Set-Based Concurrent Engineering Innovation Roadmap (SBCE IR): a case on Adiabatic Humidification System

References

• Akao, Y., & Mazur, G. H. (2003). The leading edge in QFD: Past, present and future. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20, 20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E., Alam, R., Sopelana, A., Sorli, M., Flores, M., & James-Moore, M. (2010). The conceptual leanPPD model. The 17th ISPE international conference on Concurrent Engineering, September, Cracow, Poland.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuller, G. (1984). Creativity as an exact science. New York: Gordon & Breach.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuller, G. (1994). And suddenly the inventor appeared(L. Shulyak, Trans.). Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Centre. ISBN 0-9640740-1-X.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuller, G. (1999). The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation, and technical creativity. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Centre. ISBN 0-9640740-4-4.
   Google Scholar
• Baldussu, A., Becattini, N., & Cascini, G. (2011). Network of contradictions analysis and structured identification of critical Control Parameters. Procedia Engineering, 9, 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Bhushan, N. (2007). Set-based concurrent engineering (SBCE) and TRIZ – A framework for global product development. India: Wipro Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Bogus, S. M., Molenaar, K. R., & Diekmann, J. E. (2005). A concurrent engineering approach to reducing design delivery time. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131, 1179–1185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavallucci, D., & Khomenko, N. (2007). From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: Addressing complexity challenges in inventive design. International Journal of Product Development, 4, 4–21.
   Google Scholar
• Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1974). DEMATEL – Progress achieved. Futures, 6, 361–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1978). World Crisis – Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory. Futuribles, 14, 211–221.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, D. N., & Sobek, D. K. (2005). Adapting real options to new product development by modeling the second Toyota Paradox. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52, 175–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forman, E. H. (1990). Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 153–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, M. L., & Bray, O. H. (1997). Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. SAND97-0665. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Hey, J. H. G., Joyce, C. K., & Beckman, S. L. (2007). Framing innovation: Negotiating shared frames during early design phases. Journal of Design Research, 6, 79–99.
   Google Scholar
• Hua, Z., Yang, J., Coulibaly, S., & Zhang, B. (2006). Integration TRIZ with problem-solving tools: A literature review from 1995 to 2000. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 1, 111–128.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M. N., & Harmon, K. (2008). Ready, set, dominate: Implement Toyota's set-based learning for developing products and nobody can catch you. Richmond, VA: Oaklea Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, M., Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E., Haque, B., Ewers, P., Sorli, M., & Sopelana, A. (2011). Towards lean product and process development. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, [online] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0951192X.2011.608723?tab = permissions#tabModule (Accessed January 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Khomenko, N., De Guio, R., Lelait, L., & Kaikov, I. (2007). A framework for OTSM-TRIZ based computer support to be used in complex problem management. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 30, 88–104.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In: R.Landau & N.Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (p. 287). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kowalick, J. (1998). Psychological Inertia. TRIZ Journal, [online] http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/1998/08/c/index.htm (Accessed July 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., Li, M., Yen, T., & Huang, T. (2010). Analysis of adopting an integrated DEMATEL on a technology acceptance model. Expert System with Application, 37, 1745–1754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maher, M. L., & Poon, J. (1996). Modelling design exploration as co-evolution. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, 11, 195–210.
   Google Scholar
• McManus, H. L. (2005). Product Development Value Stream Mapping (PDVSM) Manual. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lean Aerospace Initiative.
   Google Scholar
• Mizuyama, H., & Ishida, K. (2007). Systematic decision making process for identifying the contradictions to be tracked by TRIZ to accomplish product innovation. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 1, 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. M., & Liker, J. K. (2006). The Toyota product development system: Integrating people, process, and technology. New York, NY: Productivity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterwal, D. P. (2010). The lean machine: How Harley-Davidson drove top-line growth and profitability with revolutionary lean product development. New York: American Management Association.
   Google Scholar
• Oppenheim, B. W. (2004). Lean product development flow. Systems Engineering, 7, 352–378.
   Google Scholar
• Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., & Probert, D. (2010). Roadmapping for strategy and innovation: Aligning technology and markets in a dynamic world. Cambridge: Institute of Manufacturing, University of Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Raudberget, D. (2010). Practical applications of set-based concurrent engineering in industry. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 56, 685–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, M., Kerga, E., Taisch, M., & Terzi, S. (2011). Proposal of a method to systematically identify wastes in new product development process. IEEE Proceeding of the 7th international conference on Concurrent Enterprise (ICE2011), Aachen (Germany), June 20–22.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, M., Kerga, E., Taisch, M., & Terzi, S. (2012). Learning methodologies to diffuse lean product development to industries. The 9th international conference on Product Lifecycle Management, PLM2012, Vol. 388, pp. 287–298, July 9–11 2012, Montreal, Canada, ISBN print: 978-3-642-35757-2, ISBN online: 978-3-642-35758-9, 10.1007/978-3-642-35758-9_25.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Savransky, S. D. (2000). Engineering of creativity – Introduction to TRIZ methodology of inventive problem solving (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., & Smith, S. M. (2002). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24, 111–134.
   Google Scholar
• Sheng, I. L. S., & Kok-Soo, T. (2010). Eco-efficient product design using theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) principles. American Journal of Applied Science, 7, 852–858.
   Google Scholar
• Shi, G., & She, Y. (2008). Theoretical research to solve the problem based on QFD, TRIZ and Taguchi method. Systems Engineering and Electronic Technology, 30, 851–857.
   Google Scholar
• Smithers, T. (1989). AI-based design versus geometry-based design or why design cannot be supported by geometry alone. Computer-Aided Design, 21, 141–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobek, D. K. (1997). Principles that shape product development system – A Toyota and Chrysler comparison (PhD. Dissertation). Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C., & Liker, J. K. (1999). Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, 40, 67–83.
   Google Scholar
• Terwiesch, C., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. (2002). Exchanging preliminary information in concurrent engineering: Alternative coordination strategies. Organization Science, 13, 402–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H., Chen, G., Lin, Z., & Wang, H. (2005). Algorithm of integrating QFD and TRIZ for the innovative design process. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 23, 41–52.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, A., Liker, J. K., Cristiano, J. J., & Sobek, D. KII (1995). The second Toyota Paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review, 36, 43–61.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, A. C., Shook, J. K., & Sobek, D. K. (2007). Lean product and process development. Cambridge, MA: The Lean Enterprise Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2005). Lean solutions: How companies and customers can create value and wealth together. Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Yamashina, H., Ito, T., & Kawada, H. (2002). Innovative product development process by integrating QFD and TRIZ. International Journal of Production Research, 40, 1031–1050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y., & Cheng, G. (1991). On the logic of design. Design Studies, 12, 137–141.
   Google Scholar