A Risk Analysis Model in Concurrent Engineering Product Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent engineering has been widely accepted as a viable strategy for companies to reduce time to market and achieve overall cost savings. This article analyzes various risks and challenges in product development under the concurrent engineering environment. A three-dimensional early warning approach for product development risk management is proposed by integrating graphical evaluation and review technique (GERT) and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Simulation models are created to solve our proposed concurrent engineering product development risk management model. Solutions lead to identification of key risk controlling points. This article demonstrates the value of our approach to risk analysis as a means to monitor various risks typical in the manufacturing sector. This article has three main contributions. First, we establish a conceptual framework to classify various risks in concurrent engineering (CE) product development (PD). Second, we propose use of existing quantitative approaches for PD risk analysis purposes: GERT, FMEA, and product database management (PDM). Based on quantitative tools, we create our approach for risk management of CE PD and discuss solutions of the models. Third, we demonstrate the value of applying our approach using data from a typical Chinese motor company.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".