MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341354448

A parametric model to estimate design effort in product development

2007· dissertation· en· W2341354448 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adil Salam

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2007
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametric statisticsParametric modelRegression analysisComputer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringIndustrial engineeringData miningStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and development of a product is a complex process, which requires many resources and various types of expertise. Because the process is complex, it is essential to estimate the design effort required to complete a product development project. The estimation of design effort is, in turn, a prime factor to predicting lead-time, cost, and effort requirements of a project. In this thesis, parametric models for estimating design effort are proposed. A case study involving engineering departments at Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) is presented. First, research is conducted on each of the design, aerodynamics, analytical and drafting departments at PWC to identify factors that could be best utilized in estimating design effort. Four factors are identified for parametric modeling. These factors are type of design, degree of change, concurrency, and experience of departmental personnel. The parametric model applied to each department uses least square regression. Furthermore, the jackknife technique is utilized to ameliorate the bias in regression equations coefficients. This research also uses a data masking technique in order to protect confidential data information of PWC. The masking technique enables to calibrate the impact of each factor considered in the parametric modeling, while not being affected by the masking. Data analysis is first utilized to establish regression based parametric models. Later, the regression equations are tested for their validation. It is found that the proposed parametric models provide good estimate of design effort when compared to the original estimates, with maximum relative errors of less than 10%. Furthermore, in each parametric model, the factors that significantly affect the design effort are identified using ANOVA table. Based on the outcomes reported in ANOVA, the number of factors is reduced and new models are developed with the reduced number of factors. Lastly, the application of the models, limitations and possible future studies are also discussed in this thesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207