EVOKE: A Value-Driven Concept Selection Method for Early System Design



The development of new technologically advanced products requires the contribution from a range of skills and disciplines, which are often difficult to find within a single company or organization. Requirements establishment practices in Systems Engineering (SE), while ensuring coordination of activities and tasks across the supply network, fall short when it comes to facilitate knowledge sharing and negotiation during early system design. Empirical observations show that when system-level requirements are not available or not mature enough, engineers dealing with the development of long lead-time sub-systems tend to target local optima, rather than opening up the design space. This phenomenon causes design teams to generate solutions that do not embody the best possible configuration for the overall system. The aim of this paper is to show how methodologies for value-driven design may address this issue, facilitating early stage design iterations and the resolution of early stage design trade-offs. The paper describes how such methodologies may help gathering and dispatching relevant knowledge about the ‘design intent’ of a system to the cross-functional engineering teams, so to facilitate a more concurrent process for requirement elicitation in SE. The paper also describes EVOKE (Early Value Oriented design exploration with KnowledgE maturity), a concept selection method that allows benchmarking design options at sub-system level on the base of value-related information communicated by the system integrators. The use of EVOKE is exemplified in an industrial case study related to the design of an aero-engine component. EVOKE’s ability to raise awareness on the value contribution of early stage design concepts in the SE process has been further verified with industrial practitioners in ad-hoc design episodes.


Requirements elicitation concept selection systems engineering value-driven design decision-making knowledge maturity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The research leading to these results has received financial support by: European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) through the CRESCENDO project under grant agreement n◦234344, and the Swedish Knowledge and Competence Development Foundation through the Model Driven Development and Decision Support research profile at Blekinge Institute of Technology, and the VINNOVA National Aviation Engineering Programme in Sweden, through the Virtual Turbine Module Demonstrator (VITUM) project.

The authors would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their help to improve the quality of the paper.


  1. [1]
    Acha, V., Brusoni S. & Prencipe A. (2007). Exploring the miracle: strategy and management of the knowledge base in the aeronautics industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 4: 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Akao, Y. & Mizuno, S. (1994). QFD: The customer-driven approach to quality planning and deployment. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Al-Ashaab, A., Golob, M., Attia, U.M., Khan, M., Parsons, J., Andino, A., Perez, A., Guzman, P., Onecha, A., Kesavamoorthy, S., Martinez, G., Shehab, E., Berkes, A., Haque, B., Soril, M. & Sopelana, A. (2013). The transformation of product development process into lean environment using set-based concurrent engineering: a case study from an aerospace industry. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 21 (4): 26–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M. & Nielsen, P.A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42 (1): 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bahill, A.T. & Gissing, B. (1998). Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 28 (4): 516–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W., Benedettini, O. & Kay, J.M. (2009). The servitization of manufacturing: a review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20 (5): 547–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bertoni, A., Bertoni, M. & Johansson, C. (2015). Analysing the effects of value drivers and knowledge maturity in preliminary design decision-making. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 10: Design Information and Knowledge Management Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bertoni, M. & Bertoni, A. (2016). Models for value-driven engineering design. In: D. Marjanovic et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, pp. 1195–1204, Cavtat, Croatia.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bertoni, M., Bertoni, A., Broeze, H., Dubourg, G. & Sandhurst, C. (2014). Using 3D CAD models for value visualization: an approach with SIEMENS NX HD3D visual reporting. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 11 (3): 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Brandenburger, A.M. & Nalebuff, B.J. (1997). Co-opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation: The Game Theory Strategy That’s Changing the Game of Business. Doubleday/Currency, New York.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Briceno, S.I. & Mavris, D.N. (2005) Strategic decision-Making: applications of game theory in a systems approach to commercial engine selection. Proceedings of the 5th AIAA Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference’05, Arlington, TX, September 26-28, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Brown, O.C., Eremenko, P. & Collopy, P.D. (2009). Value-centric design methodologies for fractionated spacecraft: progress summary from phase 1 of the DARPA system F6 program. Proceedings of the AIAA Space Conference and Exposition, paper 2009-6540, Pasadena, September 14-17, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Browning, T.R. (2003). On customer value and improvement in product development Process. Systems Engineering, 6 (1): 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Cardin, M.A., de Neufville, R. & Dahlgren, J. (2007). Extracting value from uncertainty: proposed methodology for engineering systems design. Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research CSER’07, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 (4): 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Castagne, S., Curran, R. & Collopy, P. (2009). Implementation of value-driven optimisation for the design of aircraft fuselage panels. International Journal of Production Economics, 117: 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Chen, W., Hoyle, C. & Wassenaar, H.J. (2013). Decision-based Design: Integrating Consumer Preferences Into Engineering Design. Springer-Verlag, London.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Cheung, J., Scanlan, J., Wong, J., Forrester, J., Eres, H., Collopy, P., Hollingsworth, P., Wiseall, S. & Briceno, S., (2012). Application of value-driven design to commercial aero-engine systems. Journal of Aircraft, 49: 688–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Collopy, P.D. (2009). Aerospace system value models: a survey and observations. Proceedings of Aviation, Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, Reston, paper 2009-6560.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Collopy, P.D. (2012). A research agenda for the coming renaissance in systems engineering. Proceedings of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Symposium, Reston, VA, paper 2012-0799.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Collopy, P.D. & Hollingsworth, P.M. (2011). Value-driven design. Journal of Aircraft, 48 (3): 749–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Curran, R., van der Zwan F.M., Ouwehand, A. & Ghijs, S. (2010). Value analysis of engine maintenance scheduling relative to fuel burn and minimal operating costs. Proceedings of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Symposium, Reston, VA, paper 2010-9145.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Dahlgren, J.W. (2006). Real options and value driven design in spiral development. INCOSE 2006 16th Annual International Symposium Proceedings 6 (1), Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Daum, J.H. (2003). Intangible Assets and Value Creation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    de Weck, O.L., de Neufville, R. & Chaize, M. (2003). Enhancing the economics of communications satellites via orbital reconfigurations and staged deployment. Proceedings of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Symposium, Reston. AIAA Paper 2003-6317.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Desmet, P., Overbeeke, K., & Tax, S. (2001). Designing products with added emotional value: development and application of an approach for research through design. The Design Journal, 4 (1): 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Durugbo, C. & Riedel, J.C.K.H. (2013). Viewpoint-participation-technique: a model of participative requirements elicitation. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 21(1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Eres, M.H., Bertoni, M., Kossmann, M. & Scanlan, J.P. (2014). Mapping customer needs to engineering characteristics: an aerospace perspective for conceptual design. Journal of Engineering Design, 25 (1-3): 64–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Erginel, N. (2010). Construction of a fuzzy QFD failure matrix using a fuzzy multiple-objective decision model. Journal of Engineering Design, 21 (6): 677–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Fanthorpe, C., Price, D. S. M. & Butterfield, J. (2011). Developing a capability function relating aircraft systems cost overruns to aircraft design parameters. Proceedings of 11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, paper 2011-6837.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Frey, D.D., Herder, P.M., Wijnia, Y., Subrahmanian, E., Katsikopoulos, K. & Clausing, D.P. (2009). The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Research in Engineering Design, 20: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Geisser, M. & Hildenbrand, T. (2006). A method for collaborative requirements elicitation and decision-supported requirements analysis. International Federation for Information Processing, 219: 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Ghiya, K.K., Bahill, A.T. & Chapman, W. (1999). QFD: validating robustness. Quality Engineering, 11 (4): 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Hallstedt, S., Bertoni, M. & Isaksson, O. (2015). Assessing sustainability and value of manufacturing processes: a case in the aerospace industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108 (A): 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Hazelrigg, G. (1998). A framework for decision-based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120 (4): 653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [[36]
    INCOSE (2011). Systems Engineering Handbook v3.2.2. International Council on Systems Engineering.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Iqbal, Z., P. Grigg, N., Govinderaju, K. & Campbell-Allen, N. (2014). Statistical comparison of final weight scores in quality function deployment (QFD) studies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 31 (2): 184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Isaksson, O., Kossmann, M., Bertoni, M., Eres, H., Monceaux, A., Bertoni, A., Wiseall, S. & Zhang, X. (2013). Value-driven design: a methodology to link expectations to technical requirements in the extended enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 23rd INCOSE International Symposium, 23 (1): 803–819, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Jiao, J. & Chen, C.-H. (2006). Customer requirement management in product development: a review of research issues. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 14 (3): 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Johansson, C., Hicks, B., Larsson, A. & Bertoni, M. (2011). Knowledge maturity as a means to support decision-making during product-service systems development projects in the aerospace sector. Project Management Journal, 42 (2): 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Khamuknin, A., Bertoni, M. & Eres, M.H. (2015). Avoiding resonant frequencies in a pipeline application by utilising the concept design analysis method. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design, 1: 95–104, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Kwong, C.K., Chen, Y., Bai, H. & Chan, D.S.K. (2007). A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QFD. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 53 (4): 667–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Lin, M. C., Wang, C. C., Chen, M. S. & Chang, C. A. (2008). Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry, 59 (1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Lindquist, A., Berglund, F. & Johannesson, H. (2008). Integration and communication strategies in collaborative platform development. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 16 (1): 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    McManus, H.M., Richards, M.G., Ross, A.M. & Hastings, D.E. (2007). A framework for incorporating “Ilities” in tradespace studies. Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2007 Conference & Exposition, paper 2007-6100, Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Miles, L.D. (1972). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Monceaux, A. & Kossmann, M. (2012). Towards a value-Driven design methodology enhancing traditional requirements management enterprise. Proceedings of the 22nd INCOSE symposium, 22 (1): 910–925, Rome, Italy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Monceaux, A., Kossman, M., Wiseall, S., Bertoni, M., Isaksson, O., Eres, M.H., Bertoni, A. & Ndrianarilala, R. (2014). Overview of value driven design research: methods, applications and relevance for conceptual design. Insight, 17 (4): 37–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Norman, D.A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Olewnik, A. & Lewis, K. (2008). Limitations of the house of quality to provide quantitative design information. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 25 (2): 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. In: K. Wallace (ed.), London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Panarotto, M., Bertoni, M. & Bertoni, A. (2016). Experimenting the use of value models as boundary objects in preliminary system design. Procedia CIRP, 47: 370–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Prasad, B. (1999). Enabling principles of concurrency and simultaneity in concurrent engineering. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 13 (3): 185–204.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    Price, M., Soban, D., Mullan, C., Butterfield, J. & Murphy, A. (2012). A novel method to enable trade-offs across the whole product life of an aircraft using value driven design. Journal of Aerospace Operations, 1: 359–375.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Rozemburg, N.F.M. & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamental and Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    Rosenman, M.A. (1993). Qualitative evaluation for topological specification in conceptual design. Applications and Techniques of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 2: 311–326.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Ross, A.M., Hastings, D.E. & Warmkessel, J.M. (2004). Multi-attribute tradespace exploration as front end for effective space system design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 41 (1): 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Ross, A.M., Rhodes, D.H. & Hastings, D.E. (2008). Defining changeability: reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value. Systems Engineering, 11 (3): 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Ross, A.M., O’Neill, M.G., Hastings, D.E. & Rhodes, D.H. (2010). Aligning perspectives and methods for value-driven design. Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2010 Conference & Exhibition, Paper 2010-8797, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    Sakao, T. & Shimomura, Y. (2007) Service engineering: a novel engineering discipline for producers to increase value combining service and product. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (6): 590–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Saleh, J.H., Lamassoure, E.S. & Hastings, D.E. (2003). Flexibility and the value of on-orbit servicing: new customer-centric perspective. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 40 (2): 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Sassone, P.G. & Schaffer, W.A. (1978). Cost-benefit Analysis: A handbook (Vol. 182). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Schindler, A., Dudezert, A. & Bocquet J.-C. (2007). Systemic approach as a multi-criteria design method: healthcare R&D center application. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, August 28-31, paper ID-423.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    Schlesinger, S. (1979). Terminology for model credibility. Simulation, 32 (3): 103–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    Sireli, Y., Kauffmann, P. & Ozan, E. (2007). Integration of Kano’s model into QFD for multiple product design. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54 (2): 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Siyam, G.I., Wynn, D.C. & Clarkson, P.J. (2015). Review of value and lean in complex product development. Systems Engineering, 18 (2): 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Soban, D.S., Hollingsworth, P. & Price, M.E. (2011). Defining a research agenda in value driven design: questions that need to be asked. Journal of Aerospace Operations, 1 (4): 329–342.Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Taguchi, G., Elsayed, E. A. & Hsiang, T. C. (1989). Quality Engineering in Production Systems. McGraw-Hill College.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Takai, S. & Kalapurackal, R.S. (2012). Sensitivity analysis of relative worth in quality function deployment matrices. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 20 (3): 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. [72]
    Tan, K.C. & Shen, X.X. (2000). Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 11 (8): 1141–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    Tien, J.M. (2012). The next industrial revolution: integrated services and goods. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 21 (3): 257–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    Tong, K.W., Kwong, C.K. & Yu, K.M. (2004). Intelligent process design system for the transfer moulding of electronic packages. International Journal of Production Research, 42 (10): 1911–1931.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (4): 297–323.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    Ullman, D.G. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill Education, New York.Google Scholar
  77. [77]
    Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2008). New Product Design and Development (4th ed). McGraw-Hill, Irwin.Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    Wewers, M.E. & Lowe N.K. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing and Health, 13: 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    Withanage, C., Park, T. & Choi, H.-J. (2010). A concept evaluation method for strategic product design with concurrent consideration of future customer requirements. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 18 (4): 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    Woodruff, R.B. & Gardial, S.F. (1996). Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Customer Value and Satisfaction. Blackwell, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    Woolley, M., Scanlan, J.P. & Eveson, W. (2001). Optimising the development of a medical device using formal engineering design techniques and the coda-system. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    Wright, I.C. (1998). Design Methods in Engineering and Product Design. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  83. [83]
    Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N. & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision-making: a simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107: 507–529.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  84. [84]
    Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52: 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    Zhang, X., Eres, M.H., Baron, C., Auriol, G. & Kossmann, M. (2014). Replacing target setting by value models in the ‘house of quality’ for value-based requirements specifications. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 228 (11): 2033–2044.Google Scholar
  86. [86]
    Zhang, X., Tong, S., Eres, H., Wang, K. & Kossmann, M. (2015). Towards avoiding the hidden traps in QFD during requirements establishment. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 24 (3): 316–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. [87]
    Zhang, X.W., Auriol, G., Eres, H. & Baron, C. (2013). A prescriptive approach to qualify and quantify customer value for value-based requirements engineering. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 26 (4): 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Bertoni
    • 1
  • Alessandro Bertoni
    • 1
  • Ola Isaksson
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Product and Production DevelopmentChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.GKN Aerospace Sweden ABTrollhättanSweden

Personalised recommendations