资源目录
压缩包内文档预览：
编号：122566035
类型：共享资源
大小：693.06KB
格式：ZIP
上传时间：2021-04-20
上传人：221589****qq.com
认证信息
个人认证
李**（实名认证）
湖南
IP属地：湖南
40
积分
- 关 键 词：
-
钻床
自动化
改造
进给
系统
设计
- 资源描述：
-
钻床的自动化改造及进给系统设计,钻床,自动化,改造,进给,系统,设计
- 内容简介：
-
南京理工大学泰州科技学院毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译系部： 机械工程系 专 业： 机械工程及自动化 姓 名： 陆勇 学 号： 05010219 外文出处：Measuring performance change in the mechanical design process arena 附 件： 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文。 指导教师评语： 签名： 年 月 日注：请将该封面与附件装订成册。附件1：外文资料翻译译文在机械设计过程中衡量业绩的变化1 引言在竞争日益激烈的世界上，只有少数几家公司能够对此袖手旁观，而作为竞争者仅仅依靠复制别人的优秀战略用以满足客户的需求在任何时候都更有效的方式。沃尔什指出：对于如何设计企业的管理是一个重要的部分并且是至关重要的创新，在创造力范围内技术上有可能并且在市场上有需求或时机的概念就是设计。虽然许多的战略、框架、方法和手段在帮助企业如何在动态变化的竞争环境上给出了合适的方法，但是缺乏适用于更多地方的测量方法并且缺乏有技术水平的机械工程师来管理他们的进程。 Driva等人强调指出：人是不会满足于可普遍用于设计和发展的工作指标。而尼利等人发现：似乎经理们更喜欢执行现成的解决方案和计量问题。然而新创造的适当的测量系统会很难适用于一些组织或团体，突出在于McAdam和市政府。这项研究以机械工程师们从一个大型多国机电公司得出结果作为讨论议题。他们需要改进机械设计流程并认识到成功的应用其软件工程部门的软件能力成熟度模型（ SWCMM SM ）作为一个办法来帮助衡量目前的状况，并查明在软件工程过程中其优势的领域和薄弱的环节。调查显示，没有任何现成的应用程序可以为机械工程师提供一个类似的输出。因此，他们通过这个研究方案已开始发现，是否有一种方法可以实现在公司内部满足机械工程师来自不同方面的要求。经过初期的研究， 他们决定利用系统工程能力成熟度模型（SE-CMM ）作为一个起点发展的一个模型，建造一个适用于机械工程的环境在公司内部。本文介绍了在一个大的多学科的工程公司如何选择，修改和实施模型，以衡量和量化改变机械工程工艺的性能。 通过初步调查然后辅之以结果，随着时间的推移来重新评估围绕该方面三年后的初步工作技术的潜力作为一种工具来比较进程的能力。2背景 通过了解其中一个组织展现出来的能力，是有可能做出更好的决策就如何确保客户的需求价值的最有效地满足。尼利的问题，为什么企业的业绩衡量再次成为议题，并声称我们正处于一个业绩衡量革命 。在一个工程组织中有许多类型的测量技术，可以有助于公司的成功。它们涵盖了广泛的途径，其中包括： （1）财政措施（如投资回报率（ ROI ） ，利润等） ； （2）战略模式，如欧洲质量管理基金会（ EFQM ）卓越模型，美国波多里奇奖， 以及平衡记分卡；（3）标准，如ISO 9000 ，提供一个国际公认的结构，工作方法；（4）工程设计工具和方法，用于日常工作，如并行工程的做法，质量功能展开 （ QFD），全面质量管理（ TQM ），和基准； （5）统计方法，如计数的一些需要变化图纸 ，一些设计图纸或发出。 这些类型的方法归入了表1中所谓的计量表 。该栏左侧描绘的是高层管理者所使用的更具战略意义的工具，而这些正确的工具一般会更多的代表一个组织的工程师的能力的高低。值得注意的是， CMM1可以同时服务战略和战术的需要在一个组织中，有效的为这些测量矩阵的不同结果提供了一个桥梁。在战略管理上年底可以提出一个简单的输出，表明整体水平取得了评估。另一方面有相当数量的具体细节，可以从评估得到，也可以用在一个非常局部的，不需要多少技能的工程师直接的工作于项目。然而，一些原理不一致的方法出现。从历史上看，公司的成功依赖于财政测量系统。然而尼利认为价格大于价值驱动组织更希望市场的区分和竞争，它提供了一个刺激让公司需要一个广泛的措施来收集公司业绩。他认为传统的企业绩效措施不提供必要的了解，确定非金融因素的影响，经营业绩和人民的期待，他说组织已经超越了它们的成本阶段和进入了一个价值阶段。 Kennerley和尼利确定性能革命引发会计衡量制度的缺点而且断言，工业界和学术界方面的业绩衡量成效领域越来越重要。 如平衡计分卡模型，卓越的EFQM模型和美国波多里奇奖通过混合成功的会计衡量和诸如以客户为中心的学习、政策和业务流程来避免过分依赖金融指标及其相关的短缺。然而，德Groote等指出：尽管波多里奇奖和EFQM包含一个明确的管理素质模型，他们缺乏可操作的工厂管理人员，因为分析的单位是过高的水平。这是一个重要工程师努力创造设计新的或升级的产品所必须面对的涉及人们试图获得更好的结果的问题。从他们的设计过程的研究，帕瓦尔和Driva指出：响亮和明确的讯息是我们并不感到满意对于我们目前的业绩衡量的设计和开发，而且我们不知道如何改进才能在不会引起重大的成本消耗和花费时间的基础上建立一个系统。他们还描述了如何避免现有的测量工具过于集中的战略以最小的程度参与从设计和开发的产品。这补充了这个建议在有助于使管理的机械设计过程更加有效的缺陷。然而，罗伊警告了实现这一目标潜在的障碍，这是迄今为止更难以衡量的设计性能比是衡量经营业绩。 2.1设计性能 罗伊不单单确定了这一困难；尼斯等人指出：尽管越来越认识到取得成功的企业最重要的是发展功能，但是没有一套商定的性能指标用于衡量发展的功能。尼克松声称：缺乏关于如何组织的实际评价的证据 ，并且设计活动的一个主要困难是在设计过程中的一个子系统的产品创新的过程。帕瓦尔和Driva评述说经过详细审查的文献他们还发现缺乏有关的资料的设计和开发阶段与产品开发，这本应该得到解决。事实上这些国家有一个缺乏重点的真正需要的措施，这符合第一项国际工程设计中合达菲在1996年格拉斯哥举行的辩论的结果。他声称在真正性质设计生产力可以被界定之前有许多问题需要解决。 还有Driva等人注意到，就在产品开发过程中，已被证明人们没有多大兴趣去了解什么样的措施都必须进行有效的管理。此外，他们还断言：很少有证据显示负责审查的性能方面的产品设计和开发。更困难的测量设计性能是尼克松指出的，他指出， 性能测定被视为创造力的阻碍，这些计算者需要高层管理人员有一个指标，以抵消他们对重复使用的偏差，如现金流和盈利能力。张和勇认为，计量产品的开发很难根据其价值和有效性，同时Tidd和Bodley指出，发展活动是迭代和复杂的，反过来又使它的模型难于建立。与此同时，布赫海姆指出： 值得关注的是除软件工程学科以外很少有出版说明实际应用性能指标的硬件工程设计活动的大型企业。事实上，这最后引证似乎指向可能使用的工具类似于目前正在使用的软件工程环境中的其他创新域名，如产品设计，测量过程的性能。关于这个专题的产品设计，迪克逊和达菲查明，这是机械设计-而不是电子设计-这被制造商认为是一个主要问题。四个特别的问题是确定的，即各种各样的材料提供给机械设计的复杂和敏感的作用，制造业的关注机械设计;非模块化机械设计；和作用的现代复杂的三维几何结构。他们声称，从长期战略来看，生产要素的成本，质量和上市时间的谋划问题更甚于制造问题，尤其是构造设计的问题。此外，他们发现，许多产品技术问题经常与制造流程可以追踪至机械设计问题，并有充分的数据来评价工程设计过程。此外，他们还建议，管理人员和经济学家未能构建和实施的对设计敏感的评价程序制造，尤其是设计过程。 Driva等断言，在全面一致的措施下仍处于初期阶段的产品设计和开发一直被忽视在过去，这些公司正在转向产品设计，以获得新的竞争优势。 与此同时，巴斯比和威廉森认为，许多局限性的性能测量在工程设计中似乎有普遍的起源而且现有性能的工作指标在大多数工程组织基本上有缺陷。他们指出，虽然工程设计大大促进工程公司的成功或失败，但他们一直未把生产活动的绩效衡量作为一个重要的目标。他们断言，这可能是由于创造性工程功能困难的特点与更多的重复性和可预见的活动中发现的。这进一步证明奥唐奈和达菲的断言，相比于发现于制造业和衡量业绩的难点是由于缺乏切实的自然的产出输出与设计过程，衡量业绩的产品设计是欠发达。他们继续地注意到，目前的模式，解决活动集中在性能的设计，除了设计活动。这些问题严重强调的一个问题方面是测量设计性能，尤其是设计过程中的性能。测量矩阵已经被修正，以说明这些方法已经被排除，因为他们没有直接的在理解机械工程师的设计过程中支持他们。这就缩小了现有技术的可利用空间，除了的变化图纸的变化 （其中处理输出难于过程）和基准，没有任何其他战术导向指标可以帮助管理机械设计过程。 2.2工艺性能 关于工艺性能本身， Ahire指出，设计和过程管理工作有平等的影响在内部和外部的产品质量：为了实现高质量的成果，企业需要平衡他们的设计和过程管理，努力并坚持长期执行。沃斯指出，公司为满足特定的目标，无论公司作出如何的重视和承诺，如果有不恰当的过程或失调的基础设施它也可能会失败。他接着声称，公司的最佳做法是归功于完成任务的而不是那些没有完成的，而不是缺乏观点的对改进技术和其适用的业务问题作解答。巴塞洛缪曾说应在技术之前优先处理进程，在解决企业的困难的时候。迪克逊和达菲指出，有充分的评价指标的设计过程可用于美国的制造行业并且建议评价设计过程中可能会更加理解产品设计。与此同时Cantamessa确认了商业文献和工程文献之间的很大差距，是未能确定集中于新的工具和方法的创新的产品设计的做法有助于商业上的成功的机制。此外，他还指出，企业就如何处理评估新工具和方法的影响的问题。 Kennerley和尼利认为，一个组织必须在适当的地方有接受测量系统演变的能力，而尼利等论定，人们开始寻找预测措施，如统计过程控制来防止早期确定的事项脱离控制，而不是进入一个一般的发展程序。他们认为，确定并发展预测性能的措施是一个关键领域的研究议程。格里高利的结论是： 采用以进程为基础的参考模型提供基础的内部审计活动并为实践活动提供一个介于普遍和确定之间的外界环境为媒介 。现在的问题是：什么样的模式将是合适的呢？从文献中提出的，但测量性能的工程设计功能和支持它的流程存在差距。这种能力差距是一直关心他们如何能推动发展的机械设计进程前进方向的公司机械设计部门的工程师所具有的经验。他们意识到CMMSM已经落实在他们的身上，并好奇是否这种类型的方法可以帮助提供解决方案的问题，他们正经历着在试图理解和管理他们的过程。 2.3能力成熟度模型 这些原则在CMM1是戴明、朱兰和其他人基于符合全面质量管理思想所阐述的，并由 Ishikawa 强调：这些想法促进质量控制程序的需要。 CMM1评估的目的是提供一个衡量基准为一个公司在某一时间内的业绩，并提供必要的资料以供公司来指导其工程努力的去满足顾客的需求使其更更有效地运作。 CMM1提供此信息以综合模型域的最佳做法和工序能力为优势。最初的CMM1被称为软件能力成熟度模型（成熟CMMSM ）是由美国匹兹堡卡内基梅隆大学领导下的软件工程学院（ SEI ）创建的。已经被软件公司用来帮助他们了解和改善其软件过程和相关的业务能力。该模型的起源是在1980年代与几个软件的合同受到成本和质量的困扰的美国国防部门（ DoD ） 。涉及这一商务领域的公司决定解决这些问题并改善软件工序能力。虽然焦点显然是对在这种情况下的软件，但必须指出的问题是昂贵的后期交付不仅限于软件工程本身。巴希尔和汤姆逊在发表论文上发现， 对工程设计项目的报告表平均超支范围从41个增加到258个百分点费用超支范围从97至151个百分点 。 April指出：瓦汉弗莱斯一直强调在承诺任何的努力去改善进程之前应准确地评估目前的局势的重要性。想通通常是有限的目标公司和资源利用的关键点是明确的。CMM1以目前的工程前景图为解决这些问题提供了一个手段 ， 从而确定变化的地方能最好的被视为满足了业务需求。然而，并不是每个人都认为， CMM1为发展提供了一个无故障系统。 2.4CMM1的问题 尽管弗格森和谢尔德查明的软件产业已经越来越多地把软件能力成熟度模型作为指导，来审查其软件开发的实践和不断的改善他们 CMM1办法也有其反对者。 Karolak注意到，在以市场为导向的环境下，选择下列以外的其他严谨的程序限制，如CMM1应考虑准确提供软件的时间。 特纳和Jain为解决这些问题已经提出的过程的约束和灵活的方向的软件方法。他们发现关于 40个过程模型元件的相比，有17个被认为在冲突或潜在的冲突主要集中在组织的进程地区。他们争辩说，两个方法都不是正确的 ，但在不同阶段的一个办法比其他办法可能是更有利的。 Ngwenyama和Nielson指出， CMM1软件过程改进（ SPI ）的概念可被视为举行合理的并机械论的组织而断言， SPI实际上是干预以改变它为目的的组织文化。与此同时海夫纳和Tauser提出他们发现执行CMM1涵盖战略的规划和执行是失败的。他们指出，尽管高级管理人员可能希望改善他们公司的过程，他们可以不了解什么是需要改变的，而他们更关心的是其他的商业驱动因素，如盈利能力和竞争地位。他们还声称，他们可能不知道如何改进流程才能够帮助实现这些其他的商业目的。虽然奥康内尔和Saiedian使用CMM1一直致力于作为自我改进的工具，利用它作为一个标准可能会导致的问题突出他们认为有可能是一个期望本数据以最佳状态显示更多合格以上的情况。 2.5 CMM1的效益 早期的反馈技术的效用是由Herbsleb 提供的 ，他还研究了13家已密集的使用应用软件CMM1的公司。这表明包括回报率的投资范围从4:1上升到8.8:1的结果，而每年减少的上市时间为同一公司从15%上升至23% 。同时克拉克的结论是：对于每一个增加的过程成熟度发展的成就可以减少4%-11% ，而麦加里发现，自1990年以来软件的平均错误率减少了百分之七十五。他还声称，如果有适当的程序组织能够一贯的应付重大变化或意外的事件。江等人的报告分析表明：积极提高软件过程的成熟是与积极的项目执行情况好处似乎与第3级一致。 附件2：外文原文（复印件）Measuring performance change in the mechanical design process arena 1 INTRODUCTIONIn an increasingly competitive world few companies can afford to stand by and do nothing as competitors replicate their winning strategies and customers look towards achieving their needs in ever more effective ways. Walsh observes that ：the management of design is a vital aspect of corporate strategy and that design is crucial to innovation in that it is the domain of creativity where ideas are devised but also where the coupling occurs between technical possibilities and market demands or opportunities. Although a host of strategies, frameworks, methods and tools have been introduced to help companies compete in a dynamically changing environment，what appears to be lacking is a measurement approach that can be used at a more local, tactical level by mechanical engineers as they end eavour to manage their processes. Driva et al. highlight that people are not content with the performance measures currently available for design and development, while Neely et al. find that managers appear to be looking for readily implemented, off-the-shelf solutions to measurement problems. However, creating an appropriate measurement system can be difficult for organizations, as highlighted by McAdam and Bailie. The research presented in this paper was identified as a result of discussions with mechanical engineers from a large, multinational electromechanical company. They had a need to improve their mechanical design processes and were aware of the successful application by their software engineering department of the software capability maturity model (SWCMM SM) as an approach with which to help measure current status and identify areas of strength and weakness in their software engineering processes. Investigations showed that there was no readily available application that provided a similar output for mechanical engineers. Consequently, a research program was initiated to discover if an approach could be implemented that would meet the needs of the mechanical engineers from across different sites within the company. After an initial period of research it was decided to use the systems engineering capability maturity model (SE-CMM1) as a starting point for the development of a model that could be applied to the mechanical engineering environment within the company. This paper reports on how the model was chosen, modified, and implemented to measure and quantify change to the mechanical engineering process performance within one site of a large, multidisciplinary engineering company. These initial findings are then complemented by results from a re-assessment of the site around three years after the initial work was carried out to evaluate the techniques potential as a tool for comparing process capabilities over time.2 BACKGROUNDBy understanding where an organizations capabilities lie, it is possible to make better decisions regarding how to ensure that the needs a customer most values are efficiently and effectively met. Neely questions why business performance measurement has become topical again and asserts that we are in the midst of a performance measurement revolution. Within an engineering organization there are many types of measurement techniques that can be used to contribute towards the success of the company. They cover a broad range of approaches including: (a) financial measures (e.g. return on investment (ROI), profit, etc.);(b) strategic models such as the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model, the Malcolm Baldridge Award, and the balanced scorecard;(c) standards such as ISO 9000 that provide an internationally recognized structure for working practices;(d) design engineering tools and methods used in day-to-day work such as concurrent engineering practices, quality function deployment (QFD), total quality management (TQM), and benchmarking;(e) statistical approaches such as counting the number of changes required to drawings, number of drawings or designs issued 15. These types of approaches are grouped under generic headings in Table 1 in what has been called a measurement matrix. The columns to the left depict the more strategic tools used by upper-level management while those to the right would typically represent those used by engineers at a lower, more tactical level of an organization. Notably, the outputs from CMM1 can service both strategic and tactical needs in an organization, in effect providing a bridge between these different ends of the measurement matrix. At the strategic end upper management can be presented with a simple output that indicates the overall level achieved during an assessment. On the other hand there is a considerable amount of specific detail that can be distilled from an assessment that can be applied at a very local, tactical level for engineers working directly on projects. However, there are elements of discord with some of the approaches listed. Historically, companies have successfully relied on financial measurement systems. Nevertheless, Neely argues that organizations wishing to differentiate and compete in markets where value rather than cost is a driver, have provided a spur towards companies needing performance information across a wide range of measures. He argues that traditional business performance measures do not provide the insight needed to identify the nonfinancial factors that impact on business performance and that people are looking for, he states that Organisations have transcended their cost phase and entered a value phase. Kennerley and Neely identify a performance revolution triggered by the shortcomings of accounting systems ofmeasurement and assert that industry and academics regard performance measurement effectiveness as an area that is increasing in importance. Models such as the balanced scorecard, the EFQM excellence model and the Malcolm Baldridge award avoid dependence on finance metrics and their associated shortfalls by blending accounting measures of success with others such as customer focus, learning, policy, and business processes. However, De Groote et al. note that although the Baldridge and EFQM awards contain an explicit management qualities model, they are less actionable for plant managers because the unit of analysis is at too high a level. This is an important concern for people trying to target the tactical process issues faced by engineers working to create designs for new or upgraded products. From their design process research, Pawar and Driva note that: the message that came across loud and clear was . . .we are not satisfied with our current performance measurement for design and development but we do not know how to improve without incurring major costs and spending time setting up a system. They further describe how existing measurement tools focus too much on the strategic level with minimal involvement from the designers and developers of products. This reinforces the suggestion of a gap where a new approach could contribute towards making management of the mechanical design process more effective. However, a warning of a potential obstacle in achieving this is given by Roy who notes that it is far more difficult to measure design performance than it is to measure business performance.2.1 Design performanceRoy is not alone in identifying this difficulty; Loch et al. note that, despite the increasingly recognized importance of the development function towards the success of businesses, there is no agreed set of performance metrics to use for measuring the development function. Nixon asserts that there is a dearth of evidence on how organizations actually evaluate the design activity and that a major difficulty is that the design process is a subsystem of the product innovation process. Pawar and Driva observe that, following a detailed review of the literature, they have identified a lack of information relating to the design and development phases associated with product development and that this should be addressed. Indeed, they state that there is a . . . lack of focus on the measures that are really needed. This corresponds with Duffy who details the outcomes of the first international engineering design debate held in Glasgow in 1996. He asserts that there are many questions that need to be answered before the true nature of design productivity can be defined. Driva et al. also note that, regarding the product development process, little interest has been shown in understanding what measures are required to carry out effective management. Moreover, they assert that . . . there is very little evidence of work that examines performance in the context of product design and development. Further difficulties with measuring design performance are noted by Nixon, who observes that performance measurement is perceived as a hindrance to creativity and that this counters the need for top management to have a metric to offset against others they use, such as cash flow and profitability. Chang and Yong argue that measuring product development is difficult in terms of its value and effectiveness, while Tidd and Bodley observe that development activity is both iterative and complex, which in turn makes it difficult to model. Meanwhile, Buchheim states that: With the notable exception of the software engineering discipline, there are few published descriptions of the practical application of performance metrics to the hardware design engineering activities of large corporations. In fact, this last quote appears to point to the potential of using tools similar to those currently being used in software engineering environments in other creative domains, such as product design, for measuring process performance. On the topic of product design, Dixon and Duffey identify that it is mechanical design as opposed to electronic design that is considered to be a major problem for manufacturers. Four issues in particular are identified, namely the wide range of materials available to mechanical designers; the complex and sensitive role of manufacturing concerns on mechanical designs; the non-modularity of mechanical designs; and the role of modern complex three dimensional geometry. They assert that, in terms of long-range strategy, the factors of cost, quality, and time-to-market are design problems rather than manufacturing problems, especially mechanical design problems. Furthermore, they identify that many technical product problems commonly associated with manufacturing processes are traceable to mechanical design problems and that there are inadequate metrics for evaluating the engineering design process. In addition, they propose that managers and economists have failed to construct and implement evaluation procedures for manufacturing which are sensitive to the role of design, particularly the design process. Driva et al. assert that consistent and comprehensive measures for product design and development are still in their infancy, that measures for product design and development have been neglected in the past，and that companies are turning to product design to gain a new competitive edge. Meanwhile, Busby and Williamson argue that many of the limitations on performance measurement in engineering design appear to have general origins and that existing performance measures in most engineering organizations have basic deficiencies. They note that although engineering design contributes considerably to the success or failure of engineering firms, it has not been as great a target as production activities for performance measurement. They assert that this could be owing to the difficulty of characterizing creative engineering functional performance compared with the more repetitive and predictable activities found in production. This is further exemplified by ODonnell and Duffy, who assert that the measurement of performance of product design is undeveloped compared to what can be found in manufacturing and that the difficulties in measuring performance are owing to the less tangible nature of the outputs associated with the design process. They go on to note that current models that address activities in design concentrate on the performance of the design to the exclusion of the activities that generate the design. These points heavily underline an issue with respect to measuring design performance and, in particular, design process performance. In Table 2, the measurement matrix is modified to illustrate those methods that are eliminated because they do not directly support mechanical engineers in their understanding of the design process. This reduces the techniques available and, with the exception of counting the changes to drawings (which tackles output rather than process) and benchmarking, no other tactically orientated metrics are available to help manage the mechanical design process.2.2 Process performanceWith regard to process performance itself, Ahire observes that both design and process management efforts have an equal impact on internal and external product quality: in order to attain superior quality outcomes, firms need to balance their design and process management efforts and persevere with the long-term implementation of these efforts. Voss states that no matter how good is the focus and commitment of the company to meet a particular goal, it may fail if there are inappropriate processes or a misaligned infrastructure. He goes on to assert that companies with best practice attributes perform better than those without, but that there can be a lack of perspective on the use of improvement practices and their applicability to the business in question are answered. Bartholomew highlights the need to address processes before technology when resolving difficulties in business. Dixon and Duffey note that there are inadequate metrics for evaluating the design process that can be used by manufacturing industries in the US and suggest that the evaluation of the design process might be even less understood than the evaluation of product designs. Meanwhile Cantamessa identifies a substantial gap between the business literature, which fails to identify the mechanism that allows innovative product design practices to contribute towards business success, and the engineering literature, which concentrates on new tools and methods. Furthermore, he goes on to point out that firms have problems regarding how to evaluate the impact of new tools and methods. Kennerley and Neely argue that an organization must have key capabilities in place if measurement systems are to evolve, while Neely et al. conclude that people are starting to look for predictive measures such as statistical process control to enable early identification of matters going out of control rather than being within a normal band of occurrence. They argue that the identification and development of predictive performance measures is a key area of the research agenda. Gregory concludes that: the adoption of a process-based reference model provides the basis for internal activities of auditing companies and a vehicle for a comparison of process practice between apparently widely differing environments. The question is: what kind of model would be suitable for this? From the literature presented, it is clear that a gap exists with regard to the measurement of the performance of the engineering design function and the processes that support it. This capability gap was experienced by engineers from the mechanical design department at company A, who had been concerned with how they could move the development of their mechanical design processes forward. They were aware that the SW-CMMSM had been implemented at their site and were curious as to whether this type of approach could help provide a solution to the issues they were experiencing in trying to understand and manage their processes.2.3 Capability maturity modelThe principles on which the CMM1 is based are consistent with the ideas on TQM expounded by Deming, Juran, and others, and highlighted by Ishikawa; these ideas promote the need for quality control of processes. The purpose of a CMM1 assessment is to provide a measured baseline of a companys performance at a given time and to provide, where necessary, information for a company to guide its engineering efforts to meet customers needs more effectively. CMM1 provides this information in the guise of an integrated model of domain best practices and process capability. The original CMM1, termed the software capability maturity model (SW-CMMSM) was created under the direction of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, US. It has been used by software companies to help them understand and improve their software processes and by association their business capabilities. The model has its origins with the US Department of Defense (DoD), which had suffered cost and quality difficulties with several software intensive contracts during the 1980s. It was decided to resolve these issues by improving the software process capability of companies who were involved in this business area. While the spotlight was clearly on software in this case, it must be noted that the problem of late and costly delivery is not limited to software engineering alone. Bashir and Thomson found from published papers that for engineering design projects the reported average schedule overrun ranges from 41 to 258 per cent and cost overruns range from 97 to 151 per cent. April notes that Watts Humphrys has stressed the importance of an accurate assessment of the current situation before undertakingany efforts to improve processes. The need to think through and target a companys, usually limited, resources on the key leverage points is clear. The CMM1 approach addresses these points by providing a means to map the current engineering landscape，thus identifying the areas where change can be best considered to be made to meet business needs. However, not everyone believes that CMM1 provides a fault-free system for improvement.2.4 Issues with CMM1Although Ferguson and Sheard identify that the software industry has increasingly looked towards the Capability Maturity Model for Software for g
- 温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明，都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等，如果需要附件，请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸，网页内容里面会有图纸预览，若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑，并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容，请与我们联系，我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享，仅供网友学习交流，未经上传用户书面授权，请勿作他用。
川公网安备: 51019002004831号