Estimation of Project Completion Time and Factors Analysis for Concurrent Engineering Project Management: A Simulation Approach

Abstract

In concurrent engineering projects, tasks are usually interdependent among each other that require much iteration before completion where the critical path method/program evaluation and review technique (CPM/PERT) may not be applicable to help estimate the project duration. In addition, carrying out a large-scaled project in a dynamic environment has to deal with various factors at the same time. When estimating the project completion time, previous research often focused on one subject of interest and assumed the other factors causing little effect on the overall project duration. The objective of this article is to develop a research framework to help estimate the project completion time and analyze the major factors that affect the estimation for complex concurrent engineering projects. The framework consists of three major components: (1) data collection, where the needed data for simulation are prepared including project task structure, task relations, and quantified team member characteristics; (2) simulation, where tasks are dynamically assigned to the appropriate members/engineers according to each member's knowledge level of the task, teamwork capability, work schedule availability, and learning curve improvement; and (3) data analysis, where significant factors to the project completion time are studied by the ANOVA analysis based on the simulation results. The effectiveness of our framework and the simulation model is demonstrated by an illustrative example.

Keywords

project management concurrent engineering design structure matrix simulation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Van Dorp, J.R. and Duffy, M.R. (1999). Statistical Dependence in Risk Analysis for Project Networks Using Monte Carlo Methods , International Journal of Production Economics, 58: 17–29 .

Steward, D.V. (1981). The Design Structure System: A Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems , IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 28(1): 71–74 .

Ahmadi, R. , Roemer, T. and Wang, R. (2001). Structuring Product Development Processes , European Journal of Operational Research, 130: 539–558 .

Chen, S.J. and Lin, L. (2002). A Project Task Coordination Model for Team Organization in Concurrent Engineering , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 10(3): 187–203 .

Chen, S.J. and Lin, L. (2003). Decomposition of Interdependent Task Group for Concurrent Engineering , Computers and Industrial Engineering, 44(3): 435–459 .

Chen, S.J. (2005). An Integrated Methodological Framework for Project Tasks Coordination and Team Organization in Concurrent Engineering , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 13(3): 185–197 .

Eppinger, S.D. , Whitney, D.E. , Smith, R.P. and Gebala, D.A. (1994). A Model-based Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development , Research in Engineering Design, 6(1): 1–13 .

Eppinger, S.D. (2001). Innovation at the Speed of Information , Harvard Business Review, 79: 149–158 .

Hu, J. , Liu, J. and Prasad, B. (2003). A Constraint-driven Execution Plan for Maximizing Concurrency in Product Development , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11(4): 301–312 .

10.

Kusiak, A. and Wang, J. (1993). Efficient Organizing of Design Activities , International Journal of Production Research, 31(4): 753–769 .

11.

Lee, S.G. , Ong, K.L. and Khoo, L.P. (2004). Control and Monitoring of Concurrent Design Tasks in a Dynamic Environment , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 12(1): 59–66 .

12.

Michael, D. , Zahra, I. and Jacques, R. (2005). Managing and Organizing Concurrent Processes According to the CMM Levels , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 13(3): 241–251 .

13.

Smith, R.P. (1997). The Historical Roots of Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals , IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(1): 67–78 .

14.

Yassine, A. and Braha, D. (2003). Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Method , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11(3): 165–176 .

15.

Prasad, B. (1998). Decentralized Cooperation: A Distributed Approach to Team Design in a Concurrent Engineering Organization , Team Performance Management, 4(4): 138–165 .

16.

Wrights, T.P. (1936). Factors Affecting the Cost of Planes , Journal of the Aeronautical Science, 3(4): 122–128 .

17.

Hanakawa, N. , Morisaki, S. and Matsumoto, K. (1998). A Learning Curve Based Simulation Model for Software Development , Proceedings–International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 350–359 .

18.

Carmel, E. (1994). Time-to-Completion in Software Package Startups , Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 498–507 .

19.

Chung, W.Y. and Guinan, P.J. (1994). Effects of Participative Management , Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference, pp. 252–260 .

20.

Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1992). Organizing and Leading ‘Heavyweight’ Development Teams , California Management Review, 34(3): 9–28 .

21.

Johnson, D. and Johnson, F. (1991). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .

22.

Lanigan, M.J. (1994). Task Estimating: Completion Time Versus Team Size , Engineering Management Journal, 4(5): 212–218 .

23.

Chen, S.J. and Lin, L. (2004). Modeling Team Member Characteristics for the Formation of a Multifunctional Team in Concurrent Engineering , IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(2): 111–124 .

24.

Browning, T.R. (1998). Modeling and Analyzing Cost, Schedule, and Performance in Complex System Product Development, PhD Thesis (TMP), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

25.

Browning, T.R. and Eppinger, S.D. (1998). A Model for Development Project Cost and Schedule Planning, Working Paper no. 4050, M.I.T. Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA .