IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v10y2007i1p1-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design

Author

Listed:
  • Rudolf Smaling
  • Olivier de Weck

Abstract

Most new technologies only deliver value once they are infused into a parent system. While the literature on innovation itself is abundant, there is a lack of understanding and methodology in terms of evaluating both the risks and opportunities of new technologies not in isolation, but in terms of their integration into a parent system in a wider regulatory and competitive context. This paper presents a technology infusion assessment methodology to quantify the potential performance benefits of new technologies using multiobjective Pareto analysis. Moreover, the costs of infusing new technologies are also considered using the concept of architectural invasiveness relative to a baseline system. The degree of invasiveness of different system architectures is related to the amount of design change required to accommodate the new technology. This is quantified with a component‐based change Design Structure Matrix (DSM). Risks and opportunities are quantified by evaluating the utility of future benefits and costs of a new technology against uncertain exogenous variables such as gains made by competing technologies and potential future regulatory actions. The technology infusion methodology is demonstrated for a hydrogen‐enhanced combustion engine, where the effects of integrating a plasma fuel reformer are quantified and discussed in terms of fuel economy, NOx emissions, and add‐on vehicle costs. The methodology is generally applicable to support quantitative analysis of technology infusion problems in system design. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 10: 1– 25, 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Rudolf Smaling & Olivier de Weck, 2007. "Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:10:y:2007:i:1:p:1-25
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20061
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20061?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, 2002. "Process integration using the design structure matrix," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 180-193.
    2. David M. Sharman & Ali A. Yassine, 2004. "Characterizing complex product architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 35-60.
    3. Pimmler, Thomas U. (Thomas Udo) & Eppinger, Steven D., 1994. "Integration analysis of product decompositions," Working papers 3690-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Armin P. Schulz & Don P. Clausing & Ernst Fricke & Herbert Negele, 2000. "Development and integration of winning technologies as key to competitive advantage," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 180-211.
    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. Michael J. Pennock, 2015. "Defense Acquisition: A Tragedy of the Commons," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 349-364, July.
    2. Peter Davison & Bruce Cameron & Edward F. Crawley, 2015. "Technology Portfolio Planning by Weighted Graph Analysis of System Architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 45-58, January.
    3. Morgan Dwyer & Bruce Cameron & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2015. "A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 568-583, November.
    4. Eun Suk Suh & Michael R. Furst & Kenneth J. Mihalyov & Olivier de Weck, 2010. "Technology infusion for complex systems: A framework and case study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 186-203, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Elizabeth B. Connelly & Lisa M. Colosi & Andres F. Clarens & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 178-191, March.
    7. Yuskevich, Ilya & Smirnova, Ksenia & Vingerhoeds, Rob & Golkar, Alessandro, 2021. "Model-based approaches for technology planning and roadmapping: Technology forecasting and game-theoretic modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    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. M. D. Guenov & S. G. Barker, 2005. "Application of axiomatic design and design structure matrix to the decomposition of engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 29-40.
    2. Eun Suk Suh & Michael R. Furst & Kenneth J. Mihalyov & Olivier de Weck, 2010. "Technology infusion for complex systems: A framework and case study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 186-203, June.
    3. Tamir Bustnay & Joseph Z. Ben‐Asher, 2005. "How many systems are there?—using the N2 method for systems partitioning," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 109-118.
    4. Babak Heydari & Mohsen Mosleh & Kia Dalili, 2016. "From Modular to Distributed Open Architectures: A Unified Decision Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 252-266, May.
    5. 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.
    6. David M. Sharman & Ali A. Yassine, 2004. "Characterizing complex product architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 35-60.
    7. Bohdan W. Oppenheim, 2004. "Lean product development flow," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 1-1.
    8. Ernst Fricke & Armin P. Schulz, 2005. "Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 1-1.
    9. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    10. Meir Tahan & Joseph Z. Ben‐Asher, 2005. "Modeling and analysis of integration processes for engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 62-77.
    11. Durugbo, Christopher & Tiwari, Ashutosh & Alcock, Jeffrey R., 2013. "Modelling information flow for organisations: A review of approaches and future challenges," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 597-610.
    12. Alan MacCormack & John Rusnak & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1015-1030, July.
    13. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    14. Claude Paraponaris & Jean-Louis Ermine & Claude Guittard & Pascal Lièvre, 2012. "Knowledge management in a French research community: a case study of GeCSO congress," Post-Print hal-01119721, HAL.
    15. Henning Skirde & Wolfgang Kersten & Meike Schröder, 2016. "Measuring the Cost Effects of Modular Product Architectures — A Conceptual Approach," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 1-23, August.
    16. Staudenmayer, Nancy A. (Nancy Ann) & Cusumano, Michael A., 1954-, 1998. "Alternative designs for product component integration," Working papers WP 4016-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Ipek Kazancoglu & Yigit Kazancoglu & Emel Yarimoglu & Aysun Kahraman, 2020. "A conceptual framework for barriers of circular supply chains for sustainability in the textile industry," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1477-1492, September.
    18. Brian M. Kennedy & Durward K. Sobek & Michael N. Kennedy, 2014. "Reducing Rework by Applying Set‐Based Practices Early in the Systems Engineering Process," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 278-296, September.
    19. Young‐Don Shin & Sang‐Hyun Sim & Jae‐Chon Lee, 2017. "Model‐Based Integration of Test and Evaluation Process and System Safety Process for Development of Safety‐Critical Weapon Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 257-279, May.
    20. Eckert, Claudia M. & Keller, René & Earl, Chris & Clarkson, P. John, 2006. "Supporting change processes in design: Complexity, prediction and reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(12), pages 1521-1534.

    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:1:p:1-25. 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.