Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-24T15:03:30.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN DESIGN: CRITICALITY AND COMFORT ZONE FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

P. Krus  and
L. Pereira
P. Krus*
Affiliation:
Linköping University, Sweden
L. Pereira
Affiliation:
Federal University of ABC, Brazil
*
*petter.krus@liu.se

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper proposes an analytical framework for estimating the domain where a type of technology can be used in a system. In order to achieve this aim, we have elaborated on the concepts of technology critical, technology sensitive, and the technology comfort zone, to analytically assess the impact of a new technology in the early phases of system design. The result is a general method to indicate the range of requirements that can result in valid designs. This tool can assist in the decision-making processes for technology portfolio selection based on sustainable principles.

Keywords

sustainable designdecision makingtechnology development

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 637 - 646
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Berggren, C., Magnusson, T. and Sushandoyo, D. (2015), “Transition pathways revisited: Established firms as multi-level actors in the heavy vehicle industry”, Research Policy, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1017–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, R. and Hannon, M. (2016), “Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding”, Research Policy, North-Holland, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1731–1742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceschin, F. (2014), “How the design of socio-technical experiments can enable radical changes for sustainability”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Cruz-Cázares, C., Bayona-Sáez, C. and García-Marco, T. (2013), “Make, buy or both? R&D strategy selection”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, P., Cameron, B. and Crawley, E.F. (2015), “Technology portfolio planning by weighted graph analysis of system Architectures”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, J. et al. (2015), “Requirements change in complex technical systems: an empirical study of root causes”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 26, pp. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, J.V. et al. (2017), “Modelling the dynamics of complex early design processes: An agent-based approach”, Design Science, Vol. 3, pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaziulusoy, A.İ. and Erdoğan Öztekin, E. (2019), “Design for Sustainability Transitions: Origins, Attitudes and Future Directions”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 13, p. 3601.Google Scholar
Geels, F.W. (2005), Technological Transitions and System Innovations, Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiadis, D.R., Mazzuchi, T. and Sarkani, S. (2013), “Using Multi Criteria Decision Making in Analysis of Alternatives for Selection of Enabling Technology”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepperle, M. (2012), “Electric Flight – Potential and Limitations”, Energy Efficient Technologies and Concepts of Operation, STO, Available at: https://doi.org/10.14339/STO-MP-AVT-209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyysalo, S. et al. (2019), “Codesign for transitions governance: A Mid-range pathway creation toolset for accelerating sociotechnical change”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 63 No. June, pp. 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, T. (2015), “Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research”, Design and Culture, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, J. et al. (2019), “An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Elsevier, Vol. 31 No. February, pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koot, M. et al. (2005), “Energy management strategies for vehicular electric power systems”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, H. et al. (2012), “Progress and perspectives of electric air transport”, 28th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences 2012, ICAS 2012, pp. 4886–4899.Google Scholar
Lee, C.Y., Wu, H.L. and Dong, M. (2018), “What Drives Firms to Explore New Technological Fields? An Investigation on the Technological Entry Effect of CEO Decision Horizon and Board Governance”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 2 No. 66, pp. 142–155.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D. (2010), “Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework”, Governance, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, C.M. et al. (2017), “Energy Management in Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Recent Progress and a Connected Vehicles Perspective”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 4534–4549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNerney, J. et al. (2011), “Role of design complexity in technology improvement”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108 No. 22, pp. 9008–9013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misra, A. (2018), Summary of 2017 NASA Workshop on Assessment of Advanced Battery Technologies for Aerospace Applications. Available at: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20180001539.pdf.Google Scholar
Naayagi, R.T. (2013), “A review of more electric aircraft technology”, International Conference on Energy Efficient Technologies for Sustainability (ICEETS), IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, V.K. and Chen, T. (2012), “Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1375–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R.R. (2013), “Demand, supply, and their interaction on markets, as seen from the perspective of evolutionary economic theory”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 23 No. 17, pp. 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Placke, T. et al. (2017), “Lithium ion, lithium metal , and alternative rechargeable battery technologies: The odyssey for high energy density”, Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1939–1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantala, T. et al. (2018), “The effect of sustainability in the adoption of technological, service, and business model innovations”, Journal of Cleaner Production, No. 172, pp. 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaee, S.A. et al. (2015), “Participatory Demand-supply Systems. Procedia Computer Science”, 2015 Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Vol. 44, pp. 105–114.Google Scholar
Schlabe, D. and Lienig, J. (2012), “Energy Management of Aircraft Electrical Systems - State of the Art and Further Directions ”, International Conference on Electrical Systems for Aircraft, Railway, Ships Propulsion and Road Vehicles (ESARS), pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheard, S.A. and Mostashari, A. (2009), “Principles of complex systems for systems engineering”, Systems Engineering, No. 12, pp. 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2001), Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Svetinovic, D. (2013), “Strategic requirements engineering for complex sustainable systems”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tariq, M. et al. (2016), “Aircraft batteries: current trend towards more electric aircraft”, IET Electrical Systems in Transportation, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traub, L.W. (2011), “Range and Endurance Estimates for Battery-Powered Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utterback, J.D. (1996), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harward Business School Press.Google Scholar
Zolfagharian, M. et al. (2019), “Studying transitions: Past, present, and future”, Research Policy, No. April. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar