IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v12y2009i1p69-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The many views of a process: Toward a process architecture framework for product development processes

Author

Listed:
  • Tyson R. Browning

Abstract

A product or system development process is a kind of complex system, arguably even more complex than the system it produces. Yet, the models and tools used by systems engineers and program managers to plan and manage technical work—such as process flowcharts, Gantt charts, work breakdown structures, and text‐rendered procedures—are less sophisticated and capable than the ones used to design the product system. When used, the various process models are often challenged to incorporate and maintain synchronized program information—e.g., they may be created by different subgroups in a program and based on different assumptions, and they may diverge as a program proceeds. Recently, architecture frameworks (AFs) have been used to help manage the complexity in engineered systems. An AF provides a portfolio of views of a complex system, each of which describes it partially and in a format meaningful to its users and their particular needs. This paper proposes the application of AF concepts to the management of the work done to develop a complex system product. The pieces of work and their relationships constitute a complex process. A portfolio of integrated and synchronized views of a single process model would seem to be preferable to the current state—a number of disparate and uncoordinated management models. This paper introduces a new application of AFs to development processes and suggests this area as one for further research and development in the systems engineering community. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng

Suggested Citation

  • Tyson R. Browning, 2009. "The many views of a process: Toward a process architecture framework for product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 69-90, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:12:y:2009:i:1:p:69-90
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20109
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20109?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tyson R. Browning & Ernst Fricke & Herbert Negele, 2006. "Key concepts in modeling product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 104-128, June.
    2. John D. C. Little, 1970. "Models and Managers: The Concept of a Decision Calculus," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(8), pages 466-485, April.
    3. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    4. Brian T. Pentland, 1995. "Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 541-556, October.
    5. Thomas W. Malone & Kevin Crowston & Jintae Lee & Brian Pentland & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & George Wyner & John Quimby & Charles S. Osborn & Abraham Bernstein & George Herman & Mark Klein & Elissa O'Do, 1999. "Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational Processes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 425-443, March.
    6. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. von Hippel, Eric, 1990. "Task partitioning: An innovation process variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 407-418, October.
    8. Amit Basu & Robert W. Blanning & Avraham Shtub, 1997. "Metagraphs in Hierarchical Modeling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(5), pages 623-639, May.
    9. Elmaghraby, Salah E., 1995. "Activity nets: A guided tour through some recent developments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 383-408, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim Davis & Thomas Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Architecting technology transitions: A sustainability‐oriented sociotechnical approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 193-212, June.
    2. Pedro Parraguez & Steven Eppinger & Anja Maier, 2016. "Characterizing Design Process Interfaces as Organization Networks: Insights for Engineering Systems Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 158-173, March.
    3. Eun Suk Suh & Noemi Chiriac & Katja Hölttä‐Otto, 2015. "Seeing Complex System through Different Lenses: Impact of Decomposition Perspective on System Architecture Analysis," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 229-240, May.
    4. Bahram Hamraz & Nicholas H. M. Caldwell & P. John Clarkson, 2013. "A Holistic Categorization Framework for Literature on Engineering Change Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-505, December.
    5. Mobin, Mohammadsadegh & Li, Zhaojun & Cheraghi, S. Hossein & Wu, Gongyu, 2019. "An approach for design Verification and Validation planning and optimization for new product reliability improvement," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Gongyu Wu & Zhaojun (Steven) Li & Pan Liu, 2022. "Risk-informed reliability improvement optimization for verification and validation planning based on set covering modeling," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(2), pages 357-370, April.
    7. Miri Sitton & Yoram Reich, 2015. "Enterprise Systems Engineering for Better Operational Interoperability," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 625-638, November.
    8. Jeffery L. Williams & Jerrell T. Stracener, 2013. "First steps in the development of a Program Organizational Architectural Framework (POAF)," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 45-70, March.
    9. Jason E. Bartolomei & Daniel E. Hastings & Richard de Neufville & Donna H. Rhodes, 2012. "Engineering Systems Multiple‐Domain Matrix: An organizing framework for modeling large‐scale complex systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 41-61, March.
    10. Sönmez, Erkut & Kekre, Sunder & Scheller-Wolf, Alan & Secomandi, Nicola, 2013. "Strategic analysis of technology and capacity investments in the liquefied natural gas industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 100-114.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tyson R. Browning & Ernst Fricke & Herbert Negele, 2006. "Key concepts in modeling product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 104-128, June.
    2. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    3. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Madjid Tavana & Takao Terano, 2020. "Product development team formation: effects of organizational- and product-related factors," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 88-122, March.
    4. MacCormack, Alan & Baldwin, Carliss & Rusnak, John, 2012. "Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1309-1324.
    5. Dirk Martignoni & Thomas Keil & Markus Lang, 2020. "Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 266-286, March.
    6. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    7. Eric (Er) Fang, 2011. "The Effect of Strategic Alliance Knowledge Complementarity on New Product Innovativeness in China," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 158-172, February.
    8. Marlo Raveendran & Phanish Puranam & Massimo Warglien, 2016. "Object Salience in the Division of Labor: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2110-2128, July.
    9. Azan, Wilfrid & Ivanaj, Silvester & Rolland, Olivier, 2019. "Modular path customization and knowledge transfer: Causal model learnings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 182-193.
    10. Brian T. Pentland, 2003. "Sequential Variety in Work Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 528-540, October.
    11. Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2020. "Component complementarity and transaction costs: the evolution of product design," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 845-867, August.
    12. Carol Ann McDevitt & Eric C Cahill & Craig Stambaugh, 2004. "System‐level application of the evolutionary product development process to manufactured goods," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 144-152.
    13. Hau L. Lee & Glen Schmidt, 2017. "Using Value Chains to Enhance Innovation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 617-632, April.
    14. Shixiang Wang & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "A tale of two distances: a study of technological distance, geographic distance and multilocation firms," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 1091-1120.
    15. Tian Heong Chan & Haibo Liu & Steffen Keck & Wenjie Tang, 2023. "When do teams generate valuable inventions? The moderating role of invention integrality on the effects of expertise similarity, network cohesion, and gender diversity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1760-1777, June.
    16. Paulo J. Gomes & Nitin R. Joglekar, 2008. "Linking modularity with problem solving and coordination efforts," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(5), pages 443-457.
    17. Morita, Hodaka & Nakajima, Kentaro & Tsuru, Tsuyoshi, 2017. "Product Architecture and Intra-Firm Coordination: Theory and Evidence," Discussion Paper Series 659, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Rauniar, Rupak & Rawski, Greg, 2012. "Organizational structuring and project team structuring in integrated product development project," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 939-952.
    19. Natalicchio, A. & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. & Garavelli, A.C., 2017. "Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms – A simulation approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 28-42.
    20. Gang Zhang & Ruoyang Gao, 2010. "Modularity and incremental innovation: the roles of design rules and organizational communication," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 171-200, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:12:y:2009:i:1:p:69-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.