IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v23y2020i5p557-578.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Set‐based design: The state‐of‐practice and research opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Shallcross
  • Gregory S. Parnell
  • Ed Pohl
  • Eric Specking

Abstract

Increasing system complexity has provided the impetus to develop new and novel systems engineering methodologies. One of these methodologies is set‐based design (SBD), a concurrent design methodology well suited for complex systems subject to significant uncertainty. Since the 1990s, numerous private, public, and defense sector design programs have successfully implemented SBD. However, concerns regarding SBD's complexity, tendency toward qualitative methods, and lack of quantitative tools have limited its use. To address these issues, our research surveys 122 refereed journal articles and conference papers to assess SBD's state‐of‐practice and identify relevant research opportunities. To accomplish these tasks, we perform a structured literature review to identify and assess relevant and influential research. We found that SBD's state‐of‐practice relies heavily upon decision and tradespace analysis with increasing emphasis on uncertainty modeling and MBSE. We found that the majority of SBD research consists of quantitative methodologies focusing on component and small system applications. We also found that complex system applications used mostly qualitative methodologies. We identify SBD research opportunities for requirements development, MBSE, uncertainty modeling, multiresolution modeling, adversarial analysis, and program management. Finally, we recommend the development of a comprehensive SBD methodology and toolkit, suited for complex system design across all stages of the product development life cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Shallcross & Gregory S. Parnell & Ed Pohl & Eric Specking, 2020. "Set‐based design: The state‐of‐practice and research opportunities," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 557-578, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:23:y:2020:i:5:p:557-578
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21549
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21549?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. Desheng Dash Wu & Xie Kefan & Chen Gang & Gui Ping, 2010. "A Risk Analysis Model in Concurrent Engineering Product Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1440-1453, September.
    2. Eric Specking & Bobby Cottam & Gregory Parnell & Edward Pohl & Matthew Cilli & Randy Buchanan & Zephan Wade & Colin Small, 2019. "Assessing Engineering Resilience for Systems with Multiple Performance Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 1899-1912, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yongrok Choi & Xiaoxia Ye & Lu Zhao & Amanda Luo, 2016. "Optimizing enterprise risk management: a literature review and critical analysis of the work of Wu and Olson," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 281-300, February.
    2. Desheng Wu, 2016. "Risk management and operations research: a review and introduction to the special volume," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 1-5, February.
    3. Cai, Baoping & Zhang, Yanping & Wang, Haifeng & Liu, Yonghong & Ji, Renjie & Gao, Chuntan & Kong, Xiangdi & Liu, Jing, 2021. "Resilience evaluation methodology of engineering systems with dynamic-Bayesian-network-based degradation and maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. Tak Siu, 2012. "A BSDE approach to risk-based asset allocation of pension funds with regime switching," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 449-473, December.
    5. S. E. Galaitsi & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Benjamin D. Trump & Igor Linkov, 2021. "The Need to Reconcile Concepts that Characterize Systems Facing Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 3-15, January.
    6. Rutkowski Ireneusz P., 2022. "How to Measure the Success or Failure Rate of a New Product Strategy in Competitive Markets," Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, Sciendo, vol. 45(3), pages 27-44, October.
    7. Oliveira, Gilson Adamczuk & Tan, Kim Hua & Guedes, Bruno Turmina, 2018. "Lean and green approach: An evaluation tool for new product development focused on small and medium enterprises," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 62-73.
    8. Geng, Sunyue & Yang, Ming & Mitici, Mihaela & Liu, Sifeng, 2023. "A resilience assessment framework for complex engineered systems using graphical evaluation and review technique (GERT)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    9. Pritee Ray & Mamata Jenamani, 2016. "Sourcing decision under disruption risk with supply and demand uncertainty: A newsvendor approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 237-262, February.
    10. Ali Jamshidi & Shahrzad Faghih‐Roohi & Siamak Hajizadeh & Alfredo Núñez & Robert Babuska & Rolf Dollevoet & Zili Li & Bart De Schutter, 2017. "A Big Data Analysis Approach for Rail Failure Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1495-1507, August.
    11. Adel Mottahedi & Farhang Sereshki & Mohammad Ataei & Ali Nouri Qarahasanlou & Abbas Barabadi, 2021. "The Resilience of Critical Infrastructure Systems: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-32, March.
    12. Fei Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Dingtao Zhao, 2014. "A Quantifiable Risky Decision Model: Incorporating Individual Memory into Informational Cascade," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 537-553, July.
    13. Ireneusz P. Rutkowski, 2022. "SucTheoretical and empirical research reveals that despite implementing new product development and management best practices, many projects fail with new product strategies. But what if failure rates," Journal of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in Emerging Markets, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 1(14), pages 52-61.
    14. Jesse M. Keenan & Benjamin D. Trump & William Hynes & Igor Linkov, 2021. "Exploring the Convergence of Resilience Processes and Sustainable Outcomes in Post-COVID, Post-Glasgow Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-12, December.

    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:23:y:2020:i:5:p:557-578. 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.