This enabled
analogous to game theory, which is known as the team formation them to observe project level performance that emerged from
problem and includes the decisions of distinct individuals on designer interactions.
the team. Later, Radner [147] extended the decision theory Solow et al. [169] applied the NK model to study team compo-
framework (i.e., decision making under uncertainty) to formalize sition and performance. The NK model mathematically captured
the theory of teams. Recently, a popular trend in the operations how relationships among team members impacted individual
research and (PD) literature was to present the team formation and team performance in a team with variable composition. By
problem as an integer linear program that focused on finding replacing members of a team and augmenting member interde-
the optimal match between people and the desired functional re- pendencies, a manager can enhance the performance of other
quirements. Most of these mathematical optimization problems team members. Managerial insights into the best replacement
are NP-complete [98]. In addition, heuristic and metaheuristic strategy can be gleaned from studying the NK model. The NK
solution procedures and algorithms are usually proposed. model has no leader; therefore, extensions of the NK model that
For example, Feng et al. [58] proposed a binary integer include cooperative and motivational leadership are presented
linear programming optimization model for the selection of in [168] and [170], respectively.
team members (from different departments within an orga- A special form of the DSM method, called team-based DSM,
nization) based on individual and collaborative performance has also been used to successfully form development teams
metrics/criteria. Criteria for measuring individual performance [118]. A team-based DSM is constructed by first identifying
could be work experience, specialized knowledge, or functional the required communication flows and then representing them
expertise, whereas collaborative criteria could be related to coop- as connections between organizational entities in the matrix. It is
eration, communication, knowledge sharing, a complementary important to specify what is meant by a “communication flow”
knowledge base, a compatible culture, and mutual trust. Simi- among organizational entities. Table I presents several possible
larly, van de Water et al. [194] proposed a binary optimization ways the flow of information can be characterized.6 The matrix
model that considered both functional and team roles when can be manipulated to obtain clusters of highly interacting teams
assigning team members to a cross functional team. Lappas et al. and individuals while minimizing intercluster interactions.
[98] used mathematical formulations that considered required SNA can also be used to study the characteristics of successful
skills in addition to the expected communication costs between PD teams and to determine the composition of an efficient
selected team members. The communication cost can be es- multidisciplinary team that will subsequently facilitate infor-
timated from a given edge-weighted social network, where a mation transfers within a large development project. Batallas
low weight value on an edge between two individuals indicates and Yassine [12] proposed a systematic approach based on SNA
a low communication cost. Edge weights can reflect distance for organization development that determined and assigned the
in an organizational chart or the number of joint projects that roles of information leaders within the established PD network
have been completed. Finally, other mathematical formulations structure. Later, Collins et al. [227] proposed to integrate the
have attempted to form software development teams with the DSM with SNA to study task interactions within a PD process.
objective of minimizing the coordination effort between team This approach led to new insights about communication and
members (e.g., [203] and [204]). collaboration in distributed and collaborative engineering design
Other researchers have augmented mathematical optimiza- [91]. After applying SNA metrics to measure information flow
tion approaches with personality profiling to select team mem- properties, important PD tasks and interactions that constrained
bers. For example, Chen and Lin [225] used the Myers–Brigss PD process execution were identified. Functional managers and
type indicator (MBTI) survey to measure candidate personality process architects can use these data to identify important or
and evaluate their interpersonal relationships on a team.5 The overloaded tasks. They can also evaluate whether tasks such
5 The MBTI is popular and widely used approach in personality profiling 6 A systematic and quantitative method for identifying and measuring coordi-
[127], [199]. nation drivers and barriers in global PD projects can be found in [205].
TABLE I
CHARACTERIZATION OF INFORMATION FLOWS
as stage gates and design reviews act as effective information PD and an integrating taxonomy. The potential for iteration,
flow regulators in the PD process. In a follow up paper, Collins and thus increased process time and cost, can be minimized by
et al. [228] examined the organizational changes that occurred by resequencing or partitioning the project DSM [214]. Partitioning
comparing a company’s PD network properties at two timepoints an activity DSM is the process of manipulating (i.e., reordering)
during PD. SNA showed that tasks have varying roles and the DSM rows and columns to create a new DSM arrangement
burdens with respect to how they share information with other that does not contain any feedback marks; thus, transforming
tasks in the process. the DSM into a lower triangular form [214]. However, in a real
This line of PD research based on social networks has been PD process, the idealized sequence is unlikely to exist [214],
gaining traction as more as more firms are emphasizing net- and the sequence of design activities that minimizes feedback
worked resources and open innovation practices [193]. These is chosen instead.7 This problem is an NP-hard combinatorial
practices are founded on the assertion that the information, optimization problem and is usually approached with heuristics
knowledge, and resources, required for the successful comple- or metaheuristics [121]. However, the fastest PD processes may
tion of a PD project, are distributed to various independent but not be the ones with minimal iteration [26] because iteration
networked participants within and outside organizational bound- caused by appropriate activity overlapping can be advanta-
aries [200]. Therefore, the key challenge to PD organizations is geous [94]. Thus, iterations also contribute to time–cost tradeoff
to understand team dynamics using SNA in order to utilize and opportunities for managers [120].8
support networked resources and innovation. For example, Fuge In PD projects, overlapping occurs when considering the
et al. [62] used SNA techniques to study of an online collabo- possibilities and implications of replacing required input infor-
rative design community. They reported that highly connected mation with partial (i.e., incomplete or unfinalized) information
members talked more to less connected members than to each or assumptions (assumptions are used in lieu of unavailable, but
other. Then, they discussed the advantages and disadvantages required input information) [120]. Development activities can
that this structure had on coordinating distributed design teams be overlapped when downstream activities make use of partial
and resources. In closing, SNA analysis for collaborative and upstream information or assumptions. This allows downstream
distributed development teams can play an important role in activities to start before the completion of upstream activities.
understanding and characterizing crowdsourcing and open in- Although overlapping can reduce the development lead time,
novation practices in PD, but further research is required [59]. it risks in hurting the overall process. Importantly, allowing an
activity to begin without all of its input information can reduce
IV. PROCESS/PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN PD the overall time and cost of the process as given in the following.
1) If the partial upstream information does not change
Competent project management skills are essential for suc- drastically from its communicated partial form.
cessful PD practices [15]. Consequently, substantial literature 2) If the assumptions about the unavailable upstream
exists on project scheduling [74]; however, most of this literature information are good.
is dedicated to noncyclic project networks, which do not allow 3) If the changes in upstream input information have a small
for activity repetition [30]. Thus, project management theory impact on the dependent downstream activity.
regarding scheduling and crashing activities, developed for non- 4) If the downstream activity can be reworked much faster
cyclical processes, can be misleading in the context of iterative than its original duration [26].
PD projects [120].
PD projects are notorious for being highly iterative due to the
learning, exploration, and experimentation that are necessary 7 A simple metric or objective function (OF) is to choose the DSM arrangement
for many development activities. Furthermore, revisiting earlier that minimizes the total count of feedback marks. A more sophisticated OF would
design decisions as the project evolves is sometimes required. take into consideration the length of the feedback loop. More involved objectives
for DSM partitioning could also be devised [121].
There is no comprehensive classification scheme for iteration, 8 In classical project management literature, the standard way to reduce project
although the literature refers to different types of iteration duration is to expedite critical activities by assigning additional resources (e.g.,
as planned versus unplanned, sequential versus parallel, good more personnel, overtime, or better tools), an approach known as “crashing”
[145]. Therefore, activity crashing is a well-known time–cost tradeoff opportu-
versus bad, and major versus minor. The reader is directed to nity because it has the potential to shorten the duration of an activity with some
Wynn and Eckert [201] for an excellent review of iteration in added cost.
When some of these conditions are not met, then starting an and frequency for exchanging information related to the activity.
activity without all its inputs can cause unnecessary rework. Furthermore, in a sequel paper, Yassine et al. [210] considered
Upstream tasks can and may communicate updated partial the uncertainty in the quality of information that was exchanged
information multiple times to dependent downstream tasks, and derived a threshold policy for their two-activity model. They
including at progressive timepoints during the overlapping pe- also analyzed a three-activity model, but the inherent complexity
riod before the finalized information is transmitted. The design made it difficult to identify a threshold solution. Therefore,
decisions, which are the outputs of a task, can be altered after the simulations were used to understand the problem dynamics.
receipt of new information. The receipt of new information is Simulation-based models can be valuable tools to analyze PD
followed by an analysis phase where the value of the new infor- processes. More specifically, simulations are commonly used
mation is evaluated, and an appropriate rework is performed, if to evaluate the impact of iteration and overlapping practices on
necessary. Notably, information sharing is not always beneficial development cycle time and cost [3], [16], [26]. Early discrete
to the development process, and oversharing hinders the rate of event simulation models treated PD processes as a stochastic
progress due to the frequent evaluation of the new information. processing network where development resources were worksta-
Conversely, withholding partial information updates can also tions and development tasks were jobs flowing between and pro-
slow down development and cause unnecessary major reworking cessed by the workstations [3]. A few years later, the DSM-based
of specific activities. Overlapping models attempt to determine simulation model was introduced by Browning and Eppinger
which activities should be allowed to overlap based on partial in- [26]. Subsequent additions and improvements to the original
formation exchanges or assumptions, and these decisions impact Browning and Eppinger simulation model can be found in [1],
development lead time and cost [26]. Therefore, overlapping [37], and [207]. In particular, Meier et al. [120] adapted the basic
creates another time–cost tradeoff for managers. Ultimately, DSM simulation model to test various work policies with the aim
crashing, overlapping, and partial information exchange policy of uncovering superior PD work policies and evaluated their
are managerial decisions about when to start and stop activities. impact on development cycle time and cost. A comprehensive
The rules specifying when to start and stop working on an activ- review and comparison of the various simulation approaches
ity are called a work policy. A work policy can include criteria for can be found in [85]. More research is required for determining
crashing and overlapping activities. It can also designate when optimal work policies for various process architectures and
to wait for final inputs and when to proceed with preliminary process properties.
information or assumptions [120]. PD processes have also been studied using SNA techniques.
Many mathematical models of overlapping in PD utilize the For example, Braha and Bar-Yam [21] applied SNA to study the
concept of incomplete or partial information exchange [65], statistical properties of large design and engineering projects.
[92]. One of the earliest models was proposed by Krishnan et al. Their study demonstrated that these development process net-
[94]. The model employed an overlapping framework for two works have structural properties that are similar to other bio-
sequential development activities based on a downstream rework logical, social, and technological networks. Furthermore, they
formulation that was dependent on both upstream information presented a generic model of error dynamics that encompassed
evolution and downstream sensitivity. Based on these two con- interactions throughout the network. The underlying network
structs, the authors found the optimal time to start overlapping. structural properties provided critical information about error
The concepts of dependence, sensitivity, and evolution are at the and defect propagation, including whether errors occurred and
core of discussions in the PD literature that pertain to overlap how rapidly. Moreover, these architectural properties had impli-
upstream and downstream activities. Dependence refers to the cations for the functional utility of engineered systems including
information exchange that takes place between an upstream and their sensitivity and robustness. In the context of resource alloca-
downstream activity. Sensitivity quantifies the effect of a change tion in complex engineering networks, Braha and Bar-Yam also
that is implemented as a result of new upstream information. showed that the right-skewness property of degree distributions
Mathematically, this is the difference in percent progress of in real, complex engineering networks provided a strategy for
an activity divided by the perceived progress after a change is harnessing the system. Engineering and management efforts,
introduced. Evolution is defined as the rate that describes the as well as investments, were focused on central information
generation of design information from the start of an activity consuming and generating nodes and their couplings with neigh-
until its completion. boring nodes. More recently, Wu et al. [200] also visualized
Loch and Terwiesch [107] described overlapping uncertainty the process of transforming customer needs into functional
in terms of the number of changes that occurred in the upstream requirements, design parameters, and process variables using
activity that caused changes in the downstream activity. The SNA.
frequency of these changes was assumed to follow a nonsta- Similar to the previous discussion describing organizations
tionary Poisson arrival process with a variable rate that was as complex systems, a smaller body of research has investigated
defined along the duration of the upstream phase. Lin et al. the convergence properties of the PD process when modeled
[106] followed a similar approach by assuming a nonhomoge- as a complex set of decisions with the NK model [117], [124].
neous Poisson process for both the upstream change occurrences For example, Oyama et al. [137] extended the NK model to
and the dependence function. Yassine et al. [212] developed a incorporate the different dependence types that exist between
dynamic programming model that minimized the development the activities of a PD project. Specifically, they explored com-
effort of a single activity. The model provided the optimal timing plementary versus conflicting dependencies and showed that the
type of dependence between system elements can moderate the tasks (e.g., routine tasks), the proximity of development team
effect of system complexity. This impacts the tradeoff between members, and the product release time pressure.
system development time and system performance. For exam- To investigate the mirroring hypothesis, many researchers
ple, when there are minimal complementarities, as complexity have examined the alignment between the organizational
increases, system performance declines. However, at the same structure and the technical interdependencies between system
time, system development time is reduced. Conversely, when components. The organizational structure is represented by
there are many complementarities, both system performance communication between PD team members. Additionally, the
and system development time increase as a function of increased system components are represented by the product architecture.
complexity [137].9 Research using the theory of complex sys- For example, Sosa et al. [173] presented an approach to
tems to develop new process and project models can bring new compare the product architecture with the development
insights into process and project management and may prove to organization using DSM models and network analysis. The
be a promising research path. product architecture was represented by a component DSM, the
organization interactions were captured using a team DSM, and
V. MODELS RELATING TWO PD DOMAINS the comparison between both DSMs was captured using a third
alignment matrix. According to Sosa et al. [174], there were
In this section, models and opportunities from the literature two types of interface mismatches unattended interfaces and
that exist at the intersection of two domains are investigated. unidentified interfaces. Unattended interfaces occurred when
First, the organizational and product domains, second, the orga- an interface existed, but the component teams did not transfer
nizational and process/project domains, and finally, the product information. Conversely, unidentified interfaces occurred when
and process/project domains are discussed. a team interaction existed, but a component interface did not. The
PD case study revealed that 52% of the cross boundary design
A. Organizational and Product Domains interfaces were unmatched by team interactions and that 25% of
Various studies have documented the interdependence be- the cross boundary team interactions were unmatched by design
tween the organizational and product domains in software interfaces [173]. Similarly, Gokpinar et al. [67] used networks
(e.g., [102], [113], and [114]) and hardware (e.g., [33], [67], to characterize both product architecture and communication
and [173]) development projects. For example, MacCormack patterns within the vehicle development process of a major
et al. [113] investigated the difference in the architecture of auto company. They characterized mismatches between the
software products developed by different organizational forms product architecture and organizational structure by defining
(commercial organizations compared to open-source communi- a new metric, termed the coordination deficit. Then, they
ties). They found strong evidence that supported the mirroring empirically demonstrated that the coordination deficit during
hypothesis, which predicts that different organizational forms PD led to more warranty claims, which indicated product quality
will produce products with distinctly different architectures. problems.
Their results showed the architecture of a product developed Most of the research describing the relationship between the
by a loosely coupled organization (i.e., open-source software) product and organizational architectures is empirical. However,
was significantly more modular than a product developed by a there are some examples in the literature that propose math-
tightly coupled organization. Similarly, Cabigiosu and Camuffo ematical models and procedures to address the link between
[33] analyzed the product and organizational architectures of the two domains. For example, one of the earliest attempts to
three firms in the air conditioning industry and reported that understand and model the relationship between team formation
the degree of product component coupling directly correlated and product characteristics was introduced by Zakarian and
with the degree of supplier organization coupling. Similarly, Le Kusiak [222]. A member of a multifunctional team was selected
and Panchal [102] investigated the mirroring hypothesis using based on the importance of the information the team member
data from an open-source software product. They modeled the provided, in the context of a particular product characteristic
product architecture and development organization as networks or customer requirement [222]. s used two quality function de-
of interacting components and collaborating development par- ployment (QFD) matrices to first map customer requirements to
ticipants, respectively. Then, they analyzed the interdependent engineering characteristics. Next, they mapped the engineering
coevolution of these two networks across consecutive product characteristics to potential team members that could contribute
generations. Based on their analysis, they concluded that the useful knowledge and information to these characteristics. Then,
product architecture significantly influenced the development the list of potential team members was prioritized with respect
of community structure. However, the impact of the community to each engineering characteristic using pairwise comparisons
structure on the product architecture was less pronounced. More that followed the analytic hierarchy process. Finally, an inte-
recently, Ebrahim and Camuffo [47] reported that “nonmir- ger program was formulated to select the team members that
roring” between the product and organizational architectures maximized the total priority weight of the multifunctional team.
also occurred and depended on the nature of the development Another approach that relates the product domain to the
organizational domain was proposed by Bonjour et al. [17].
First, by interviewing system architects, a list of components
9 Other PD process models are discussed at-length (e.g., contexts, advantages, and component interfaces were identified. Second, the relation-
and limitations) in [28] and [166], and, more recently, in [202]. ships between components and component designers were also
identified by interviewing system architects. These relationships breakdown structure (OBS), and a responsibility assignment
were captured in a rectangular incidence matrix. The involve- matrix (RAM) [145]. A WBS is a deliverable, oriented de-
ment level of each designer in the component design was also composition of a project into smaller components. It captures
identified in this step. Finally, specific rules were followed to all the work elements of a project in an organized way and
generate the organization DSM from the component-designer contains a hierarchical list of activities for a project. This list
rectangular incidence matrix. For example, designers that were can be derived from previous experience with similar projects
involved in the design of the same component or in the design of or by brainstorming the various activities required for successful
two components that shared interfaces were likely to collaborate, project completion. A project OBS is a depiction of the project
with the aim of ensuring product definition and integration. More organization that is arranged to communicate the reporting re-
recently, Luna and Eppinger [110] used a similar approach to lationships within the project. It is a direct representation and
Sosa et al. [173]. However, to capture additional insights for description of the hierarchy and organizations that will provide
potential reorganization, they added experience level, workplace the necessary resources to plan and perform the work identified
location, and communication type to the alignment matrix. Then, in the WBS. The OBS is depicted on the RAM, where it is used
they used this enhanced alignment matrix to suggest a new to identify the organization responsible and accountable for all
organization considering both the technical architecture and the the WBS elements.
organizational factors. The new organization was established The classical resource constrained project scheduling prob-
using a novel DSM clustering approach wherein the organiza- lems (RCPSP) is also linked to the organizational and project
tional structure was considered simultaneously with the product domains [35], [71]. Several exact and heuristic techniques have
architecture. Yang et al. [205] also developed a product DSM been proposed to solve the RCPSP [29], [30], [190], [217].
clustering algorithm that reduced the total coordination cost for However, many of these proposed techniques do not account
participants involved in a global PD project. for the available skills and competencies that will be assigned
Complexity theory has also been used to explain the mirroring to the project activities [2]. Accordingly, Acuna and Juristo
hypothesis. For example, Songhori et al. [79] investigated the [2] considered positions as roles and extended the mapping of
relationship between the organizational and product domains positions to skills by considering the psychological traits that
using a variation of the NK model. In the adapted model, product were suitable for playing the role. A correspondence between
design was conceptualized as a search on a rugged landscape and software development roles and a likelihood of needed person-
the misalignments between both domains were conceptualized ality features were computed. In a similar approach, Otero et al.
as design teams searching on a “perceived” rather than a “real” [134] presented a method that associated a set of required skills
landscape. Analysis of the model showed that misalignments with each software task. The method assigned available human
affected the convergence behavior of the search process (i.e., resources to complete the required tasks. The work by Otero
the time to converge) and the final design quality. Although et al. [134] addressed the situation where available resources
misalignments significantly affected the convergence time, they fell short of the required skills and minimized the learning time
did not always cause an increase in convergence time. It was based on the gap between missing and available skills. Finally,
concluded that misalignments were not a critical factor in the Zaraket et al. [223] proposed an integer linear programming
final design quality. model that selected the optimal project portfolio and allocated
Finally, agent-based simulation models [138] have been also talent (i.e., human resources) to satisfy the skills required by the
proposed to investigate the link between the organizational and projects within the portfolio.
process domains. Le and Panchal [101] developed an ABM to When considering resource allocation for development tasks,
study the effects of the product architecture within a distributed it may be important to consider coordination and commu-
and collaborative development environment. The agent-based nication costs, which are embedded in the dependence rela-
simulation model allowed development managers to experiment tionships between the people selected to carry out the spec-
with different product architectures. Managers could choose the ified tasks. The problem becomes a balance of assigning the
architecture that was most suitable for collaboration based on the best resource to perform a task, but also must consider the
evolution or completion time of both individual modules and the coordination/communication overhead cost (see Section VI).
entire product. Componation and Byrd [43] experimented with various sta-
In conclusion, many models investigated whether (and how) tistical clustering methods to structure concurrent engineering
the product architecture resembled the organizational structure teams based on task interactions, communication needs, and
(i.e., the mirroring hypothesis). However, further research the disciplines required to complete each of the tasks within a
is needed that investigates organizational communication PD project. They considered various mathematical clustering
patterns and coordination mechanisms required for a specific approaches and grouped PD design tasks together. Then, cross
decomposition or product architecture. functional teams were constructed based on the task clusters that
formed as a result of each approach. The resultant team structures
were compared to develop a team structuring methodology that
B. Organizational and Project/Process Domains allowed for faster project completion and reduced project failure
Scope management, which is performed during the early risk. Wang et al. [197] proposed a mathematical model based
stages of project management, links the organizational and on integer programming to formulate the team organization
project/process domains. Scope management is composed of problem. In the mathematical model, the following requirements
three steps: a work breakdown structure (WBS), an organization for team organization were considered.
1) The similarities between the current task and the the exchange of partial information. Participants may be afraid to
completed tasks. share partial information because they do not want to be blamed
2) The technical abilities, creation abilities, management if the information changes at a later point in time.
abilities, work achievements, and cooperation abilities of
the developers.
3) The numbers, workloads, and utilization rates of the C. Product and Process/Project Domains
developers. The link between the product and process (or project) domains
Agent-based simulation models have also been used to link is under-investigated when compared to the other two-domain
the organizational and process domains [161]. For example, intersections that have already been discussed [52]. To explore
Johnson et al. [82] first used general availability to allocate this relationship, it is helpful to first identify the metrics that
designers to design tasks and considered both designer availabil- characterize each domain, and then to define the interdomain
ity and their competencies. Then, as a coordination mechanism relationship using these metrics. In the product domain, the
for interdependent tasks, they used an ABM to determine the distinguishing metrics are architecture (i.e., product architec-
optimal information exchange policy between the designers. ture), complexity (i.e., number of parts/modules and interfaces),
Tripathy and Eppinger [188] developed an optimization model quality and/or performance, technological level, and innovative-
that linked the process DSM and the organization DSM by ness [84], [102]. On the other hand, there are only two metrics
explicitly accounting for task execution and coordination time. that are commonly used to evaluate the performance of a PD
Task execution time is the time spent working on the devel- process or project. These metrics are project time and project cost
opment task and coordination time is the time spent commu- [16], [115]. The following research questions are pertinent to
nicating and coordinating with other development participants investigating the influence of product characteristics on process
for successful completion of the concerned task. This model performance metrics.
determined the optimal task allocation to distribute development 1) How is the correct product architecture chosen to increase
participants, both within and outside organizational boundaries, process concurrency, limit sequential design, and devel-
in a configuration that minimized the total development time. opment processes, and reduce iteration and rework during
Empirical studies that relate the organizational domain to the execution development tasks?
the process domain also exist. For example, an early study by 2) How does the project schedule, including PD process
Morelli et al. [128] suggested that organizational design can be lead time, iteration, and rework, impact the product qual-
planned by anticipating the technical communication linkages ity/performance?
required for project execution. Cataldo and Ehrlich [34] revealed 3) Can the product architecture be derived from the process
that structuring communication patterns into a hierarchy signif- architecture? Can the process architecture be derived from
icantly improved delivery performance, including reduced lead the product architecture?
time. However, hierarchical communication had a detrimental 4) Does partial or rework information flow across module
effect on quality. Notably, small-world communication struc- boundaries specified by the chosen architecture? What
tures improved the quality outcomes of development teams. are the implications of the information flow on the
Piccolo et al. [143] investigated the robustness of the design development process schedule and budget?
process using a bipartite network of people and activities. The bi- Krishnan and Gupta [93] noted that platform products, which
partite network was analyzed using failure scenario simulations are usually based on modular designs, are time consuming to
and the results showed that people play a central role in dictating develop. Indeed, the first derivatives often have delayed product
design process robustness. Parraguez et al. [139] introduced launches. Yassine and Wissmann [213] argued that integral
a dynamic modeling method that integrated both process and products are often faster and cheaper to develop than their
organization DSMs. The model indicated that the network of counterpart modular designs that achieve the same level of
information flows in a large-scale engineering project evolved functionality. Modular designs required more physical elements
over time and through various systems engineering development (e.g., components and subassemblies) to obtain the same level of
stages (i.e., conceptual, system, detailed, and integration design functionality as an integral design, which resulted in a larger final
stages). Similarly, and with the same data set, Parraguez et al. product in terms of weight and volume, in addition to a longer
[140] analyzed the interfaces in a process DSM by inspecting development time [213]. Sered and Reich [160] demonstrated
the corresponding organization DSM, which consists of people that standardization and modularization of product components
and their interactions when performing interfacing activities. and modules reduced development effort because uncertainty
The integration of the process and organizational architectures and changes in the design process were already included. They
allowed for the systematic identification of key performance argued that standard components were robust and would not
metrics associated with interface problems. lead to time-consuming iterations. They also argued that in
Unexplored research avenues emerge when complica- modularized products, interfaces among components were es-
tions related to the flow of partial information across tablished in advance; therefore, changes within specific modules
team/organizational boundaries are compared to the information would not propagate to interface modules and would not lead to
flow within same team/organization. Another nascent research time-consuming iterations. More recently, Vickery et al. [195]
area is the effect of trust between development participants, empirically established the effect of product modularity on the
which may play a vital role in either incentivizing or deterring timing of new product introductions. Modularity decreased the
time needed to introduce new products, and the relationship was whether they are holistically nonvalue adding. The benefit of this
more pronounced when product complexity was high. evaluation is to identify tasks that can be eliminated or managed
There is also considerable research that relates speed-to- independently.
market (i.e., reducing the development process cycle time) and Hung et al. [78] also used matrices to map the product archi-
product success to superior profitability and market share [97]. tecture and development process. They proposed a product de-
However, hastening a product into the market may lead to sign planning system based on a framework that integrated QFD
an immature new product with lower performance or quality, and DSM through a series of mappings and transformations,
which reduces product demand and overall firm profits [13]. which were supported by a knowledge-based database. Func-
Compressing a PD process timeline is more challenging for so- tional and customer requirements were mapped to engineering
phisticated products and complex embodied technologies [84]. specifications using a QFD. Next, the engineering specifications
Product complexity, technological level, and product innova- were mapped to component characteristics using another QFD
tiveness mediate this relationship [183], [191], Lau et al. 2012, matrix. The QFD matrix was then used to generate the product
[195]. Tatikonda and Rosenthal [183] collected and analyzed (or component) DSM. Supported by the PD knowledge database,
data from 120 new PD projects and reported that technological the product components were realized by the corresponding
novelty is negatively associated with cost and time-to-market design activities; therefore, the component-based DSM was
outcomes. However, novelty is positively associated with the transferred into a task-based DSM. Finally, the task DSM was
performance of the product. used for design scheduling and costing.
Another research path that incorporates these two domains is Product architecture helps to reduce the complexity of the
investigating the impact of project schedule on product quality engineering design process through system decomposition and
or performance. For example, whether the existence of iterative integration. In a typical PD project, the development team first
cycles and rework in a project schedule improve or deteriorate defines the system, subsystems, and their various interfaces,
the product quality or performance could be explored. Although which collectively form the product architecture. Spending more
it is evident that iteration increases project lead time and cost, it time on system design to define the product architecture can
is not clear what impact it has on the product performance and reduce the probability that the product will fail during testing
quality [109], [185]. There are several empirical findings that and integration activities. System integration is the process of
describe the correlation between iteration number and magni- integrating modules and verifying that they interact in a desired
tude and improved design quality or performance. Early findings manner. Upfront time spent on activities that increase under-
by Smith and Tjandra [167] and Atman et al. [8] confirmed standing of the system and define its subsystems, modules and
this relationship with student design experiments. They both interfaces, reduces the time that is later needed for testing and
found that revisiting concepts was directly correlated with higher integration activities. Testing and integration activities are time
quality. More recently, experiments by Chusilp and Jin [38] also consuming and can require multiple iterations due to system
found that increasing the number of iterations and spending more decomposition. Therefore, the product architecture and decom-
time spent on each iteration typically led to better quality and position are important because they impact the duration of the
increased novelty. However, Wynn and Eckert [201] argued that development process.
empirical insights are often developed from protocol studies in
simplified situations; therefore, the validity of generalizing the
conclusions is called into question. VI. ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT MODELS: INTEGRATING THE
Many mathematical-based models have also investigated the THREE DOMAINS
relationship between increased iteration and product quality Streamlining information flows to optimize the product and
or performance. For example, Cohen et al. [40] generated a process architectures independently can be useful to the PD
mathematical model of time-to-market decisions given a fixed organization; however, the benefits are limited as these models
marketing window. This model assumed that quality improved are confined to a single domain (e.g., the people, product,
with increased development time. Along similar lines, Calantone or process domains). Instead, enterprise management models
and Di Benedetto [229] addressed the same tradeoff between use quantitative and mathematical models to connect the three
product performance and time-to-market. More specifically, domains. Using this approach, the models simultaneously in-
they investigated the case when PD phases were overlapped and tegrate and optimize all aspects of the PD organization. For
jointly aimed at improving performance. example, when considering the process domain, it cannot be
Yassine et al. [216] mapped the relationship between devel- isolated from the rest of its environment, which includes the
opment process tasks and physical product modules using func- people and product domains. The impact of process iteration
tional requirements. The functional requirements were repre- on development time, cost, and quality can vary depending on
sented at the corresponding row and column intersection where the people performing the iterative tasks. Indeed, the location
the process and product interacted to fulfill the requirements. of individuals within the organizational chart or social network
The focus of this map was to determine whether each process is important to consider. The impact of process iteration is also
task added value and satisfied a functional requirement. The dependent on the components in the product architecture that
physical system value can be determined from its relationship will be affected.
with functional requirements. For example, if tasks or compo- Eppinger and Salminen [51] discussed the possible conceptual
nents do not relate to a functional requirement, they should relationship between the product, process, and organizational
be investigated with respect to mating systems to determine domains in PD. Sharman et al. [159] suggested that elements
in one domain needed to map to the same element in another analyzed virtual (i.e., distributed and collaborative) PD organi-
domain in a one-to-one manner. They proposed the hypothetical zations using a multitude of interacting networks (e.g., product
optimization of a multiple domain PD project, which resulted architecture network, project activity network, and team/social
in an optimized DSM that showed the relational connections network). The interactions between these networks allowed for
between elements in the various domains. the conversion of design and product information into knowl-
General matrix mapping approaches were formalized by edge that formed a product architecture network. The model
Yassine et al. [216]. Their work introduced the concept of a provided a detailed view that demonstrated the effects of knowl-
relationship map, which relates two domains to each other. In edge use on product architecture. The progress of collaborative
addition, the concept of a connectivity map, which combines development teams that started with a disparate set of product
two relationship maps into a single matrix, was also defined. data and requirements, progressed to product knowledge, and
Similarly, Danilovic and Browning [46] introduced the domain finally aggregated this knowledge into a physical manifestation
mapping matrix (DMM), which is an approach to map two (i.e., product architecture) was modeled. Other researchers have
different analysis domains. More specifically, DMM is a rect- evaluated PD as a complex system in which the interactions
angular (m · n) matrix that relates two DSMs of sizes m and of agents, including people, product and activities, generated
n, respectively. Notably, DMM is very similar to the matrix different behaviors in the development process. For example,
mapping approach suggested by Yassine et al. [216]. Around Nissen and Levitt [132] added the feature of knowledge dynam-
the same time, Lindemann and Maurer [105] recommended ics to their VDT model by modeling experience growth during
arranging the domains in a square matrix, which they named the working and training. They modeled the designer’s learning
multidomain matrix (MDM). The MDM arranges the domains process and knowledge growth as a result of the interactions
and illustrates the relationships between them (i.e., the meaning between the product and other designers. Building upon the
of the domain linking written in the matrix cells). models developed by Yassine and Bradley [208] and Nissen
Elezi et al. [53] proposed an MDM-based procedure to lean and Levitt [132], Zhang and Thomson [224] built an ABM in an
PD, which required process improvement, in addition to an environment of interacting agents that used knowledge dynamics
integrated approach that included the product and organiza- and learning as core components. Product functions, design
tional domains. The product domain was analyzed first. Then, activities, and designers are examples of interacting agents.
the process domain was analyzed and rearranged to support Knowledge is the link connecting these elements: Product func-
the flow of information. Product structural constellations were tions are the embodiment of knowledge, design activities require
considered during this step. At the end, the organizational knowledge, and designers provide knowledge. The simulation
domain was derived, and teams were formed to support the of model activities and agent interactions at the microlevel
flow of information for the given process. Similarly, Bonjour generated the project performance, which was measured in terms
and Micaelli [18] proposed an enterprise model that relate and of project effort and duration at the macrolevel.
evaluate design core competence with respect to the product, An extension of the NK model, called the NKC model of
process, and organizational architectures. Analyzing these three coevolution, has been used to explore the relationship dynamics
domains and how they were interrelated provided a convenient between the product, people, and process domains [87]. Oyama
framework for analyzing design core competencies. Notably, the [136] suggested using the NKC model to analyze the interaction
necessary skills to execute established development processes between the product and organizational domains; however, the
(i.e., process/project domain) and to develop new products model can easily be extended to cover three or more coevolving
composed of interrelated components (i.e., product architecture) and interdependent domains. Oyama concluded that the NKC
were important. Design core competencies were embedded in model was best for studying PD enterprise models because
the designers, in the development processes, and in the product it allowed for the distinction between dependencies within a
architecture of an organization. domain and dependencies between domains.
Yassine et al. [211] proposed a set of relational rules that
described the connections between the three PD domains. For
example, if an interface existed between two components in VII. CONCLUSION
the product domain and the tasks performed on those two This article first individually explored the PD models and
components were involved in a feedback relationship, then the tools that are used to analyze and manage the product, people,
existing component interface was justified. Alternatively, if the and process domains. Then, the literature at domain intersections
tasks were sequential or concurrent, the interface mark was was discussed. Notably, models that describe domain intersec-
not justified. This rule and comparable guidelines for the other tions are sparse, especially when compared to single domain
domains were used to formulate a simultaneous global optimiza- models. Although significant research on individual PD analysis
tion OF for the three domains. Then, heuristic and metaheuristic domains has been reported, the field is growing. Importantly,
techniques were used to solve the resultant optimization problem there continue to be opportunities to advance the PD field,
and simultaneously obtain the optimal arrangements for the including understanding the interdependencies across domains.
product, people, and process DSMs. Fig. 2 summarized the research opportunities highlighted in
Another enterprise management model that integrates all three this review and included selected representative publications in
domains with the concept of knowledge creation from interac- each domain, which were discussed in Sections II–IV. It also
tions was proposed by Yassine and Bradley [208]. The model presents the research opportunities that exist at the intersection
TABLE II
CATEGORIZATION OF THE VARIOUS MODEL-BASED APPROACHES USED—WITH SELECTED REFERENCES
of all three domains, which were discussed in Sections V and VI. cost. The main research opportunities in this domain relate to
In the product domain, the overarching objective was to establish information exchanges, iteration, overlapping, crashing, and
the product architecture composed of modules and the interfaces work policy decisions.
between them. Here, three methods to manage product decom- At the intersection between the organizational and product
positions and module identification were described: FSD, MFD, domains, research on the mirroring hypothesis was paramount.
and the component DSM. To build the product architecture and Significant research focused on comparing the architecture of
to identify modules, FSD used function-based heuristics, MFD these two domains and exposing any misalignments between the
used modularity drivers, and DSMs used clustering approaches. two domains. Additionally, the impact of misalignment on the
The primary research opportunities in this domain relate to development schedule and product quality was presented using
decomposition granularity, documenting interfaces, clustering a limited number of stylized case studies. However, this area
metrics, and clustering methods or procedures. In the people presents many opportunity spaces for future research. At the
domain, the objective was to form or select a development team intersection between the organizational and process domains,
tasked with carrying out the development process/project. Two the research focused on resource allocation models of the in-
main issues were considered when forming development teams: dividual and team characteristics used for assigning specific
The individual characteristics of selected team members and the project activities. At the intersection between the product and
required communication/coordination needs among them. Both process domains, the research focused on the impact of product
issues represent opportunities for future research. Finally, in the characteristics on process metrics. The inverse relationship was
process domain, the objective was to establish a project schedule also explored. This also turns out to be a fruitful future research
for the development endeavor that specified the execution avenue. Finally, minimal research was found at the intersection
sequence of development activities. Two main obstacles that of all three domains. The limited research focused on interacting
complicate the management of PD projects were discussed, networks of people, product modules, and development tasks
namely, iteration and overlapping. Sequencing the development to represent the dynamic nature of product evolution. Further
activities can help reduce feedback between activities and research at the intersection of the three PD analysis domains is
thus minimizes the occurrence of activity iteration. Also, needed to provide seamless integration and coevolution of all
various optimization and simulation models were proposed to three domains [22].
understand the implications of partial information exchanges, While Fig. 2 presented the research questions and oppor-
iteration, and overlapping on development process time and tunities in each domain and at domain intersections, Table II
describes the various methodological approaches utilized for [10] C. Y. Baldwin and C. J. Woodard, “The architecture of platforms: A
addressing some of these research questions. Table II provides unified view,” in Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Cheltenham, U.K.:
Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.
a summary of the various types of model-based approaches [11] J. E. Bartolomei, D. E. Hastings, R. de Neufville, and D. H. Rhodes, “En-
that are used to model and analyze the three domains and their gineering systems multiple-domain matrix: An organizing framework
intersections. It shows that the models included in this review for modeling large-scale complex systems,” Syst. Eng., vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 41–61, 2012.
span several methodological areas and include mathematical [12] D. A. Batallas and A. A. Yassine, “Information leaders in product devel-
optimization techniques, various simulation models, complex opment organizational networks: Social network analysis of the design
systems, complexity theory, and network science. It is evident structure matrix,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 570–582,
Nov. 2006.
from the table that opportunities for new research exist, and they [13] B. Bayus, “Speed to market and new product performance tradeoffs,”
can be found by inspecting the sparsely populated areas inside J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 14, pp. 485–497, 1997.
the table. For example, simulation-based, network-based, and [14] M. Becker and F. Zirpoli, Beyond Product Architecture: Addressing the
Challenges of Complex Product Development. Rochester, NY, USA:
complex systems models are lacking at the intersection of the Social Sci. Res. Netw., 2007.
people and process domains. [15] E. N. C. Besteiro, J. D. Pinto, and O. Novaski, “Success factors in project
Finally, future research can build on this review framework management,” Bus. Manage. Dyn., vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 19–34, 2015.
[16] N. Bhuiyan, D. Gerwin, and V. Thomson, “Simulation of the new prod-
by enlarging the scope of the review to cover other analysis uct development process for performance improvement,” Manage. Sci.,
domains. For example, by considering the tools or goals do- vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1690–1703, 2004.
mains, mentioned earlier in the introductory section. Also, other [17] E. Bonjour, M. Dulmet, S. Deniaud, and J. P. Micaëlli, “Propagating
product architecture decisions onto the project organisation: A compari-
extensions can be useful include by considering the market- son between two methods,” Int. J. Des. Eng., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 451–471,
ing and supply chain perspectives instead of the engineering 2009.
perspective reflected in the current product domain. The tools [18] E. Bonjour and J. P. Micaëlli, “Design core competence diagnosis: A
case from the automotive industry,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 57,
domain is particularly interesting to consider since it highlights no. 2, pp. 323–337, May 2010.
the various tools (and their interdependence) which are used [19] J. Bonvoisin, F. Halstenberg, T. Buchert, and R. Stark, “A systematic
in and at the intersection of the three domains. An important literature review on modular product design,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 27,
no. 7, pp. 488–514, 2016.
extension of this article considers the impact of understanding [20] F. Borjesson and K. Hölttä-Otto, “A module generation algorithm for
the three analysis domains in facilitating the development of product architecture based on component interactions and strategic
tools related to PD collaboration, knowledge capture and cre- drivers,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 31–51, 2014.
[21] D. Braha and Y. Bar-Yam, “The statistical mechanics of complex product
ation, and distributed and open innovation. Additionally, for development: Empirical and analytical results,” Manage. Sci., vol. 53,
these tools to facilitate, synchronize, and orchestrate the various no. 7, pp. 1127–1145, 2007.
interdependencies within and between the three PD domains, [22] M. Broy, M. Feilkas, M. Herrmannsdoerfer, S. Merenda, and
D. Rati, “Seamless model-based development: From isolated tools to
these tools must be compatible and must interface properly [42]. integrated model engineering environments,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 98, no. 4,
Therefore, the challenge to the PD community is to build a pp. 526–545, Apr. 2010.
critical mass of such tools within and across the domains to [23] T. R. Browning, “Applying the design structure matrix to system decom-
position and integration problems: A review and new directions,” IEEE
elevate the practice of PD in the same manner that supply chain Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 292–306, Aug. 2001.
management research in the 1980s and 90s revolutionized the [24] T. R. Browning, “Using the design structure matrix to design program
enterprise resource planning software industry. organizations,” in Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2009, pp. 1401–1424.
[25] T. R. Browning, “Design structure matrix extensions and innovations:
REFERENCES A survey and new opportunities,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 63,
no. 1, pp. 27–52, Feb. 2016.
[1] H. M. Abdelsalam and H. P. Bao, “A simulation-based optimization [26] T. R. Browning and S. D. Eppinger, “Modeling impacts of process
framework for product development cycle time reduction,” IEEE Trans. architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development,” IEEE
Eng. Manage., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 69–85, Feb. 2006. Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 428–442, Nov. 2002.
[2] S. T. Acuna and N. Juristo, “Assigning people to roles in software [27] T. R. Browning, E. Fricke, and H. Negele, “Key concepts in modeling
projects,” Softw. Pract. Experience, vol. 34, pp. 675–696, 2004. product development processes,” Syst. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 104–128,
[3] P. S. Adler, A. Mandelbaum, V. Nguyen, and E. Schwerer, “From project 2006.
to process management: An empirically-based framework for analyzing [28] T. R. Browning and R. V. Ramasesh, “A survey of activity network-based
product development time,” Manage. Sci., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 458–484, process models for managing product development projects,” Prod. Oper.
1995. Manage., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 217–240, 2007.
[4] C. Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA, USA: [29] T. Browning and A. Yassine, “A comprehensive study of the resource
Harvard Univ. Press, 1964. constrained multi-project scheduling problem,” Int. J. Prod. Econ.,
[5] T. Al Geddawy and H. El Maraghy, “Optimum granularity level of vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 212–228, 2010.
modular product design architecture,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol., vol. [30] T. R. Browning and A. A. Yassine, “Managing a portfolio of product
62, no. 1, pp. 151–154, 2013. development projects under resource constraints,” Decis. Sci., vol. 47,
[6] T. J. Allen, “Architecture and communication among product develop- no. 2, pp. 333–372, 2016.
ment engineers,” California Manage. Rev., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 23–41, [31] L. L. Bucciarelli, “An ethnographic perspective on engineering design,”
2007. Des. Stud., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 159–168, 1988.
[7] J. T. Allison, M. Kokkolaras, and P. Y. Papalambros, “Optimal partition- [32] K. Carley, “Smart agents and organizations of the future,” in The Hand-
ing and coordination decisions in decomposition-based design optimiza- book of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs, L.
tion,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 131, no. 8, 2009, Art. no. 081008. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage,
[8] C. Atman, J. Chimka, K. Bursic, and H. Nachtmann, “A comparison of 2002, ch. 12, pp. 206–220.
freshman and senior engineering design processes,” Des. Stud., vol. 20, [33] A. Cabigiosu and A. Camuffo, “Beyond the “mirroring” hypothe-
no. 2, pp. 131–152, 1999. sis: Product modularity and interorganizational relations in the air
[9] C. Y. Baldwin and K. B. Clark, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, conditioning industry,” Org. Sci., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 686–703,
vol. 1. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2000. 2012.
[34] M. Cataldo and K. Ehrlich, “The impact of communication structure on [61] E. Fricke and A. P. Schulz, “Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to
new product development outcomes,” in Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle,” Syst. Eng.,
Factors Comput. Syst., 2012, pp. 3081–3090. vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 342–359, 2005.
[35] H. Cheng and X. Chu, “Task assignment with multiskilled employees and [62] M. Fuge, K. Tee, A. Agogino, and N. Maton, “Analysis of collaborative
multiple modes for product development projects,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. design networks: A case study of openideo,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.,
Technol., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 391–403, 2012. vol. 14, no. 2, 2014, Art. no. 021009.
[36] N. Chiriac, K. Hölttä-Otto, D. Lysy, and E. S. Suh, “Level of modularity [63] R. Garcia, “Uses of agent-based modeling in innovation/new prod-
and different levels of system granularity,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 133, uct development research,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 22, no. 5,
no. 10, 2011, Art. no. 101007. pp. 380–398, 2005.
[37] S. H. Cho and S. D. Eppinger, “A simulation-based process model for [64] J. K. Gershenson, Y. Zhang, and G. J. Prasad, “Product modularity:
managing complex design projects,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 52, Measures and design methods,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 33–51,
no. 3, pp. 316–328, Aug. 2005. 2004.
[38] P. Chusilp and Y. Jin, “Impact of mental iteration on concept generation,” [65] D. Gerwin and N. Barrowman, “An evaluation of research on integrated
J. Mech. Des., vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 14–25, 2006. product development,” Manage. Sci., vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 938–953, 2002.
[39] P. J. Clarkson, C. Simons, and C. Eckert, “Predicting change propaga- [66] M. Giffin, O. de Weck, G. Bounova, R. Keller, C. Eckert, and P. J.
tion in complex design,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 788–797, Clarkson, “Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems,”
2004. J. Mech. Des., vol. 131, no. 8, 2009, Art. no. 081001.
[40] M. Cohen, J. Eliashberg, and T. Ho, “New product development: The [67] B. Gokpinar, W. J. Hopp, and S. M. Iravani, “The impact of misalignment
performance and time-to-market tradeoff,” Manage. Sci., vol. 42, no. 2, of organizational structure and product architecture on quality in complex
pp. 173–186, 1996. product development,” Manage. Sci., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 468–484, 2010.
[41] L. J. Colfer and C. Y. Baldwin, “The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, [68] D. E. Goldberg, A. Yassine, and T. L. Yu, “Calculating efficient team size:
evidence, and exceptions,” Ind. Corporate Change, vol. 25, no. 5, Balancing deciding and doing as an elementary optimization problem,”
pp. 709–738, 2016. in Proc. Int. Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng. Conf., Salt Lake
[42] J. M. Colombi, M. P. Kretser, J. Ogden, and P. Hartman, “Enterprise sys- City, UT, USA, Sep. 2004, pp. 271–279.
tems integration using collapsing design structure matrices,” CrossTalk, [69] B. Hamraz, N. H. M. Caldwell, and P. J. Clarkson, “A holistic framework
vol. 29, pp. 33–37, 2016. for categorisation of literature in engineering change management,” Syst.
[43] P. Componation and J. Byrd, “Utilizing cluster analysis to structure Eng., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 473–505, 2013.
concurrent engineering teams,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 47, no. 2, [70] J. R. Harrison, Z. Lin, G. R. Carroll, and K. M. Carley, “Simulation
pp. 269–280, May 2000. modeling in organizational and management research,” Acad. Manage.
[44] M. E. Conway, “How do committees invent,” Datamation, vol. 14, Rev., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1229–1245, 2007.
no. 4, pp. 28–31, 1968. [71] S. Hartmann and D. Briskorn, “A survey of variants and extensions of
[45] K. G. Cooper, “The rework cycle: Part 1: Why Projects are mismanaged,” the resource-constrained project scheduling problem,” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
Eng. Manage. Rev., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 4–12, 1993. vol. 207, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2010.
[46] M. Danilovic and T. Browning, “Managing complex product devel- [72] R. Helmer, A. Yassine, and C. Meier, “Systematic module and inter-
opment projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping face definition using component design structure matrix,” J. Eng. Des.,
matrices,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 25, pp. 300–314, 2007. vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 647–675, 2010.
[47] M. Ebrahim and A. Camuffo, “Why do product and organizational [73] R. M. Henderson and K. B. Clark, “Architectural innovation: The recon-
architectures misalign? Microdynamics of ‘mirroring hypothesis’,” Acad. figuration of existing product technologies and the failure of established
Manage. Proc., vol. 2017, no. 1, 2017, Art. no. 13872. firms,” Administ. Sci. Quart., vol. 35, pp. 9–30, 1990.
[48] A. C. Edmondson and I. M. Nembhard, “Product development and [74] W. S. Herroelen, “Project scheduling—Theory and practice,” Prod. Oper.
learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits,” J. Product Manage., vol. 14, pp. 413–432, 2005.
Innov. Manage., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 123–138, 2009. [75] G. Hoetker, “Do modular products lead to modular organizations?”
[49] S. D. Eppinger, “Model-based approaches to managing concurrent engi- Strategic Manage. J., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 501–518, 2006.
neering,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 283–290, 1991. [76] K. M. Holtta and M. P. Salonen, “Comparing three different modularity
[50] S. D. Eppinger and T. R. Browning, Design Structure Matrix Methods methods,” in Proc. ASME Int. Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng.
and Applications. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2012. Conf., 2003, pp. 533–541.
[51] S. Eppinger and V. Salminen, “Patterns of product development interac- [77] K. Hölttä-Otto, N. A. Chiriac, D. Lysy, and E. Suk Suh, “Comparative
tions,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des., Aug. 2001, pp. 1–8. analysis of coupling modularity metrics,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 23, no. 10/11,
[52] C. M. Eckert et al., “On the integration of product and process models pp. 790–806, 2012.
in engineering design,” Des. Sci., vol. 3, no. E3, pp. 1–41, 2017. [78] H. F. Hung, H. P. Kao, and Y. S. Juang, “An integrated information
[53] F. Elezi, M. Graebsch, and U. Lindemann, “Reducing waste in product system for product design planning,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 35, no. 1,
development by use of multi-domain matrix methodology,” in Proc. 11th pp. 338–349, 2008.
Int. Des. Conf., Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2010, pp. 205–212. [79] M. J. Songhori, J. Nasiry, and M. Kirley, Hierarchy and Misalignments
[54] G. Erixon, “MFD-modular function deployment, a systematic method in Complex New Product Development Projects. Rochester, NY, USA:
and procedure for company supportive product modularization,” Ph.D. Social Sci. Res. Netw., 2014.
dissertation, Dept. Manuf. Syst., Roy. Inst. Technol., Stockholm, Sweden, [80] T. A. W. Jarratt, C. M. Eckert, N. H. M. Caldwell, and P. J. Clarkson,
1998. “Engineering change: An overview and perspective on the literature,”
[55] S. K. Ethiraj, “Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 103–124, 2011.
Strategic Manage. J., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 563–584, 2007. [81] Y. Jin and R. Levitt, “The virtual design team: A computational model
[56] S. K. Ethiraj and H. E. Posen, “Do product architectures affect innovation of project organizations,” Comput. Math. Org. Theory, vol. 2, no. 3,
productivity in complex product ecosystems?” in Collaboration and pp. 71–196, 1996.
Competition in Business Ecosystems. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group, [82] J. Johnson, H. Wu, T. Sifleet, and M. Fathianathan, “A computational
2014, pp. 127–166. method for task allocation and coordination in a distributed design
[57] S. Faraj and L. Sproull, “Coordinating expertise in software development environment,” in Proc. Int. Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng. Conf.,
teams,” Manage. Sci., vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1554–1568, 2000. 2008, pp. 595–605.
[58] B. Feng, Z. Z. Jiang, Z. P. Fan, and N. Fu, “A method for member [83] S. Jung and T. W. Simpson, “New modularity indices for modularity
selection of cross-functional teams using the individual and collaborative assessment and clustering of product architecture,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 28,
performances,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 203, no. 3, pp. 652–661, 2010. no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2017.
[59] H. L. Forbes and D. Schaefer, “Crowdsourcing in product development: [84] C. Karlsson and P. Ahlstrom, “Technological level and product devel-
Current state and future research directions,” in Proc. 15th Int. Des. Conf., opment cycle time,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 16, pp. 352–362,
2018, pp. 579–588. 1999.
[60] D. N. Ford and J. Sterman, “Overcoming the 90% syndrome: Iteration [85] A. Karniel and Y. Reich, “From DSM-based planning to design process
management in concurrent development projects,” Concurrent Eng. Res. simulation: A review of process scheme logic verification issues,” IEEE
Appl., vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 177–186, 2003. Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 636–649, Nov. 2009.
[86] S. A. Kauffman, The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection [110] R. R. Luna and S. D. Eppinger, “Structuring a product development
in Evolution. New York, NY, USA: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993. organization based on the product architecture and communication,” in
[87] W. Hordijk and S. A. Kauffman, “Correlation analysis of coupled fitness Proc. Int. Dependency Struct. Model. Conf., Fort Worth, TX, USA, Nov.
landscapes,” Complexity, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 41–49, 2005. 2015, pp. 31–39.
[88] S. Kherbachi and Q. Yang, “Multi-domain matrix as a framework for [111] J. Luo, “A simulation-based method to evaluate the impact of product
global product development project process,” J. Mod. Project Manage., architecture on product evolvability,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 26, no. 4,
vol. 3, pp. 108–113, 2015. pp. 355–371, 2015.
[89] N. King and A. Majchrzak, “Concurrent engineering tools: Are the [112] J. M. Lyneis and D. N Ford, “System dynamics applied to project
human issues being ignored?” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 43, no. 2, management: A survey, assessment, and directions for future research,”
pp. 189–201, May 1996. Syst. Dyn. Rev., vol. 23, no. 2/3, pp. 157–189, 2007.
[90] E. C. Koh, N. H. Caldwell, and P. J. Clarkson, “A method to assess [113] A. MacCormack, C. Baldwin, and J. Rusnak, “Exploring the duality be-
the effects of engineering change propagation,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 23, tween product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring”
no. 4, pp. 329–351, 2012. hypothesis,” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1309–1324, 2012.
[91] J. Kratzer, H. G. Gemuenden, and C. Lettl, “Revealing dynamics and [114] A. MacCormack, J. Rusnak, and G. Baldwin, “Exploring the structure
consequences of fit and misfit between formal and informal networks of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and
in multi-institutional product development collaborations,” Res. Policy, proprietary code,” Manage. Sci., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1015–1030, 2005.
vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1356–1370, 2008. [115] D. N. Mallick and R. G. Schroeder, “An integrated framework for mea-
[92] V. Krishnan and K. T. Ulrich, “Product development decisions: A review suring product development performance in high technology industries,”
of the literature,” Manage. Sci. vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2001. Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 142–158, 2005.
[93] V. Krishnan and S. Gupta, “Appropriateness and impact of platform- [116] J. Marschak, “Elements for a theory of teams,” Manage. Sci., vol. 1,
based product development,” Manage. Sci., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 52–68, no. 2, pp. 127–137, 1955.
2001. [117] I. P. McCarthy, C. Tsinopoulos, P. Allen, and C. Rose-Anderssen, “New
[94] V. Krishnan, S. D. Eppinger, and D. E. Whitney, “A model-based frame- product development as a complex adaptive system of decisions,” J.
work to overlap product development activities,” Manage. Sci., vol. 43, Product Innov. Manage., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 437–456, 2006.
pp. 437–451, 1997. [118] K. R. McCord and S. D. Eppinger, “Managing the integration problem in
[95] A. Kusiak and K. Park, “Concurrent engineering: Decomposition and concurrent engineering,” M.S. thesis, Dept. Mech. Eng., Massachusetts
scheduling of design activities,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 28, no. 10, Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, Aug. 1993.
pp. 1883–1900, 1990. [119] R. C. McNally, M. B. Akdeniz, and R. J. Calantone, “New product
[96] A. B. Lambe and J. R. Martins, “Extensions to the design structure development processes and new product profitability: Exploring the
matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and opti- mediating role of speed to market and product quality,” J. Product Innov.
mization processes,” Structural Multidisciplinary Optim., vol. 46, no. 2, Manage., vol. 28, no. s1, pp. 63–77, 2011.
pp. 273–284, 2012. [120] C. Meier, T. Browning, A. Yassine, and U. Walter, “The cost of speed:
[97] F. Langerak and E. Jan Hultink, “The impact of product innovative- Work policies for crashing and overlapping in product development
ness on the link between development speed and new product prof- projects,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 237–255, May
itability,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 203–214, 2015.
2006. [121] C. Meier, A. Yassine, and T. Browning, “Design process sequencing
[98] T. Lappas, K. Liu, and E. Terzi, “Finding a team of experts in social with competent genetic algorithms,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 129, no. 6,
networks,” in Proc. 15th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discovery pp. 566–585, 2007.
Data Mining, 2009, pp. 467–476. [122] C. Meier, A. Yassine, T. Browning, and U. Walter, “Optimizing time-
[99] A. K. Lau, R. Yam, and E. Tang, “The impact of product modularity cost tradeoffs in product development projects with a multi-objective
on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness,” evolutionary algorithm,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 347–366,
J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 270–284, 2011. 2016.
[100] P. R. Laughlin, E. C. Hatch, J. S. Silver, and L. Boh, “Groups perform [123] N. F. Michelena and P. Y. Papalambros, “A hypergraph framework
better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects for optimal model-based decomposition of design problems,” Comput.
of group size,” J. Pers. Social Psychol., vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 644–651, Optim. Appl., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 173–196, 1997.
2006. [124] J. Mihm, C. Loch, and A. Huchzermeier, “Problem-solving oscillations in
[101] Q. Le and J. H. Panchal, “Modeling the effect of product architecture on complex engineering projects,” Manage. Sci., vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 733–750,
mass-collaborative processes,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, 2003.
2011, Art. no. 011003. [125] K. D. Miller, “Agent-based modeling and organization studies: A critical
[102] Q. Le and J. H. Panchal, “Analysis of the interdependent co-evolution of realist perspective,” Org. Stud., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 175–196, 2015.
product structures and community structures using dependency mod- [126] W. P. Millhiser, C. A. Coen, and D. Solow, “Understanding the role
elling techniques,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 23, no. 10/11, pp. 807–828, of worker interdependence in team selection,” Org. Sci., vol. 22, no. 3,
2012. pp. 772–787, 2011.
[103] Q. Le, Z. Sha, and J. H. Panchal, “A generative network model for [127] V. R. Montequín, J. M. Fernández, J. V. Balsera, and A. G. Nieto, “Using
product evolution,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 14, no. 1, 2014, Art. MBTI for the success assessment of engineering teams in project-based
no. 011003. learning,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1127–1146, 2013.
[104] R. Levitt, J. Thomsen, T. Christiansen, J. Kunz, Y. Jin, and C. Nass, [128] M. D. Morelli, S. D. Eppinger, and R. K. Gulati, “Predicting technical
“Simulating project work processes and organizations: Toward a micro- communications in product development organizations,” IEEE Trans.
contingency theory of organizational design,” Manage. Sci., vol. 45, Eng. Manage., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 215–222, Aug. 1995.
no. 11, pp. 1479–1495, 1999. [129] W. F. Nasrallah, C. J. Ouba, A. A. Yassine, and I. M. Srour, “Modeling
[105] U. Lindemann and M. Maurer, “Facing multi-domain complexity in the span of control of leaders with different skill sets,” Comput. Math.
product development,” in Future Product Development. New York, NY, Org. Theory, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 296–317, 2015.
USA: Springer, 2007, pp. 351–361. [130] H. Negele, E. Fricke, and E. Igenbergs, “ZOPH—A systemic approach
[106] J. Lin, Y. Qian, W. Cui, and Z. Miao, “Overlapping and communication to the modeling of product development systems,” in Proc. INCOSE Int.
policies in product development,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 201, no. 3, Symp., Aug. 1997, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 266–273.
pp. 737–750, 2010. [131] G. L. Neilson and J. Wulf, “How many direct reports?,” Harvard Bus.
[107] C. H. Loch and C. Terwiesch, “Communication and uncertainty in Rev., vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 112–119, 2012.
concurrent engineering,” Manage. Sci., vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1032–1048, [132] M. E. Nissen and R. E. Levitt, “Agent-based modeling of knowledge
1998. dynamics,” Knowl. Manage. Res. Pract., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 169–183, 2004.
[108] C. H. Loch and C. Terwiesch, “Rush and Be wrong or wait and be late? A [133] K. Oizumi and K. Aoyama, “Coordination of product design process in
model of information in collaborative processes,” Prod. Oper. Manage., view of product and organizational structures,” in Proc. ASME Int. Des.
vol. 14, pp. 331–343, 2005. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng. Conf., 2012, pp. 141–150.
[109] P. E. D. Love, D. J. Edwards, H. Watson, and P. Davis, “Rework in civil [134] L. D. Otero, G. Centeno, A. J. Ruiz-Torres, and C. E. Otero, “A systematic
infrastructure projects: Determination of cost predictors,” J. Construction approach for resource allocation in software projects,” Comput. Ind. Eng.,
Eng. Manage., vol. 136, no. 3, pp. 275–282, 2010. vol. 56, pp. 1333–1339, 2009.
[135] K. Otto and K. Wood, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineer- [162] H. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT
ing and New Product Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Press, 1969.
2001. [163] T. W. Simpson, J. R. A. Maier, and F. Mistree, “Product platform design:
[136] K. Oyama, “Modeling complexity in new product development: Deci- Method and application,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 13, pp. 2–22, 2001.
sions and dependencies in team-based design projects,” Ph.D. disser- [164] T. W. Simpson, J. Jiao, Z. Siddique, and K. Hölttä-Otto, Advances in
tation, Dept. Syst. Inf. Eng., Univ. Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, Product Family and Product Platform Design. New York, NY, USA:
2013. Springer, 2014.
[137] K. Oyama, G. Learmonth, and R. Chao, “Applying complexity science [165] H. E. Sladovich Ed. Engineering as Social Enterprise, vol. 26. Washing-
to new product development: Modeling considerations, extensions, and ton, DC, USA: Nat. Acad. Press, 1991.
implications,” J. Eng. Technol. Manage., vol. 35, pp. 1–24, 2015. [166] R. P. Smith and J. A. Morrow, “Product development process modeling,”
[138] J. H. Panchal, “Agent-based modeling of mass-collaborative product Des. Stud., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 237–261, 1999.
development processes,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 9, no. 3, 2009, [167] R. P. Smith and P. Tjandra, “Experimental observation of iteration
Art. no. 031007. in engineering design,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 107–117,
[139] P. Parraguez, S. D. Eppinger, and A. M. Maier, “Information flow through 1998.
stages of complex engineering design projects: A dynamic network [168] D. Solow and C. Leenawong, “Mathematical models for studying the
analysis approach,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 604–617, value of cooperational leadership in team replacement,” Comput. Math.
Nov. 2015. Org. Theory, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 61–81, 2003.
[140] P. Parraguez, S. Eppinger, and A. Maier, “Characterizing design process [169] D. Solow, G. Vairaktarakis, S. K. Piderit, and M. Tsai, “Managerial
interfaces as organization networks: Insights for engineering systems insights into the effects of interactions on replacing members of a team,”
management,” Syst. Eng., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 158–173, 2016. Manage. Sci., vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1060–1073, 2002.
[141] D. Partington and H. Harris, “Team role balance and team performance: [170] D. Solow, S. Piderit, A. Burnetas, and C. Leenawong, “Mathematical
An empirical study, cranfield school of management, U.K.,” J. Manage. models for studying the value of motivational leadership in teams,”
Develop., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 694–705, 1999. Comput. Math. Org. Theory, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5–36, 2005.
[142] F. Pena-Mora and M. Li, “Dynamic planning and control methodology [171] M. F. Sorkun and A. Furlan, “Product and Organizational modularity: A
for design/build fast-track construction projects,” J. Construction Eng. contingent view of the mirroring hypothesis,” Eur. Manage. Rev., vol. 14,
Manage., vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2001. no. 2, pp. 205–224, 2017.
[143] S. A. Piccolo, S. Lehmann, and A. Maier, “Design process robustness: [172] M. E. Sosa, S. D. Eppinger, and C. M. Rowles, “Identifying modular
A bipartite network analysis reveals the central importance of people,” and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions,”
Des. Sci., vol. 4, no. E1, pp. 1–29, 2018. J. Mech. Des., vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 240–252, 2003.
[144] T. U. Pimmler and S. D. Eppinger, “Integration analysis of product [173] M. E. Sosa, S. D. Eppinger, and C. M. Rowles, “The misalign-
decompositions,” Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, ment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex
Tech. Rep. 3690-94, 1994. product development,” Manage. Sci., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1674–1689,
[145] J. K. Pinto, Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage. 2004.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2007. [174] M. E. Sosa, S. D. Eppinger, and C. M. Rowles, “Are your engineers
[146] R. Radner, “The application of linear programming to team decision talking to one another when they should?,” Harvard Bus. Rev., vol. 85,
problems,” Manage. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 143–150, 1959. no. 11, pp. 133–142, 2007a.
[147] R. Radner, “Team decision problems,” Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 33, [175] M. E. Sosa, S. D. Eppinger, and C. M. Rowles, “A network approach to
pp. 857–881, 1962. define modularity of components in complex products,” J. Mech. Des.,
[148] E. Rechtin, Systems Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Sys- vol. 129, no. 11, pp. 1118–1129, 2007b.
tems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1991. [176] M. Sosa, J. Mihm, and T. Browning, “Degree distribution and quality
[149] J. W. Rivkin and N. Siggelkow, “Patterned interactions in complex in complex engineered systems,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 133, no. 10, 2011,
systems: Implications for exploration,” Manage. Sci., vol. 53, no. 7, Art. no. 101008.
pp. 1068–1085, 2007. [177] T. Strandberg, H. Burton, and D. Verma, “Towards effective system
[150] D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, “Planning for product platforms,” MIT Sloan life cycle management—Research on the relationships between system
Manage. Rev., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 19–31, 1998. architecture, organizational and process structures,” in Proc. 4th Annu.
[151] W. B. Rouse and K. R. Boff, Organizational Simulation. Hoboken, NJ, Conf. Syst. Eng. Res., 2006, pp. 1–11, Paper 179.
USA: Wiley, 2005. [178] M. A. Stanko, F. J. Molina-Castillo, and J. L. Munuera-Aleman, “Speed
[152] R. W. Rycroft and D. E. Kash, The Complexity Challenge: Technological to market for innovative products: Blessing or curse?,” J. Product Innov.
Innovation for the 21st Century. Boston, MA, USA: Cengage, 1999. Manage., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 751–765, 2012.
[153] R. W. Rycroft and D. E. Kash, “Self-organizing innovation networks: [179] D. Steward, System Analysis and Management: Structure, Strategy and
Implications for globalization,” Technovation, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 187–197, Design. New York, NY, USA: Petrocelli Books, 1981.
2004. [180] D. Steward, “The design structure system: A method for managing the
[154] R. Sanai, K. Otto, K. Wood, and K. Hölltä-Otto, “Trade-offs among sys- design of complex systems,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. EM-28,
tem architecture modularity criteria,” in Proc. NordDesign, Trondheim, no. 3, pp. 71–74, Aug. 1981.
Norway, Aug. 2016, vol. 1, pp. 352–359. [181] R. Stone, K. Wood, and R. Crawford, “A heuristic method for identifying
[155] R. Sanchez and J. Mahoney, “Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge modules for product architectures,” Des. Stud., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–31,
management in product and organization design,” Strategic Manage. J., 2000a.
vol. 17, pp. 63–76, 1996. [182] R. Stone, K. Wood, and R. Crawford, “Using quantitative functional
[156] S. Sarkar, A. Dong, J. A. Henderson, and P. A. Robinson, “Spectral models to develop product architectures,” Des. Stud., vol. 21, no. 3,
characterization of hierarchical modularity in product architectures,” pp. 239–260, 2000b.
J. Mech. Des., vol. 136, no. 1, 2014, Art. no. 011006. [183] M. V. Tatikonda and S. R. Rosenthal, “Technology novelty, project
[157] S. Sawyer, “Software development teams,” Commun. ACM, vol. 47, complexity, and product uncertainty in product innovation,” IEEE Trans.
no. 12, pp. 95–99, 2004. Eng. Manag., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 74–87, Feb. 2000.
[158] D. M. Sharman and A. A. Yassine, “Characterizing complex product [184] T. Taylor and D. N. Ford, “Managing tipping point dynamics in complex
architectures,” Syst. Eng., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 35–60, 2004. construction projects,” J. Construction Eng. Manage., vol. 134, no. 6,
[159] D. Sharman, A. Yassine, and P. Carlile, “Architectural optimisation using pp. 421–431, 2008.
real options theory and dependency structure matrix,” in Proc. ASME Int. [185] C. Terwiesch and C. H. Loch, “Measuring the effectiveness of over-
Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng. Conf., Montreal, QC, Canada, lapping product development activities,” Manage. Sci., vol. 45, no. 4,
2002, pp. 799–811. pp. 455–465, 1999.
[160] Y. Sered and Y. Reich, “Standardization and modularization driven by [186] C. Terwiesch, C. H. Loch, and A. D. Meyer, “Exchanging preliminary
minimizing overall process effort,” Comput.-Aided Des., vol. 38, no. 5, information in concurrent engineering: Alternative coordination strate-
pp. 405–416, 2006. gies,” Org. Sci., vol. 13, pp. 402–419, 2002.
[161] W. Shen, Q. Hao, H. J. Yoon, and D. H. Norrie, “Applications of agent- [187] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, “Towards a methodology for
based systems in intelligent manufacturing: An updated review,” Adv. developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of
Eng. Inf., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 415–431, 2006. systematic review,” Brit. J. Manage., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222, 2003.
[188] A. Tripathy and S. D. Eppinger, “Structuring work distribution for [212] A. A. Yassine, R. S. Sreenivas, and J. Zhu, “Managing the exchange of
global product development organizations,” Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 22, information in product development,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 184, no. 1,
no. 6, pp. 1557–1575, 2013. pp. 311–326, 2008.
[189] C. Tristl, A. Karcher, H. Klenk, and C. Haubach-Lippmann, “To- [213] A. A. Yassine and L. A. Wissmann, “The implications of product archi-
wards a framework for synchronization of systems-and mechanical/ tecture on the firm,” Syst. Eng., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 118–137, 2007.
electrical engineering processes on multiple dimensions,” in Concur- [214] A. Yassine, K. Chelst, and D. Falkenburg, “A decision analytic frame-
rent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development work for evaluating concurrent engineering,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.,
in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment. London, U.K.: Springer, 2013, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 144–157, May 1999.
pp. 1021–1032. [215] A. Yassine, D. Falkenburg, and K. Chelst, “Engineering design manage-
[190] M. Tritschler, A. Naber, and R. Kolisch, “A hybrid metaheuristic for ment: An information structure approach,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 37,
resource-constrained project scheduling with flexible resource profiles,” no. 13, pp. 2957–2975, 1999.
Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 262, no. 1, pp. 262–273, 2017. [216] A. Yassine, N. Joglekar, S. D. Eppinger, and D. Whitney, “Information
[191] S. Ülkü and G. M. Schmidt, “Matching product architecture and supply hiding in product development: The design churn effect,” Res. Eng. Des.,
chain configuration,” Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 16–31, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 145–161, 2003.
2011. [217] A. A. Yassine, O. Mostafa, and T. R. Browning, “Scheduling multiple,
[192] K. T. Ulrich and S. D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, 4th resource-constrained, iterative, product development projects with ge-
ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2008. netic algorithms,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 107, pp. 39–56, 2017.
[193] K. Valkokari, J. Paasi, T. Luoma, and N. Lee, “Beyond open innovation— [218] A. A. Yassine and J. Naoum-Sawaya, “Architecture, performance, and
The concept of networked innovation,” in Proc. ISPIM Symp., New York, investment in product development networks,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 139,
NY, USA, 2009, pp. 1–14. no. 1, 2017, Art. no. 011101.
[194] T. van de Water, H. van de Water, and C. Bukman, “A balanced team [219] A. Yassine, D. Whitney, S. Daleiden, and J. Lavine, “Connectivity
generating model,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 885–906, 2007. maps: Modeling and analyzing relationships in product development
[195] S. K. Vickery, X. Koufteros, C. Dröge, and R. Calantone, “Product processes,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 377–394, 2003.
modularity, process modularity, and new product introduction perfor- [220] A. Yassine, D. Whitney, J. Lavine, and T. Zambito, “Do-it-right-first-time
mance: Does complexity matter?,” Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 25, no. 4, (DRFT) approach to design structure matrix restructuring,” in Proc. 12th
pp. 751–770, 2016. Int. Conf. Des. Theory Methodology, 2000, pp. 1–8.
[196] B. Wang and E. K. Antonsson, “Hierarchical modularity: Decomposition [221] T. L. Yu, A. A. Yassine, and D. E. Goldberg, “An information theoretic
of function structures with the minimal description length principle,” in method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms,”
Proc. ASME Int. Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng. Conf., 2005, Res. Eng. Des., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 91–109, 2007.
pp. 393–402. [222] A. Zakarian and A. Kusiak, “Forming teams: An analytical approach,”
[197] Z. Wang, H. S. Yan, and X. D. Ma, “A quantitative approach to the IIE Trans., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 85–97, 1999.
organisation of cross-functional teams in concurrent engineering,” Int. J. [223] F. Zaraket, M. Olleik, and A. Yassine, “Skill-based framework for optimal
Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 21, no. 10/11, pp. 879–888, 2003. software project selection and resource allocation,” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
[198] R. I. Whitfield, J. S. Smith, and A. H. B. Duffy, “Identifying component vol. 234, no. 1, pp. 308–318, 2014.
modules,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Des., Cambridge, U.K., [224] X. Zhang and V. Thomson, “Modelling the development of complex
Jul. 2002, pp. 571–592. products using a knowledge perspective,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 30,
[199] D. Wilde, “Personalities into teams: We take different approaches to pp. 203–226, Apr. 2019.
problems, and the best solutions are achieved by the greatest diversity,” [225] S. J. Chen and L. Lin, “Modeling team member characteristics for the
Comput. Mech. Eng., vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 22–26, 2010. formation of a multifunctional team in concurrent engineering,” IEEE
[200] D. Wu, D. W. Rosen, J. H. Panchal, and D. Schaefer, “Understanding Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 111–124, May 2004.
communication and collaboration in social product development through [226] E. L. Fitzpatrick and R. G. Askin, “Forming effective worker teams with
social network analysis,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, multi-functional skill requirements,” Comput. & Indust. Eng., vol. 48,
Art. no. 011001. no. 3, pp. 593–608, 2005.
[201] D. C. Wynn and C. M. Eckert, “Perspectives on iteration in design and [227] S. Collins, A. Yassine, and S. Borgatti, “Evaluating product development
development,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 153–184, 2017. systems using network analysis,” Syst. Eng. J., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 55–68,
[202] D. C. Wynn and P. J. Clarkson, “Process models in design and develop- 2009.
ment,” Res. Eng. Des., vol. 29, pp. 161–202, 2018. [228] S. Collins, J. Bradley, and A. Yassine, “Analyzing product development
[203] H. Xia, M. Dawande, and V. Mookerjee, “Optimal coordination in dis- task networks to examine organizational change,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
tributed software development,” Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 25, no. 1, Manag., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 513–525, Aug. 2010.
pp. 56–76, 2016. [229] R. J. Calantone and C. A. Di Benedetto, “Performance and time to
[204] S. Xu, Z. Li, Q. Lu, G. Li, and L. Huang, “An optimal coordination market: accelerating cycle time with overlapping stages,” IEEE Trans.
method for software development,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 232–244, May 2000.
Eng. Manage., Dec. 2009, pp. 623–627.
[205] Q. Yang, S. Kherbachi, Y. S. Hong, and C. Shan, “Identifying and man-
aging coordination complexity in global product development project,”
Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1464–1475, 2015.
[206] A. Yassine, “Managing the development of complex product systems— Ali A. Yassine received the B.E. degree in mechanical
What managers can learn from the research,” IEEE Eng. Manage. Rev., engineering from the American University of Beirut
vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 59–70, Dec. 2018. (AUB), Beirut, Lebanon, in 1988, and the M.S. and
[207] A. A. Yassine, “Investigating product development process reliability and Ph.D. degrees in industrial and manufacturing engi-
robustness using simulation,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 545–561, neering from Wayne State University, Detroit, MI,
2007. USA, in 1989 and 1994, respectively.
[208] A. A. Yassine and J. A. Bradley, “A knowledge-driven, network-based He is a Professor of Engineering Management
computational framework for product development systems,” J. Comput. with the Department of Industrial Engineering and
Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 13, no. 1, 2013, Art. no. 011005. Management, AUB. He was an Assistant Professor
[209] A. Yassine, and D. Braha, “Four complex problems in concurrent engi- with the Department of Industrial and Systems Engi-
neering and the design structure matrix method,” IEEE Acoust., Speech, neering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Signal Process. Newslett., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 165–176, Sep. 2003. (UIUC) from 2001 to 2008. Prior to joining UIUC, he was a Research Scientist
[210] A. Yassine, B. Maddah, and N. Nehme, “Optimal information exchange with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Technology, Policy
policies in integrated product development,” IIE Trans., vol. 45, no. 12, and Industrial Development. He has authored more than 100 articles in leading
pp. 1249–1262, 2013. engineering and management academic journals and refereed international
[211] A. A. Yassine, R. H. Chidiac, and I. H. Osman, “Simultaneous optimisa- conferences, covering product design and development, engineering and project
tion of products, processes, and people in development projects,” J. Eng. management, systems and entrepreneurial engineering, and management of
Des., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 272–292, 2013b. technology and technological innovations.

Managing The Development of Complex Product Systems An Integrative Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing The Development of Complex Product Systems An Integrative Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing The Development of Complex Product Systems An Integrative Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO.

6, DECEMBER 2021 1619

Managing the Development of Complex Product

revealed an overarching theme that underscored the importance

You might also like