China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Ideation
Published in Michael Parent, The Lean Innovation Cycle, 2022
One of the most important, if not the most important concepts in the ideation phase is prototyping. Prototyping has long been part of the creative process, but recently frameworks like Design Thinking have emphasized prototyping far more than in the past. Prototyping, to give a definition, is a process of creating a sample or model of a product that allows for quick and inexpensive construction and quick evaluation. From a Lean perspective, prototyping may seem like Non-Value-Added activities and rework. Why can’t we just design the product right the first time? I would encourage Lean purists such as these, that prototyping is a lot more like the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. The purpose of prototyping is to fail fast to succeed sooner and to learn a lot from a little. The prototyping methods recommended here allow innovators to achieve these results while mitigating the risks of costs and time.
Clause 8: Operations
Published in Sid Ahmed Benraouane, H. James Harrington, Using the ISO 56002 Innovation Management System, 2021
Sid. Ahmed Benraouane, H. James Harrington
This subclause defines a process where an innovative opportunity can be transformed into a deployable solution. It is important to point out that this basic innovation management process will not totally incorporate all of the activities defined. Each initiative should modify the basic process to meet the unique needs of the individual entity. Your final design process should be flexible and adaptable taking on unique configurations depending upon the type of innovation the organization is involved in.Definition of system: a system is a set of interrelated or interacting acting elements.Definition of process: a process is a set of interrelated or interacting activities that used input to deliver an intended result.
Selected Case Studies
Published in Clement Kleinstreuer, Theory and Applications, 2017
One could define a model as a (mathematical) representation of the real process; the actual operation of the model, e.g., the computer program, is the simulation. Another definition for system simulation is representation of the system's behavior by moving it from state to state in accordance with well-defined operating rules and subsequent observation of its dynamic performance, using computers. Alternatively, some authors categorized modeling of a physical or biochemical process as direct analysis, reconstruction, or identification. In direct analysis, the goal is to determine the output for a given set of input and system parameters. In turn, reconstruction implies determination of a system’s input parameters; this is also called “inverse problem modeling.” The identification problem is finding the system parameters when the system’s input and output are given. In two-phase flow modeling we typically proceed with a direct analysis.
Didactical modelling – an outline of a research methodology
Published in International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 2022
Considering this definition, design refers to a process and the result should lead to a specification of a design object (not necessarily a physical object). The agent is the designer that specifies the structural properties of the didactical design object considering the goals, environment, components, requirements, and constraints. A didactical design then denotes a set of practices where the designer is involved in creating representations of how to support teaching in specific cases. The process is goal-oriented in creating a didactical object that may help solve problems and improve situations as the satisfaction of constraints helps the designer to focus on design dilemmas. Thus, didactical design is distinguished from other kinds of didactical endeavour as it strives to invent an object regarding innovative responses to problematic situations (Faste & Faste, 2012). Design research in mathematics education often addresses the learning of a specific topic such as the multiplication of whole numbers to develop a domain-specific instructional theory (Cobb et al., 2016).
Ideal output for a robust conceptual design process
Published in Journal of Engineering Design, 2019
Efrén M. Benavides, Oscar Lara-Rapp
Organisations do not only have to respond to customer's interests, but also to others entities’ interests: environment (Kobayashi 2005; Hay, Duffy, and Whitfield 2014), government, society as a whole, etc. Authors like Freeman (2010) or standards like ISO 9000:2015 also remark it. For example, the definition of ISO 9000:2015 of stakeholder is ‘person or organisation that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision or activity’. A closer look to other definitions along the standard show that they are also related to the concept of stakeholder. The same standard defines a process as ‘set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result’ and the output as the ‘result of a process’. In this paper, the process is the design and the output is the resultant design, being this anything perceivable or conceivable (an object in terms of the same standard, i.e. a product, service, process, organisation or system) which is the result of a set of designer's decisions. A reader not familiar with the ISO could replace output by solution, product, resultant design or designed object. The definition (ISO 9000:2015) of the term design is ‘set of processes that transform requirements for an object into more detailed requirements for that object’, stating that the design process starts with requirements coming from Non-Designers (and probably also coming from Designers) and ends when Designers establish the requirements that determine the solution. This important point will permit splitting the Stakeholders into Designers and Non-Designers in Section 3.
Standardizing security: the business case politics of borders
Published in Mobilities, 2018
A more practical definition of a standard from a social scientific perspective, as provided by Bowker and Star (1999, 13–14), entails that standards contain rules for the production of (textual or material) objects, that standards bind together distinct communities of practice across time and space, that the main function of standards is to make things function together across distance and heterogeneous metrics, that standards can be set by a state, by the industry, or by a professional organization, that standards might not represent the ‘best’ technical or organizational solution, and that standards, once they are in place and unfold their regulatory powers, are hard to change. Such a social constructivist angle thereby highlights the open-endedness of processes of technological development (e.g. Bijker, Hughes, and Pinch 1987; Latour 1987; Pinch and Bijker 1984) and foregrounds that standardization is subject to multiple political, social, institutional, economic, and material influences.