Abstract
The cutting-edge industrial product creation faces battling goals. There is an additional expenditure need to enhance new product reliability, and nevertheless, an enterprise should reduce product costs to receive the long-term development funds. This conflict resolution depends on a design engineer, who should take into account the future product costs as early, as possible. So, the purpose of this article is to elicit the most widespread cost estimation models at all design stages. I purposely investigate the models' limits to propose their common frame. The research methodology is Scopus scientometrics. First, I elicit the most authoritative reviews on the design cost estimation topic. Then I made the reviews content analysis and summarize the models’ limitations. Findings show that the design cost estimation models significantly vary. They do not eliminate or substitute for each other. Each model is suitable in an appropriate designing process place. Scientometric analysis points that advanced cost estimation models are poorly evolved for enterprise efficiency prediction including the aerospace industry. To overcome these obstacles, I propose an enterprise goal model. This study’s novelty is that a fitting combination of cost estimation models ensures the whole enterprise's economical effectiveness.
Highlights
The successful full-scale advancement of high-technology production needs simultaneously both cost-reducing and product safety-enhancing
There is an additional expenditure need to enhance new product reliability, and an enterprise should reduce product costs to receive the long-term development funds. This conflict resolution depends on a design engineer, who should take into account the future product costs as early, as possible
Scientometric analysis points that advanced cost estimation models are poorly evolved for enterprise efficiency prediction including the aerospace industry
Summary
The successful full-scale advancement of high-technology production needs simultaneously both cost-reducing and product safety-enhancing. There always is an immeasurable variety of engineering alternatives. There are still essential calls for guidance and provision engineers for making feasible and evaluated cost-effective design choices [1]. An important question is whether a design engineer can be ruled to devise a profitable product. The designer develops alternative solutions, which allows a product to work with predetermined technical-operational parameters. Cost figures and manufacturing indicators are beyond his competency area. The elaborate computer systems for enterprise resources management cannot eliminate the time gap between the design engineering stage and the manufacturing stage effectiveness evaluation [2]. Similar questions exist while product designing but at every life-cycle product stage. Computer control systems that have been developed with no specified purpose follow the principle “the higher the different control indicators number, the better”. The universal design process does not maintain a designer to have a way to the total process information
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
