Process Models in Design and Development

Read this article. It provides an overview of planning models. Pay particular attention to Figure 1 as it visually provides a global view of planning models. Then review Figures 2 -17 for more in-depth visual planning processes.

Discussion

Relationship of this article to earlier reviews

Table 3 Thirty selected publications that incorporate useful reviews of design and development process models

	Micro-level coverage				Meso-level coverage				Macro-level coverage				ΣΣ
	Pr	An	Ab	MS	Pr	An	Ab	MS	Pr	An	Ab	MS	ΣΣ
Finger and Dixon	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓								3
Roozenburg and Cross	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓								3
Cross and Roozenburg	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓								3
Konda et al.	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		✓✓				✓✓				5
Cross	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓						4
Bahrami and Dagli	✓✓		✓✓										2
Blessing	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		✓✓				6
Evbuomwan et al.	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				✓✓				4
Smith and Morrow						✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓	4
Dubberly	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				✓✓				4
Wynn and Clarkson	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				5
O’Donovan et al.		✓✓				✓✓							2
Eder and Weber	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		7
Wynn	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		10
Browning and Ramasesh	✓✓	✓✓				✓✓		✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	8
Lyneis and Ford										✓✓		✓✓	2
Howard et al.	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				✓✓				4
Tomiyama et al.	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		✓✓				6
Sharafi et al.	✓✓				✓✓				✓✓				3
Gericke and Blessing	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				✓✓				4
Gericke and Blessing	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				✓✓				4
Amigo et al.		✓✓				✓✓				✓✓			3
Mohd Saad et al.	✓✓												1
Andreasen et al.	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		6
Costa et al.					✓✓				✓✓		✓✓		3
Chakrabarti and Blessing	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓		✓✓		✓✓		✓✓				6
Browning						✓✓		✓✓					2
Bobbe et al.					✓✓				✓✓				2
Wynn and Eckert			✓✓					✓✓				✓✓	3
Eckert et al.		✓✓				✓✓					✓✓		3

Our intention to contribute an integrating narrative, combined with the space constraints of a journal article, led us to focus on key publications rather than attempting a complete listing of all work that relates to each framework category. Throughout the text, we have provided pointers to other literature reviews that provide focused analyses of particular topics.

To demonstrate the relationship of this article to earlier reviews, 30 useful reviews were identified and mapped against the 12 categories of the framework depicted in Fig. 1. The result, as shown in Table 3, demonstrates that almost all reviews which we identified focus on a small subset of the categories considered here. Although many of these reviews offer comprehensive and insightful analyses within their scope, the table shows that no prior article maps the overall topology of the literature as done here.

More specifically, we found only three prior reviews that cover more than 50% of the categories considered here. In the first of the three, Eder and Weber focus on comparing procedural and abstract models to the work of Hubka, and do not cover the analytical or MS/OR categories (with very few exceptions). The second comprehensive review, published by Browning and Ramasesh, offers thorough coverage and analysis of process models in product development and project management, but contributions from design research are almost entirely out-of-scope. Finally, Wynn discusses models in 10 of the 12 categories, but does not consider the substantial contributions made by MS/OR models (with a single exception). In addition, it may be noted that research in this area has substantially developed in the years since these reviews were published.

Overall, Table 3 provides a starting point for further reading on specific topics, and also confirms that earlier reviews each cover only a subset of the categories that we identified. The present article has been written to address this gap. It is hoped that our framework will provide a useful integrating overview of the key ideas and will help to articulate the value of individual DDP models considering the broad landscape of research in the area.