Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 271–289 | Cite as

Towards an integrated process model for new product development with data-driven features (NPD3)

  • Yunpeng LiEmail author
  • Utpal Roy
  • Jeffrey S. Saltz
Original Paper


New information and communication technologies are changing the way products are developed, manufactured, serviced and managed over the product’s lifecycle. Today’s smart products not only consist of their physical components, but are also endowed with intelligence. Data and the capabilities to process data into knowledge and eventually decisions have become critical components of the product itself and of the process to develop/operate the product. This paper investigates how engineers and a new functional role, data scientists, can effectively collaborate in a mixed team for new product development with data-driven features (NPD3). We focus on the concept development stage, typically the fuzziest phase of product development. In this paper, an integrated process model is explored by revisiting the traditional new product development (NPD) process model as well as the knowledge discovery and data mining (KDDM) process model. Then a case study of the development of an application-specific unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is used to examine the proposed model.


Smart product development Concept development NPD KDDM Data-driven product design UAS development 



This work has been partially funded by the Center for Advanced Systems and Engineering (CASE) at Syracuse University and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The authors also sincerely appreciate all the Smart UAS project team members for providing the data and examples used in this paper.


  1. Austin S, Baldwin A, Li B, Waskett P (1999) Analytical design planning technique: a model of the detailed building design process. Des Stud 20(3):279–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins ST, Yassine AA, Borgatti SP (2008) Evaluating product development systems using network analysis. Syst Eng 12(1):55–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conforto EC, Amaral DC (2016) Agile project management and stage-gate model—a hybrid framework for technology-based companies. J Eng Tech Manage 40:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper RG (1994) Perspective: third-generation new product processes. J Prod Innov Manag 11(1):3–14. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper RG (2008) Perspective: the stage-gate idea-to-launch process—update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. J Prod Innov Manag 25(3):213–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper RG (2014) What’s next? After stage-gate. Res Technol Manag 57(1):20–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper RG (2016) Agile-stage-gate hybrids. Res Technol Manag 59(1):21–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debevoise T, Taylor J (2014) The MicroGuide to process and decision modeling in BPMN/DMN: building more effective processes by integrating process modeling with decision modeling, CreateSpace independent publishing platform. ISBN: 978-1-502-78964-8Google Scholar
  9. Dhar V (2013) Data science and prediction. Commun ACM 56(12):64–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Distanont A, Haapasalo H, Kamolvej T, Meeampol S (2012) interaction patterns in collaborative product development (CPD). Int J Synergy Res 1(2):21–43Google Scholar
  11. Eklund U, Bosch J (2012) Applying agile development in mass-produced embedded systems. In: Proceedings of international conference on agile software development (XP 2012), Malmö, Sweden, pp. 31–46.
  12. Eklund U, Holmström OH, Strøm NJ (2014) Industrial challenges of scaling agile in mass-produced embedded systems. In: Proceedings of international conference on agile software development (XP 2014), Rome, Italy, pp. 30–42.
  13. Geiger C, Sarakakis G (2016) Data driven design for reliability. In: Proceedings 2016 annual reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS), Tucson, AZ.
  14. Gericke K, Blessing L (2011) Comparisons of design methodologies and process models across disciplines: a literature review. In: Proceedings on 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED 11), Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 1, pp. 393–404Google Scholar
  15. Gerwin D, Barrowman NJ (2002) An evaluation of research on integrated product development. Manage Sci 48(7):938–953. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbert M, Ruigrok W (2010) The ‘What’ and ‘How’ of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work. Organ Res Methods 13(4):710–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta SG, Ghonge MM, Jawandhiya PM (2013) Review of unmanned aircraft system (UAS). Int J Adv Res Comput Eng Technol (IJARCET) 2(4):1646–1658Google Scholar
  18. Herrmann JW, Schmidt LC (2002) Viewing product development as a decision production system. In: Proceeding of ASME 2002 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (DETC2002), Montreal, Canada, 4, pp. 323–332.
  19. Huang HM (2008) Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework volume i: terminology. Special Publication, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD. 1011-I-2.0Google Scholar
  20. Karlström D, Runeson P (2005) Combining agile methods with stage-gate project management. J IEEE Softw 22(3):43–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karlström D, Runeson P (2006) Integrating agile software development into stage-gate managed product development. Empir Softw Eng 11(2):203–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassner L, Gröger C, Mitschang B, Westkämper E (2015) Product life cycle analytics—next generation data analytics on structured and unstructured data. In: Proceedings on 9th CIRP conference on intelligent computation in manufacturing engineering (CIRP ICME’14), Naples, Italy, 33, pp. 35–40.
  23. Kendoul F (2012) Survey of advances in guidance, navigation, and control of unmanned rotorcraft systems. J Field Robot 29(2):315–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2011) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manage Sci 47(1):1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krovi R, Chandra A, Rajagopalan B (2003) Information flow parameters for managing organizational processes. Commun ACM 46(2):77–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurgan LA, Musilek P (2006) A survey of knowledge discovery and data mining process models. Knowl Eng Rev 21(1):1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Y, Roy U (2015) Challenges in developing a computational platform to integrate data analytics with simulation-based optimization. In: Proceedings on ASME 2015 international design engineering technical conference and computers and information in engineering conference (DETC2015), Boston, MA, pp. V01BT02A035.
  28. Li Y, Roy U (2018) A multi-objective optimization methodology towards product design for sustainability. Int J Strateg Eng Asset Manag 3(2):154–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li Y, Roy U, Shin SJ, Lee YT (2015) A ‘Smart Component’ data model in PLM. In: Proceedings on 2015 IEEE international conference on big data, Santa Clara, CA, pp. 1388–1397.
  30. Li Y, Roy U, Saltz JS (2017) Modular design of data-driven analytics models in smart-product development. In: Proceedings on ASME 2017 international mechanical engineering congress & exposition (IMECE2017), Tampa, FL, USA. pp. V011T15A022.
  31. Lohr S (2011) Ex-apple leaders push the humble thermostat into the digital age. The New York Times, Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  32. Marbán O, Segovia J, Menasalvas E, Fernández-Baizán C (2009) Toward data mining engineering: a software engineering approach. Inf Syst 34(1):87–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NATO (2012) Standard interfaces of UAV control system (UCS) for NATO UAV interoperability, 3rd ed., NATO Standardization Agency (NSA). STANAG 4586Google Scholar
  34. Nest Labs (2012) Nest learning thermostat efficiency simulation: update using data from first three months. White Paper, Nest, Palo Alto, CA. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  35. Nest Labs (2013) The effect of schedules on HVAC runtime for nest learning thermostat users. White Paper, Nest, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Nest Labs (2014) Enhanced auto-schedule. White Paper, Nest, Palo Alto, CA. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  37. Ore JP, Elbaum S, Burgin A, Detweiler C (2015) Autonomous aerial water sampling. J Field Robot 32(8):1095–1113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patil DJ (2012) Data Jujitsu: the art of turning data into product. O’Reilly Media, Inc., CA. ISBN: 978-1-449-34115-2. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  39. Pavliscak P (2015) Data-informed product design, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Inc., CA. ISBN: 978-1-491-93129-5. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  40. Peffer T, Pritoni M, Meier A, Aragon C, Perry D (2011) How people use thermostats in homes: a review. Build Environ 46(12):2529–2541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Porter ME, Heppelmann JE (2015) How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Bus Rev 93:96–114Google Scholar
  42. Roy U, Zhu B, Li Y, Zhang H, Yaman O (2014) Mining big data in manufacturing: requirement analysis, tools and techniques. In: Proceedings on ASME 2014 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition (IMECE2014), Montreal, Canada, 11, pp. V011T14A047.
  43. Saltz JS (2015) The need for new processes, methodologies and tools to support big data teams and improve big data project effectiveness. In: Proceedings on 2015 IEEE international conference on big data, Santa Clara, CA, pp. 2066–2071.
  44. Shearer C (2000) The CRISP-DM model: the new blueprint for data mining. J Data Warehous 5(4):13–22Google Scholar
  45. Solomatine DP, Ostfeld A (2008) Data-driven modelling: some past experiences and new approaches. J Hydroinform 10(1):3–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2004) The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Manage Sci 50(12):1674–1689. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun K, Li Y, Roy U (2017) A PLM-based data analytics approach for improving product development lead time in an engineer-to-order manufacturing firm. Math Model Eng Probl 4(2):69–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2012) Product design and development, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN: 978-0-073-40477-6Google Scholar
  49. Unger DW, Eppinger SD (2009) Comparing product development processes and managing risk. Int J Prod Dev. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wheatcraft LS, Ryan MJ, Svensson C (2017) Integrated data as the foundation of systems engineering. In: 27th annual INCOSE international symposium (IS 2017), Adelaide, Australia, vol 27(1), pp. 1423–1437.
  51. Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2018) Process models in design and development. Res Eng Design 29(2):161–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations