IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v10y2007i3p203-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Jun Hong Park & Sang Ho Kook & Hyeonu Im & Soomin Eum & Chulung Lee, 2018. "Fabless Semiconductor Firms’ Financial Performance Determinant Factors: Product Platform Efficiency and Technological Capability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Aurélie Beaugency & Mustafa Sakinç & Damien Talbot, 2015. "Externalisation de ressources et compétences stratégiques : Airbus et Boeing, des choix opposés," Post-Print halshs-02337460, HAL.
    4. Stefano Brusoni & Paola Criscuolo & Aldo Geuna, 2005. "The knowledge bases of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 395-415.
    5. Laamanen, Tomi, 2005. "Dependency, resource depth, and supplier performance during industry downturn," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 125-140, March.
    6. Biggiero, Lucio & Angelini, Pier Paolo, 2015. "Hunting scale-free properties in R&D collaboration networks: Self-organization, power-law and policy issues in the European aerospace research area," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 21-43.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Stefano Brusoni & Lorenzo Cassi & Simge Tuna, 2021. "Knowledge integration between technical change and strategy making," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 1521-1552, November.
    10. Sköld, Martin, 2008. "Knowledge Development Patterns In Radically New Product Architectures," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2008:8, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 18 Nov 2008.
    11. Bei, Xiaoshu, 2019. "Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    12. 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.
    13. Edouard Kujawski, 2010. "Unintended consequences of performance specifications for the reliability of military weapon systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 405-412, December.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Nast, Carolin & Broekel, Tom & Entner, Doris, 2024. "Fueling the fire? How government support drives technological progress and complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    18. Pierre Barbaroux & Victor Santos Paulino, 2022. "Why do motives matter? A demand-based view of the dynamics of a complex products and systems (CoPS) industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1175-1204, September.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    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.