4.7 Article

A framework for cost evaluation in product service system configuration

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 20, 页码 6120-6144

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1325528

关键词

product service system; configuration evaluation; cost estimation; life cycle costing; PSS configuration

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71401099]
  2. Humanities and Social Sciences Research Youth Foundation Project of Ministry of Education of China [13YJC630129]
  3. Innovation Programme of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, China [15ZS079]
  4. Academic Discipline Project of Shanghai Dianji [16YSXK02]
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Innovative Manufacturing - Through-life Engineering Services [EP/1033246/1]
  6. EPSRC [EP/I033246/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I033246/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Configuration systems are increasingly used as a means for efficient design of customised product service systems (PSS) to satisfy diverse customer needs. Cost evaluation is thereby important to assist the configuration engineers in making decisions on feasible configuration solutions. However, little research attention has been received until recently. To fill this gap, this paper contributes in developing a framework for cost evaluation in PSS configuration. A holistic view of PSS configuration, the three-dimensional PSS cost element, and a life cycle-oriented cost evaluation approach are successively proposed. The framework is thereby established with a number of parts, including the preparatory stage, the evaluation stage and the configuration stage. A pump PSS is illustrated to validate the developed framework. Four feasible configuration solutions in one configuration activity are evaluated and compared. The configuration engineers are thus assisted with the decision on selecting the one with the least cost.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据