Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 251, Issue 1–2, pp 367–382 | Cite as

Value analysis planning with goal programming

  • Marc J. Schniederjans
  • Dara Schniederjans
  • Qing Cao
Article
  • 362 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a model to support planning decisions in the engineering methodology referred to as value analysis. A goal programming model incorporating elements of critical path method and concurrent engineering is proposed as a means to augment the planning of value analysis projects. The modeling approach builds and extends prior goal programming research by uniquely incorporating both timing and cost information to ease modeling complexity and reveal scheduling resource tradeoffs. An illustrative example is presented to demonstrate the modeling approach informational efficacy.

Keywords

Goal programming Value analysis Concurrent engineering  Critical path method Planning 

References

  1. Anderson, D. M. (2014). Design for manufacturability: How to use concurrent engineering to rapidly develop low-cost, high-quality products for lean production. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  2. Avigad, G., & Moshaiov, A. (2010). Set-based concept selection in multi-objective problems involving delayed decisions. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(6), 619–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azaron, A., Katagiri, H., & Sakawa, M. (2007). Time-cost trade-off via optimal control theory in Markov PERT networks. Annals of Operations Research, 150, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dowlatshahi, S. (2001). Product life cycle analysis: A goal programming approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52(11), 1201–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doyle, B. (2013). Value engineering expertise a key factor in DVG’s solid financial standing. Caribbean Business, 41(41), 45.Google Scholar
  6. Filho, M. G., & Uzsoy, R. (2014). Assessing the impact of alternative continuous improvement programmes in a flow shop using system dynamics. International Journal of Production Research, 52(10), 3014–3031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fine, C. H., Golany, B., & Naseraldin, H. (2005). Modeling tradeoffs in three-dimensional concurrent engineering: A goal programming approach. Journal of Operations Management, 23(3/4), 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gagnon, M., Gilles, A., & Aouni, B. (2012). Resource-constrained project scheduling through the goal programming model: Integration of the manager’s preferences. International Transactions in Operational Research, 19(4), 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta, M., & Isaacs, J. (1997). Value analysis of disposal strategies for automobiles. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 33(3/4), 325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ignizio, J. (1982). Linear programming in single- and multiple-objective systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Kaufman, J. (2004). Value analysis tear-down. New York: Industrial Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kull, T. J., & Talluri, S. (2008). A supply risk reduction model using integrated multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumar, S., & Krob, W. (2007). Phase reviews versus fast product development: A business case. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(3), 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladipo, O., Bolyard, C., & Mintz, M. (2014). Earned value analysis and CPM schedule review in construction. Cost Engineering, 56(4), 47–56.Google Scholar
  15. Lamghabbar, A., Yacout, S., & Ouali, M. S. (2004). Concurrent optimization of the design and manufacturing stages of product development. International Journal of Production Research, 42(21), 4495–4512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, B., Chung, N.-K., & Tcha, D.-W. (1991). A parallel algorithm and duality for a fuzzy multi-objective linear fractional programming program. Computer and Industrial Engineering, 20(3), 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, S. L. (1972). Goal programming for decision analysis. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, S. L., & Shim, J. P. (1990). Micro management scienc (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  19. Meirina, C., Levchuk, Y., Levchuk, G., & Pattipati, K. (2008). A Markov decision problem approach to goal attainment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 38(1), 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nanda, S., & Pendharkar, P. (2001). Linear models for minimizing misclassification costs in bankruptcy prediction. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 10(3), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicholas, J. (2011). Lean production for competitive advantage. New York, NY: Taylor and Frances Group.Google Scholar
  22. Pollack-Johnson, B., & Liberatore, M. J. (2006). Incorporating quality considerations into project time/cost tradeoff analysis and decision making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(4), 534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Premachandra, I. M. (1993). A goal programming model for activity crashing in project networks. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 13(6), 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pullan, T. T., Bhasi, M., & Madhu, G. (2010). Application of concurrent engineering in manufacturing industry. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(5), 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romano, P., Formentini, M., Bandera, C., & Tomasella, M. (2010). Value analysis as a decision support tool in cruise ship design. International Journal of Production Research, 48(23), 6939–6958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schniederjans, M. J., & Hong, S. (1996). Multiobjective concurrent engineering: A goal programming approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(2), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schniederjans, M. J. (1995). Goal programming: Methodology and applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smyth, H. (2014). Relationship management and the management of projects. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Stancu-Minasian, I., & Tigan, S. (1988). A stochastic approach to some linear fractional goal programming problems. Kybernetika, 24(2), 139–149.Google Scholar
  30. Sun, H., & Zhao, Y. (2010). The empirical relationship between quality management and the speed of new product development. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 21(4), 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu, D., Kefan, X., Gang, C., & Ping, G. (2010). A risk analysis model in concurrent engineering product development. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(9), 1440–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc J. Schniederjans
    • 1
  • Dara Schniederjans
    • 2
  • Qing Cao
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.College of Business AdministrationThe University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  3. 3.Rawls College of BusinessTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations