IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v20y2017i6p529-541.html

Experiments in systems engineering and design research

Author

Listed:
  • Jitesh H. Panchal
  • Zoe Szajnfarber

Abstract

Controlled experiments ranging from laboratory experiments to field experiments are becoming increasingly important within systems engineering and design (SE&D) research. Controlled experiments provide unique capabilities for testing hypotheses, and guiding the development of scientific theories, but their potential is not being fully exploited. As the systems engineering research community embraces different research methods commonly adopted in other domains, there is a need for understanding the role and appropriateness of those methods within the research process. While the design of experiments in SE&D research is not unique per se, we contend that aspects of representativeness in the SE&D context pose different experimental design challenges than do the problems typically studied by experimental social scientists. There is therefore a need to translate established practices to the SE&D context, and also belay widely held concerns about the value of experiments in SE&D research. To address this need, the goals of the paper are to discuss the potential role of controlled experiments in systems engineering and design research, to review the benefits and limitations of different types of experiments, and to highlight the key issues in validating experimental studies. The taxonomy and the discussion on validation build on the rich history in social and behavioral sciences, with specific adaptation to the SE&D context. The discussion is anchored in specific examples from the authors’ own research on open innovation in systems engineering.

Suggested Citation

  • Jitesh H. Panchal & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2017. "Experiments in systems engineering and design research," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(6), pages 529-541, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:6:p:529-541
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21415
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21415?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. Taylor, Curtis R, 1995. "Digging for Golden Carrots: An Analysis of Research Tournaments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 872-890, 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. Sean D. Vermillion & Richard J. Malak, 2020. "An investigation on requirement and objective allocation strategies using a principal–agent model," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 100-117, January.

    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. Atal, Vidya & Bar, Talia & Gordon, Sidartha, 2016. "Project selection: Commitment and competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 30-48.
    2. Basak, Suleyman & Makarov, Dmitry, 2012. "Difference in interim performance and risk taking with short-sale constraints," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 377-392.
    3. Hinnosaar, Toomas, 2024. "Optimal sequential contests," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(1), January.
    4. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    5. Ta, Chi L., 2024. "Do conservation contests work? An analysis of a large-scale energy competitive rebate program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    6. Gilbert, Richard J. & Katz, Michael L., 2011. "Efficient division of profits from complementary innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 443-454, July.
    7. Alexander Matros, 2006. "Elimination Tournaments where Players Have Fixed Resources," Working Paper 205, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2006.
    8. Matros, Alexander & Smirnov, Vladimir, 2016. "Duplicative search," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-22.
    9. Deng, Shanglyu & Fu, Qiang & Wu, Zenan & Zhu, Yuxuan, 2024. "Contests with sequential entry and incomplete information," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(2), May.
    10. Stefan Szymanski, 2010. "The Economic Design of Sporting Contests," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Comparative Economics of Sport, chapter 1, pages 1-78, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Newell, Richard G. & Wilson, Nathan E., 2005. "Technology Prizes for Climate Change Mitigation," Discussion Papers 10698, Resources for the Future.
    12. Brueggemann, Julia & Meub, Lukas, 2015. "Experimental evidence on the effects of innovation contests," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 251, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    13. Michael Babington & Sebastian J. Goerg & Carl Kitchens, 2020. "Do Tournaments With Superstars Encourage or Discourage Competition?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 44-63, January.
    14. Bavly, Gilad & Heller, Yuval & Schreiber, Amnon, 2022. "Social welfare in search games with asymmetric information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Emre Ozdenoren & Murat Erkurt, 2026. "Distribution-Free Equilibrium in Search Contests," Papers 2603.20683, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    16. Dmitry Ryvkin & Andreas Ortmann, 2008. "The Predictive Power of Three Prominent Tournament Formats," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 492-504, March.
    17. Juan‐José Ganuza & Esther Hauk, 2006. "Allocating Ideas: Horizontal Competition in Tournaments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 763-787, September.
    18. Andrea Fosfuri & Thomas Rønde, 2005. "Leveraging Resistance to Change and the Skunk Works Model of Innovation," CIE Discussion Papers 2007-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics, revised Jun 2007.
    19. Prüfer, J., 2009. "Semi-Public Contests," Discussion Paper 2009-33, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Dmitry Ryvkin, 2022. "To Fight or to Give Up? Dynamic Contests with a Deadline," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8144-8165, November.

    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:20:y:2017:i:6:p:529-541. 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.