Premium
7.5.1 The House of IPD – Integrating the WHY's, WHAT's, and HOW's for Successful Systems Development
Author(s) -
Wenzel Stefan,
Negele Herbert,
Fricke Ernst
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
incose international symposium
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2334-5837
DOI - 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2000.tb00441.x
Subject(s) - interdependence , new product development , automotive industry , domain (mathematical analysis) , variety (cybernetics) , product (mathematics) , aerospace , competition (biology) , best practice , product design , computer science , manufacturing engineering , systems engineering , industrial engineering , engineering , process management , business , marketing , artificial intelligence , mathematical analysis , ecology , geometry , mathematics , management , political science , economics , law , biology , aerospace engineering
To be successful in a highly dynamic environment, with increased global competition, shorter life cycles, more demanding customers/users, and more complex products, different industries should take advantage of learning from each other's problems and solutions. For example, practices like QFD, Taguchi, CAX, Robust Design, or DFX that are applied (successfully?) in daily practice within automotive industries, could be used more efficiently in the space domain. On the other hand, commercial companies can learn from aerospace industries' traditional strengths, in the areas of requirements engineering, modeling and simulation, or systems engineering. A variety of potential synergies exists that should be exploited to the greatest possible extent. But what method or tool should we use, and when? For an effective application of methods and tools in product development, a comprehensive framework is needed, which supports the selection, coordination, and assessment according to domain‐ and company‐specific needs and constraints. Unfortunately, tools and methods often are used because it is popular to use them, but not because they ideally support the solution of specific problems. Therefore, in this paper a systematic approach is proposed on how methods and tools can be selected for a successful product development system, independent of the industrial sector of a company, but dependent on its problems, market constraints, and declared goals. A structured model, the House of IPD, was derived from the analysis of different product development processes at commercial companies in Germany, England, and the US (Wenzel & Bauch 1996). In the House of IPD, the interdependencies and relations between goals and problems, essentials/processes, and practices can be structured. It is possible to visualize in a matrix, how and to what extent the practices (HOWs) contribute to the realization of certain essentials (WHATs), and which essentials support which goals or solve which problems (WHYs).