scholarly journals Front End Projects Benefits Realisation from a Requirements Management Perspective—A Systematic Literature Review

Buildings ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Joas Serugga ◽  
Mike Kagioglou ◽  
Patricia Tzortzopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Integrated Design ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Requirements Management ◽  
Support Design ◽  
Front End ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
New Research

The recent notable emergence of a body of research in requirements management on one hand and benefits realisation has contributed to addressing a growing need for improved performance in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) projects. However, front end design (FED) as one of the vital processes in the project life cycle and delivery has attracted limited research to date within this understanding. This paper aims to map current evidence on requirements management in facilitating benefits realisation from an FED perspective. This is to bring about an updated and unified position on requirements management for its impact on design decision making. A systematic review of the literature covering the last ten years (2008–2018) aims first to build understanding and support identification of these emergent conceptual positions and secondly underscore essential requirements and their categorisations that impact on design discourse in FED. One hundred sixty-one peer-reviewed journal papers in the areas of benefits realisation and/or requirements management and/or FED based are identified on a pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-six requirements are identified as important in influencing use case changes important in design decision making broadly grouped into nine major categories. Following analysis, this research finds little evidence supporting an integrated requirements management practice and understanding to support design decision making. The research further finds bias in current research discourse towards four requirements categories (technical, economics, governance and environment); and 14 requirements, dominated by three strategic values, collaboration and project governance, with over 80% share of literature. The least 14 requirements such as “flow of spaces, social status/aspiration, mobility and integrated design” among others only account for less than 10% of literature. The authors argue for new research to bridge this gap, highlight the essential role of requirements management and broaden understanding to improve benefits realisation, particularly for FED processes.

scholarly journals Introducing Sustainability in Value Models to Support Design Decision Making: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Bertoni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Customer Value ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Support Design ◽  
A Value ◽  
Operational Level ◽  
Sustainability Research ◽  
Operational Activities

Manufacturing organizations shall recognize sustainability as a business occasion to capitalize on, rather than an undesirable pressing situation. Still, empirical evidence shows that this opportunity is hard to capture and communicate in global strategic decisions, through planning by tactical management, to daily operational activities. This paper systematically reviews the modelling challenges at the cross-road of value and sustainability decisions making, spotlighting methods and tools proposed in literature to link sustainability to customer value creation at strategic, tactical and operational level. While statistical results show that the topic of sustainability and value modeling is trending in literature, findings from content analysis reveal that recent attempts to promote a value-based view in the sustainability discussion remain at a strategic level, with most of the proposed indicators being suited for managerial decision-making. The lack of support at operational level points to the opportunity of cross-pollinating sustainability research with value-centered methodologies originating from the aerospace sector. The Value Driven Design framework is proposed as main hub from which to derive models supporting engineers and technology developers in the identification of win-win-win situations, where sustainable improvements are aligned with business advantages.

scholarly journals A Utilitarian Decision—Making Approach for Front End Design—A Systematic Literature Review

Buildings ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Joas Serugga ◽  
Mike Kagioglou ◽  
Patricia Tzortzopolous
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Quality Function Deployment ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Visual Methods ◽  
Front End ◽  
Multi Attribute Utility Theory ◽  
Limited Application ◽  
Set Based Design

The complexity of construction processes often means interaction between various stakeholders, activities and tasks in order to deliver the expected outcomes. The intensity and dynamics of front-end design (FED) mean decision techniques and methods are important in supporting projects benefits delivery more importantly those based on utility of decision making. This paper explores a new utilitarian decision-making approach based on a systematic literature review of FED decision making. It presents the state of the art in design decision making concepts and analysis of tools over the last 10 years (2009–2019). From a total of 111 peer-reviewed journal papers, fifteen decision-making techniques are identified as dominant in design decision making, broadly grouped in four major categories as explanatory/rational, Multi Criteria Decision Making techniques (MCDM), Hybrid and Visual methods. The review finds that the most applied of the MCDM is Quality Function Deployment (QFD); while among the rational/explanatory techniques is set-based design (SBD). While there is limited application of Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) in decision making, the paper finds that the robust consistency and structured approach better captures the intricate dynamics of FED; including modelling of the subjectivity, interdependences and uncertainty in design discourse.

PP283 Living Systematic Reviews In Time Of COVID-19: An Innovative Approach To Decision-making In An Environment Of Changing Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Lucinda Paz-Valiñas ◽  
Teresa Mejuto-Martí ◽  
Beatriz Casal-Acción ◽  
Yolanda Triñanes-Pego ◽  
María del Carmen Maceira-Rozas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Innovative Approach ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
New Research ◽  
High Level ◽  
Treatment Prognosis

IntroductionThe management of the COVID-19 pandemic is a challenge for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) methodology due to the need to formulate evidence-based recommendations in times of uncertainty in minimal time - for a large number of publications and with changing or even contradictory information. Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Since the COVID-19 pandemic fits all criteria to perform LSRs: (i) the Review question is a particular priority for decision-making, (ii) there is an high level of uncertainty about the existing evidence, and (iii) there is likely to be emerging evidence that will impact on the conclusions of the LSR, the aim of which is to analyze the role of LSRs as an innovative approach to HTA in recent years, and its impact on the management of the pandemic.MethodsA systematic search of LSRs (published or protocols) was run on the main biomedical databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) in November 2020 and it was rerun in June 2021 without time limit. The results will be analyzed and classified by year and category (epidemiology, treatment, prognosis, symptoms, diagnosis and vaccines).ResultsThe literature research has returned a total of 187 publications. The LSR concept emerged in 2014, from which some LSRs began to be published, but an exponential increase has been observed in 2020 with 76 references of which 66 percent were focused on the SARS-CoV-2. By category, 81.8 percent were focused on treatment, 41.8 percent on epidemiology, 20.9 percent on rehabilitation, 15.1 percent on diagnosis, 10.2 percent on prognosis and 2.2 percent on symptoms until June 2021. There wasn't any LSR for vaccines and 28 percent was focused on other fields.ConclusionsLSRs are particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic, with research evidence emerging rapidly, current evidence being uncertain, and new research changing policy or decisions on health. The majority of LSRs published up to June 2021 were focused on the treatment of COVID-19.

Concurrent Optimization of Product Design and Manufacturing Coping With Demand Variability

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masataka Yoshimura ◽  
Atsushi Takeuchi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Optimization ◽  
Product Design ◽  
Integrated Design ◽  
Industrial Robots ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Satisfaction Level ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Decision Variables ◽  
Practical Design

Abstract A user-oriented product design methodology for integrating design, manufacturing and marketing is proposed and the practical design optimization procedures are constructed and presented. First, market demand analyses are conducted by dividing users into groups based on similarities of users’ needs. The product satisfaction level of each group is formulated using the users’ satisfaction levels for product attributes. Next, in order to obtain optimum design solutions effectively in the integrated decision making processes of design, manufacturing and marketing (which include an enormous number of decision variables), multiphase procedures of design optimization are constructed according to simplicity levels of shape modelings with structural characteristics and manufacturing costs which can be evaluated. Then, practical design decision making procedures from the extraction of design alternatives through the determination of detailed decision variables are described corresponding to multiphase modeling starting with simplified models and advancing to detailed models. Here, the objective function of decision making is to maximize the satisfaction level of product user. Finally, the proposed integrated design optimization method is applied to industrial robots for demonstrating the effectiveness of the method.

Risk-Based Decision-Making for Managing Resources During the Design of Complex Space Exploration Systems

2006 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 1014-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Farhang Mehr ◽  
Irem Y. Tumer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Resource Management ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Complex Space ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Space Exploration ◽  
Integrated Design ◽  
System Level ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Risk Elements

Complex space exploration systems are often designed in collaborative engineering environments where requirements and design decisions by various subsystem engineers have a great impact on the overall risk of the mission. As a result, the system-level management should allocate risk mitigation resources (e.g., capital to place additional sensors or to improve the current technology) among various risk elements such that the main objectives of the system are achieved as closely as possible. Minimizing risk has been long accepted as one of the major drivers for system-level decisions and particularly resource management. In this context, Risk-Based Decision Making refers to a process that allocates resources in such a way that the expected risk of the overall system is minimized. This paper presents a new risk-based design decision-making method, referred to as Risk and Uncertainty Based Concurrent Integrated Design Methodology or RUBIC Design Methodology for short. The new approach is based on concepts from portfolio optimization theory and continuous resource management, extended to provide a mathematical rigor for risk-based decision-making during the design of complex space exploration systems. The RUBIC design method is based on the idea that a unit of resource, allocated to mitigate a certain risk in the system, contributes to the overall system risk reduction in the following two ways: (1) by mitigating that particular risk; and (2) by impacting other risk elements in the system (i.e., the correlation among various risk elements). RUBIC then provides a probabilistic framework for reducing the expected risk of the final system via optimal allocation of available risk-mitigation resources. The application of the proposed approach is demonstrated using a satellite reaction wheel example.

scholarly journals Introducing Sustainability in Value Models to Support Design Decision Making: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Bertoni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Customer Value ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Support Design ◽  
A Value ◽  
Operational Level ◽  
Sustainability Research ◽  
Operational Activities

Manufacturing organizations shall recognize sustainability as a business occasion to capitalize on, rather than an undesirable pressing situation. Still, empirical evidence shows that this opportunity is hard to capture and communicate in global strategic decisions, through planning by tactical management, to daily operational activities. This paper systematically reviews the modelling challenges at the cross-road of value and sustainability decisions making, spotlighting methods and tools proposed in literature to link sustainability to customer value creation at strategic, tactical and operational level. While statistical results show that the topic of sustainability and value modeling is trending in literature, findings from content analysis reveal that recent attempts to promote a value-based view in the sustainability discussion remain at a strategic level, with most of the proposed indicators being suited for managerial decision-making. The lack of support at operational level points to the opportunity of cross-pollinating sustainability research with value-centered methodologies originating from the aerospace sector. The Value Driven Design framework is proposed as main hub from which to derive models supporting engineers and technology developers in the identification of win-win-win situations, where sustainable improvements are aligned with business advantages.

scholarly journals Introducing Sustainability in Value Models to Support Design Decision Making: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Bertoni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Customer Value ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Support Design ◽  
A Value ◽  
Operational Level ◽  
Sustainability Research ◽  
Operational Activities

Manufacturing organizations shall recognize sustainability as a business occasion to capitalize on, rather than an undesirable pressing situation. Still, empirical evidence shows that this opportunity is hard to capture and communicate in global strategic decisions, through planning by tactical management, to daily operational activities. This paper systematically reviews the modeling challenges at the crossroad of value and sustainability decisions making, spotlighting methods and tools proposed in literature to link sustainability to customer value creation at strategic, tactical and operational level. While statistical results show that the topic of sustainability and value modeling is trending in literature, findings from content analysis reveal that recent attempts to promote a value-based view in the sustainability discussion remain at a strategic level, with most of the proposed indicators being suited for managerial decision-making. The lack of support at operational level points to the opportunity of cross-pollinating sustainability research with value-centered methodologies originating from the aerospace sector. The Value Driven Design framework is proposed as main hub from which to derive models supporting engineers and technology developers in the identification of win-win-win situations, where sustainable improvements are aligned with business advantages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document