IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v24y2021i1p17-33.html

An evaluation of the optimality of frequent verification for vertically integrated systems

Author

Listed:
  • Aditya U. Kulkarni
  • Alejandro Salado
  • Peng Xu
  • Christian Wernz

Abstract

Verification activities, such as inspection, testing, analysis, and demonstration, improve one's confidence in the system meeting the system requirements during the development process. Frequent verification is often advocated as a strategy that minimizes costs of rework over the entire design process, where frequent verification involves verifying after any change in the design. However, this strategy is yet to be validated. In this paper, we develop a belief‐based model of verification in systems design to determine the conditions under which frequent verification is an optimal strategy for a vertically integrated organization. Our model uses belief distributions to capture the organization's dynamic confidence in the system design meeting a requirement of interest during the development process. It also captures the organization's dynamic confidence in the correctness of its development activities (or design process) as a function of past verification activities and current system maturity. The analysis of our model shows that frequent verification is a cost‐minimizing strategy for any level of belief in satisfying the requirement only when the organization has high confidence in the correctness of its design activities and the expected cost to rework a faulty design is greater than the costs to set up the verification activities throughout the development process. Otherwise, strategies with infrequent verification are superior. Our work contributes to the growing body of literature on the theoretical foundations of systems engineering and engineering design and seeks to provide practitioners with a means to determine optimal verification strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Aditya U. Kulkarni & Alejandro Salado & Peng Xu & Christian Wernz, 2021. "An evaluation of the optimality of frequent verification for vertically integrated systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 17-33, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:24:y:2021:i:1:p:17-33
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21564
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21564?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. Saul I. Gass, 1983. "Feature Article—Decision-Aiding Models: Validation, Assessment, and Related Issues for Policy Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 603-631, August.
    2. Reza Ahmadi & Robert H. Wang, 1999. "Managing Development Risk in Product Design Processes," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 235-246, April.
    3. McCarl, Bruce A., 1984. "Model Validation: An Overview with some Emphasis on Risk Models," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(03), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Albert Y. Ha & Evan L. Porteus, 1995. "Optimal Timing of Reviews in Concurrent Design for Manufacturability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(9), pages 1431-1447, 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. Mario Holzner, 2004. "GSIM Measurement of the Costs of Protection in Southeast Europe," wiiw Balkan Observatory Working Papers 55, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    2. Nitindra R. Joglekar & Ali A. Yassine & Steven D. Eppinger & Daniel E. Whitney, 2001. "Performance of Coupled Product Development Activities with a Deadline," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1605-1620, December.
    3. Joglekar, Nitindra R., 2003. "Performance of coupled product development activities with a deadline," Working papers WP 4122-00., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Thomas A. Roemer & Reza Ahmadi, 2004. "Concurrent Crashing and Overlapping in Product Development," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 606-622, August.
    5. Qian, Yanjun & Xie, Min & Goh, Thong Ngee & Lin, Jun, 2010. "Optimal testing strategies in overlapped design process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 131-143, October.
    6. Thomas A. Roemer & Reza Ahmadi & Robert H. Wang, 2000. "Time-Cost Trade-Offs in Overlapped Product Development," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 858-865, December.
    7. Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch, 1999. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Overlapping Development Activities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 455-465, April.
    8. Musser, Wesley N. & Tew, Bernard V., 1984. "Use Of Biophysical Simulation In Production Economics," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(01), pages 1-10, July.
    9. Boggess, William G. & Anaman, Kwabena A. & Hanson, Gregory D., 1985. "Importance, Causes, And Management Responses To Farm Risks: Evidence From Florida And Alabama," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Quagrainie, Kwamena K. & Unterschultz, James R. & Jeffrey, Scott R., 2000. "The Impact Of Post-Farmgate Value-Adding On Western Canadian Agriculture," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36379, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Atif Açıkgöz & Irem Demirkan & Gary P. Latham & Cemil Kuzey, 2021. "The Relationship Between Unlearning and Innovation Ambidexterity with the Performance of New Product Development Teams," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 945-982, August.
    12. Gülru F. Özkan-Seely & Cheryl Gaimon & Stylianos Kavadias, 2015. "Dynamic Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Development for Product and Process Design Teams," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 177-190, May.
    13. İ. Esra Büyüktahtakın & Robert G. Haight, 2018. "A review of operations research models in invasive species management: state of the art, challenges, and future directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 357-403, December.
    14. Jeremy Hutchison-Krupat, 2018. "Communication, Incentives, and the Execution of a Strategic Initiative," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3380-3399, July.
    15. Chakravarty, Amiya K., 2001. "Overlapping design and build cycles in product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 392-424, October.
    16. Sosa, Manuel E., 2003. "Factors that influence technical communication in distributed product development : an empirical study in the telecommunications industry," Working papers WP 4123-00., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Frederic H. Murphy, 2005. "ASP, The Art and Science of Practice: Elements of a Theory of the Practice of Operations Research: Expertise in Practice," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 313-322, August.
    18. Troost, Christian & Huber, Robert & Bell, Andrew R. & van Delden, Hedwig & Filatova, Tatiana & Le, Quang Bao & Lippe, Melvin & Niamir, Leila & Polhill, J. Gareth & Sun, Zhanli & Berger, Thomas, 2023. "How to keep it adequate: A protocol for ensuring validity in agent-based simulation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 159, pages 1-21.
    19. Pankaj Setia & Balaji Rajagopalan & Vallabh Sambamurthy & Roger Calantone, 2012. "How Peripheral Developers Contribute to Open-Source Software Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 144-163, March.
    20. Unterschultz, James R. & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Quagrainie, Kwamena K., 2000. "Value-Adding 20 Billion By 2005: Impact At The Alberta Farm Gate," Project Report Series 24049, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.

    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:24:y:2021:i:1:p:17-33. 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.