Abstract
The DoD science and technology communities seek to improve decision-making capability in analysis of alternatives (AoA) through implementing model-based engineering (MBE) early in the design process. Point-based design has been the traditional design method and often converges quickly on a solution that may later require unexpected engineering changes which may impact cost. Set-based design (SBD) considers sets of all possible solutions early in the design phase and enables down-selecting possibilities to converge to a final solution. When physics-based design, cost, and value models are well integrated, design options can be simultaneously analyzed generating numerous alternatives allowing exploration of a larger tradespace. Using an Army ground vehicle as a platform of study, this research applied the principals of set-based design through integration of an engineering model with a cost model. Stakeholder requirements were integrated to incorporate value into the design tradespace. The process of integrating SBD into the cost, engineering, and value models generated analytical insights of the design alternatives within the tradespace that provide guidance for future integration efforts. By exploring the SBD tradespace, analysts can potentially explore more high-value design solutions along the efficient frontier.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2008). Circular no. A–11, preparation, submission and execution of the budget. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Spero, E., Avera, M., Valdez, P., & Goerger, S. (2014). Tradespace exploration for the engineering of resilient systems. 2014 Conference on Systems Engineering Research Procedia Computer Science, 28, 591–600.
GovEvents. Design sciences series: Set-based design. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from https://www.govevents.com/details/24509/design-sciences-series-set-based-design/
Iansiti, M. (1995). Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in turbulent environments. California Management Review, 38, 37–58.
Kalyanaram, G., & Krishnan, V. (1997). Deliberate product definition: Customizing the product definition process. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 276–285.
Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C., & Liker, J. K. (1999). Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, 40(2), 67–83.
Singer, D. J., Doerry, N., & Buckley, M. E. (2009). What is set-based design? Naval Engineers Journal, 121(4), 31–43.
Berstein, J. I. (1998). Design methods in the aerospace industry: Looking for evidence of set-based practices. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Master of Science thesis.
NASA. (2015). NASA cost estimating handbook. Washington, DC: NASA.
Richards, J., Kelley, D., Hardin, D., & Church, H. (2017). Generating the cost domain of the tradespace for lifecycle cost analysis. Vicksburg, MS: Internal ERDC.
Government Accounting Office. (2009). GAO cost estimating and assessment guide: Best practices for developing and managing capital program costs. United States Government Accountability Office, Applied Research and Methods.
Castanier, M., Pokoyoway, A., & Bronstetter, G. (2016). Using ERS tools for trade space exploration of military ground vehicles. NDIA Systems Engineering Conference. Springfield, VA.
Cherwonik, J. (2017). Engineered resilient systems (ERS) lifecycle cost analysis for trade-space generation. Vicksburg, MS: Internal ERDC.
Feickert, A. (2017). Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) mobility, reconnaissance, and firepower programs. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Blakeman, S., Gibbs, A., & Jeynathan, J. (2008). Study of the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle program as a model for rapid defense acquisitions (MBA Professional Report). Monterey, CA: Naval Post Graduate School.
Canaley, W. P. (2013). Joint light tactical vehicle: A case study. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College.
Parnell, G. S. (2016). Trade-off analytics: Creating and exploring the system tradespace (p. 367). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rinaudo, C. H., Buchanan, R. K., & Barnett, S. K. Applying the robustness (broad utility) workflow to assess resiliency for engineered resilient systems. 2016 Conference on Systems Engineering Research.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Defense Engineered Resilient Systems program for its support of this research. Additionally, this paper is based on collaborative research with the US Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) Cost and Systems Analysis Division, Technomics Inc., and the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) Analytics—Computational Methods and System Behavior (CMSB) Team.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Buchanan, R.K., Richards, J.E., Rinaudo, C.H., Goerger, S.R. (2019). Integrating Set-Based Design into Cost Analysis. In: Adams, S., Beling, P., Lambert, J., Scherer, W., Fleming, C. (eds) Systems Engineering in Context. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00114-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00114-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00113-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00114-8
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)