Treatment of the Responsibility and Controllability in Team-Based Concurrent Product and Process Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In team-based concurrent product and process design (CPPD), one type of team activities proceeds alternately in a one-by-one fashion. This sequential mode of design flow can be treated as a generalized leader/follower team paradigm, in which the leader acts as a principal team and the follower as a subordinate team. In the dual-team approach, the leader and the follower correspond to two aspects of CPPD — product design and process design — whereby the alternate nature of design tasks can be characterized through the interactions of the leader and the follower. To reveal the variety of such team activities, the notion of responsibility and controllability in various design protocols is introduced to describe the respective roles of the leader and the follower in team design. The method of Design for Satisfaction (DfS) is used as a framework to characterize team’s preference toward a feasible design in view of the team’s goal. Accordingly, the satisfaction-driven dual-team based CPPD models are developed to account for different team scenarios. A design example is used to support the illustration of the team design approach suggested.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".