Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T01:20:34.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of the Consequences of Disrupting Events on Ongoing Product Development Projects: The Cascading Effects of Severe Influences

Part of: Design Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Fausto Guaragni ,
Roland Ortt  and
Kristin Paetzold
Fausto Guaragni*
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich; TU Delft
Roland Ortt
Affiliation:
TU Delft
Kristin Paetzold
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich;
*
Contact: Guaragni, Fausto, Bundeswehr University Munich, Technical Product Development, Germany, fausto.guaragni@unibw.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The initial planning of the development of complicated products usually requires time and efforts. However, even the most accurate plans are not able to cope with all the uncertainties that might arise during an ongoing project. If a severe uncertainty affect the development project a critical situation arises and a disruption might happen. The present literature does not offer a comprehensive solution on how to investigate these type of events after they occurred. This contribution presents a model that aims to analyse and better understand disruptions that affect ongoing product development projects.

Keywords

Disruption AnalysisUncertaintyOrganisation of product developmentCase study
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1075 - 1084
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Ansoff, H. I. (1980), Strategic Management, Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Frankenberger, E. (2013), Management Kritischer Situationen, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Clausen, J., Larsen, J., Larsen, A. and Hansen, J. (2001), “Disruption management-operations research between planning and execution.” Or/ms Today, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 40–43.Google Scholar
Doran, J. and van der Graaf, G. (1996), “Tripod-BETA: Incident investigation and analysis.” SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Conference, 1996. Society of Petroleum Engineers.Google Scholar
Eden, C., Williams, T., Ackermann, F. and Howick, S. (2000), The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 291–300.Google Scholar
Guaragni, F., Ortt, J. R. and Paetzold, K. (2017), Managing disruptions during the execution phase of product development projects: A secondary data analysis. Proceedings of IEEE 23rd International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE17), Madeira, Portugal.Google Scholar
Guaragni, F., Ortt, J. R. and Paetzold, K. (2018), “Management of Severe Influences Affecting Product Development Projects: Understanding the behaviour of disrupting events through existing cases.” Proceedings of IAMOT 2018, International Conference on Management of Technology.Google Scholar
Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D.L. (1990), “Accelerating the development of technology-based new products.” California management review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 24–44.Google Scholar
Hillson, D. A. and Hulett, D. T. (2004), Assessing risk probability: Alternative approaches. 2004 PMI Global Congress Proceedings.Google Scholar
Juran, J. M. and Godfrey, B. A. (1999), Juran's Quality Handbook, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996), “On actor-network theory: A few clarifications.” Soziale welt, pp. 369–381.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press.Google Scholar
Lee, W.-S., Grosh, D. L., Tillman, F. A. and Lie, C. H. (1985), “Fault Tree Analysis, Methods, and Applications ߝ A Review”. IEEE transactions on reliability, Vol. 34, pp. 194–203.Google Scholar
Malone, T. W. (1990), What is Coordination Theory and How Can It Help Design Cooperative Work Systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, California, October, 1990.Google Scholar
O'Connor, G. C. and Rice, M. P. (2013), “A Comprehensive Model of Uncertainty Associated with Radical Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30.Google Scholar
Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1996), “Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 54.Google Scholar
Reason, J. (1990), Human error, Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
Reason, J. (2016), Managing the risks of organizational accidents, Routledge.Google Scholar
Reason, J., Hollnagel, E. and Paries, J. (2006), “Revisiting the Swiss cheese model of accidents.” Journal of Clinical Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 110–115.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. S., Chanin, A., Köβler, J. and Paetzold, K. (2017), “Agile development and the constraints of physicality: a network theory-based cause-and-effect analysis.” 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Stamatis, D. H. (2003), Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, ASQ Quality Press.Google Scholar
Tang, C. S., Zimmerman, J. D. and Nelson, J. I. (2009), “Managing new product development and supply chain risks: The Boeing 787 case.” Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Taylor & Francis, pp. 74–86.Google Scholar