The Monitoring of Information Transfers to Control Design Progress During Product Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty and complexity are inherent characteristics of a modern product development process. Concurrent engineering necessitates the use of interim information that may be incomplete, provisional, inconsistent and unreliable for the purpose of the tasks at hand. Mechanisms that allow actors in the design process to exchange interim information while being able to estimate the remaining risk of rework is of great importance to ensure robust decision making and to realize continuous progress. However, product development processes are traditionally managed through the use of milestone, or earned value methods without enabling the measurement as well as the capture of progress according to the state of progress of design tasks. The present paper presents a new methodology for monitoring interim information transfers. The approach supports design process planners by providing them with a monitoring system to control when interim information should be released, with which pace, and at which point of progress. This takes into account the criticality of information that is one of the main drivers of rework risk.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it