Improving new product development using process simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bombardier Aerospace currently puts more effort into developing new products at a faster pace.The goal of this thesis is to study the effect of sharing an aeroelastic model between the Loads and Dynamics departments at Bombardier Aerospace as well as to seek out other opportunities in order to reduce total effort.The work in this thesis is based on a previous project that was conducted two years ago in order to establish process maps for the two departments and to simulate the aeroelastic model sharing scenario.In the present thesis, two types of strategies are applied: (1) add resources to the tasks located on the critical path to shorten project span time; (2) seek opportunities for sharing design processes which in turn reduce total effort.Firstly, the process maps for the two departments were updated and verified.Secondly, the critical tasks were identified on the process maps.In addition, the process maps were shown to the engineers in both departments to look for potentially sharable design processes.Thirdly, the scenarios with additional resources and with shared processes were simulated.The benefits of the scenarios were observed by comparing two factors: (1) project span time and (2) effort.Afterwards, the iv quality of the inputs and the design processes was investigated.Finally, this thesis concludes with validated simulation results, suggested optimal solutions to reduce the span time and effort, and guidance for future work.v ABRÉGÉ Présentement, Bombardier Aéronautique cherche à accélérer le développement de leurs nouveaux produits.Le sujet de cette mémoire est l'étude de l'effet du partage du modèle aéroélastique entre le département de charges et le département de la dynamique de Bombardier Aéronautique sur la durée des projets, ainsi que de la recherche de différentes méthodes pour réduire l'effort total.Le contenu de cette mémoire est basé sur le travail d'un projet précédent qui avait pour but de créer les cartes de processus pour les deux départements et simuler le scénario de partage du modèle aéroélastique.Dans cette mémoire, deux types de stratégies sont proposés : augmenter les ressources aux tâches sur le chemin critique du projet afin de réduire sa durée, et chercher des possibilités de partager les processus de conception pour réduire l'effort total.Premièrement, les cartes de processus des deux départements ont été mis à jour et validés.Deuxièmement, les tâches critiques ont été identifiées sur les cartes de processus.Les cartes de processus ont également été présentés aux deux départements afin d'identifier les possibilités de partager des processus de conception.Troisièmement, les scénarios appliquant les vi deux types de stratégies proposés ont été simulés.Les résultats des simulations ont été analysés en comparant la durée du projet et l'effort total des scénarios.Puis, la qualité des donnés entrées et les processus de conception ont été étudiés.Finalement, les résultats des simulations ont été présentés, et des recommandations pour améliorer le processus de développement de nouveaux produits sont proposées.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".