IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v10y2007i3p203-221.html

Part count and design of robust systems

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Frey
  • Joseph Palladino
  • John Sullivan
  • Malvern Atherton

Abstract

Systems engineering frequently includes efforts to reduce part count with the goal of cutting costs, enhancing performance, or improving reliability. This paper examines the engineering practices related to part count, applying three different theories—Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, Axiomatic Design, and Highly Optimized Tolerance. Case studies from the jet engine industry are used to illustrate the complicated tradesoffs involved in real‐world part count reduction efforts. The principal conclusions are that: (1) Part consolidation at the component level has generally been accomplished as technological advancements enable them which is consistent with the “law of ideality” in the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving; (2) part count reduction frequently increases coupling among functional requirements, design parameters, and processing variables while also delivering higher reliability which conflicts with the theory of Axiomatic Design; and (3) at the overall system level, jet engine part count has generally increased in response to escalating demands for system robustness as suggested by the theory of Highly Optimized Tolerance. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 10: 203–221, 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Frey & Joseph Palladino & John Sullivan & Malvern Atherton, 2007. "Part count and design of robust systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 203-221, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:10:y:2007:i:3:p:203-221
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20071
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20071?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. Prencipe, Andrea, 2000. "Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 895-911, August.
    2. Don Clausing & Daniel D. Frey, 2005. "Improving system reliability by failure‐mode avoidance including four concept design strategies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 245-261, September.
    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. Timothy D. Blackburn & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2012. "Using a TRIZ framework for systems engineering trade studies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 355-367, September.
    2. Yi‐Kuei Lin & Ping‐Chen Chang, 2012. "Evaluation of system reliability for a cloud computing system with imperfect nodes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 83-94, March.

    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. Prencipe, Andrea & Tell, Fredrik, 2001. "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1373-1394, December.
    2. Rahul Kapoor & Ron Adner, 2012. "What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms' Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1227-1248, October.
    3. Markus Hoppe & Avner Engel & Shalom Shachar, 2007. "SysTest: Improving the verification, validation, and testing process— Assessing six industrial pilot projects," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 323-347, December.
    4. Jason Li-Ying & Yuandi Wang & Lutao Ning, 2016. "How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources? – A mediation model," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1009-1036, December.
    5. Miozzo, Marcela & Grimshaw, Damian, 2005. "Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1419-1439, November.
    6. Papazoglou, Michalis E. & Spanos, Yiannis E., 2018. "Bridging distant technological domains: A longitudinal study of the determinants of breadth of innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1713-1728.
    7. Lee, Kyung Yul & Jung, Hyun Ju & Kwon, Youngsun, 2024. "Boundary-spanning technology search, product component reuse, and new product innovation: Evidence from the smartphone industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    8. Cabigiosu, Anna & Zirpoli, Francesco & Camuffo, Arnaldo, 2013. "Modularity, interfaces definition and the integration of external sources of innovation in the automotive industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 662-675.
    9. Giulia Trombini & Anna Comacchio, 2012. "Cooperative Markets for Ideas: When does Technology Licensing Combine with R&D Partnerships?," Working Papers 8, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    10. Stephan, Michael, 2007. "Risiken infolge von Technologie-Outsourcing?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2007-047, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    11. Nicolas Mouchnino & Olivier Sautel, 2007. "Coordination productive et enjeux concurrentiels au sein d'une industrie modulaire : l'exemple d'Airbus," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 135-153.
    12. Michael Stephan, 2010. "Does Outsourcing Result in the Outsourcing of Technological Competencies? An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Vertical Specialization on the Technological Competence Base of Firms," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 21(3), pages 308-331.
    13. Yupeng Li & Zhaotong Wang & Xiaoyu Zhong & Fan Zou, 2019. "Identification of influential function modules within complex products and systems based on weighted and directed complex networks," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 2375-2390, August.
    14. Stephan, Michael, 2007. "Outsourcing und technologischer Kompetenzabbau? Eine empirische Analyse der Auswirkung der Reduzierung der Wertschöpfungstiefe auf das Technologieportfolio von Unternehmen," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 07-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    15. A. Terry Bahill, 2012. "Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 287-306, September.
    16. Huenteler, Joern & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Ossenbrink, Jan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Technology life-cycles in the energy sector — Technological characteristics and the role of deployment for innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 102-121.
    17. Lee, Jaegul & Berente, Nicholas, 2013. "The era of incremental change in the technology innovation life cycle: An analysis of the automotive emission control industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1469-1481.
    18. Anna Cabigiosu, 2018. "When do modular dominant designs emerge? A theoretical framework," Working Papers 05, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    19. Tom Broekel, 2019. "Using structural diversity to measure the complexity of technologies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    20. Nast, Carolin & Broekel, Tom & Entner, Doris, 2024. "Fueling the fire? How government support drives technological progress and complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).

    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:10:y:2007:i:3:p:203-221. 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.