Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akao, Y. & Mizuno, S. (1994). QFD: The customer-driven approach to quality planning and deployment. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M. & Nielsen, P.A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42 (1): 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Browning, T.R. (2003). On customer value and improvement in product development Process. Systems Engineering, 6 (1): 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 (4): 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, W., Hoyle, C. & Wassenaar, H.J. (2013). Decision-based Design: Integrating Consumer Preferences Into Engineering Design. Springer-Verlag, London.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Collopy, P.D. & Hollingsworth, P.M. (2011). Value-driven design. Journal of Aircraft, 48 (3): 749–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Daum, J.H. (2003). Intangible Assets and Value Creation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ghiya, K.K., Bahill, A.T. & Chapman, W. (1999). QFD: validating robustness. Quality Engineering, 11 (4): 593–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hazelrigg, G. (1998). A framework for decision-based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120 (4): 653–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. INCOSE (2011). Systems Engineering Handbook v3.2.2. International Council on Systems Engineering.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Miles, L.D. (1972). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Norman, D.A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. In: K. Wallace (ed.), London: Springer-Verlag.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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. Rozemburg, N.F.M. & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamental and Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sassone, P.G. & Schaffer, W.A. (1978). Cost-benefit Analysis: A handbook (Vol. 182). Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Schlesinger, S. (1979). Terminology for model credibility. Simulation, 32 (3): 103–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Taguchi, G., Elsayed, E. A. & Hsiang, T. C. (1989). Quality Engineering in Production Systems. McGraw-Hill College.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tien, J.M. (2012). The next industrial revolution: integrated services and goods. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 21 (3): 257–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (4): 297–323.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Ullman, D.G. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill Education, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2008). New Product Design and Development (4th ed). McGraw-Hill, Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Woodruff, R.B. & Gardial, S.F. (1996). Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Customer Value and Satisfaction. Blackwell, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Wright, I.C. (1998). Design Methods in Engineering and Product Design. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, SE-371 79, Sweden

    Marco Bertoni & Alessandro Bertoni

  2. Department of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SE-412 96, Sweden

    Ola Isaksson

  3. GKN Aerospace Sweden AB, Trollhättan, SE-461 38, Sweden

    Ola Isaksson

Authors
  1. Marco Bertoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Bertoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ola Isaksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Bertoni.

Additional information

Marco Bertoni earned his PhD degree in virtual prototypes and real products at Politecnico di Milano (Italy) in 2008. He is currently an Associate Professor in product innovation at the Department of Mechanical Engineering of Blekinge Institute of Technology in Sweden. He has experience from European FP6 and FP7 research projects in the domain of aerospace, working closely with industrial companies in the topics of systems engineering, value driven design, product service system design and enterprise collaboration. His research objective is to understand how knowledge from the later phases of a system’s lifecycle (about how the system is manufactured, operated, serviced, maintained, upgraded, remanufactured or recycled) can be systematically captured and used to support decision-making activities during preliminary design. His work has brought to the development of design decision support models that use ‘value’ to guide early concept selection activities, as well as of methodological and technological enablers for value visualization and knowledge engineering.

Alessandro Bertoni is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Blekinge Institute of Technology (Sweden). He has been involved in a number of research projects at European and Swedish-national level in the area of system engineering and value driven design, mainly in collaboration with the aerospace industry. He is currently involved in two research projects concerning the development of model based decision support systems for engineering design practices. He is responsible for the courses of system engineering and product service systems design research at Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Ola Isaksson is since joining Chalmers in 2015 the chaired professor in systems engineering and engineering design at the Division of Product Development at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. Sine earning his PhD from Luleå university 1999, he has a pararallel industrial and academic carrier within applied research. He has more than 20 years of experience from Aerospace industry, where he still holds an advisory position as senior expert in product development at GKN Aerospace Engine Systems in Sweden. He led the Value Driven Design initiatives in a sequence of FP6 and FP7 research initiatives in aeronautics. His research interest ranges broadly within engineering aspects of product development, including value driven development, knowledge based engineering, product-service systems development, platform based development and multi-disciplinary engineering. He currently leads a systems engineering design group at Chalmers, with tight collaboration with aerospace and transport manufacturing industries, both nationally in Sweden and internationally.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bertoni, M., Bertoni, A. & Isaksson, O. EVOKE: A Value-Driven Concept Selection Method for Early System Design. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 27, 46–77 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-016-5324-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-016-5324-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation