Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, System Design and Management Program, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 71). / Product development in the automotive industry has evolved around the design of components. The organization is established around components and people have a very component centric perspective on problem solving. This has led to local optimization of individual components, while the larger system spirals out of control. The penalty is often measured in terms of development time and cost. New programs are given autonomy to make independent choices without regard for what other programs are doing, which leads to a wide variety of architectures put into place. Program managers and functional managers have different prioritizations. Furthermore, new designs are provided by a separate organization from the group responsible for implementation. They have a very different value system and are unaware of the difficulties experienced in the implementation phase. This type of practice leads to programs nearing production deadlines with poorly optimized systems. Engineers must relearn due to the lack of standardization across program. The team absorbs additional resources from within to fix issues prior to launch. The robbing of resources leads to delays in subsequent programs and the cycle repeats itself. These issues are partly cultural, part organizational, part due to lack of understanding of systems engineering. A new organization is designed, which strengthen the systems perspective and give power to a new role in the organization, the Systems Engineer. The Systems Engineer is chartered with global optimization of the entire system, which includes both functional aspects as well as business aspects like resource availability, development cost and time. They are responsible for developing the complete system, from concept to final implementation. The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) shows the boundaries of the system and reveals new areas where the Systems Engineer can influence the design at lower cost to the organization. / (cont.) The Robustness Checklist, standardization and Systems Architecture provide Systems Engineers tools to change from a component mindset to a systems mindset and to optimize the system as a whole. / by Matthew J. Aquaro. / S.M.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:MIT/oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/44701 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Aquaro, Matthew |
| Contributors | Daniel Whitney and Maria Yang., System Design and Management Program., System Design and Management Program. |
| Publisher | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Source Sets | M.I.T. Theses and Dissertation |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 71 p., application/pdf |
| Rights | M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission., http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds