CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Quality and Supply ManagementProduct Development and CustomizationConstruction Project Management and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Mapping wastes in complex projects for Lean Product Development

Open access
Belvedere, Valeria, Cuttaia, Francesco, Rossi, Monica, Stringhetti, Luca·2019·International Journal of Project Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 80 · Cited by 32

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Ahern, 2014, Complex project management as complex problem solving: a distributed knowledge management perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 32, 1371, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.007 · DOI
  2. Arabian-Hoseynabadi, 2010, Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for wind turbines, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 32, 817, 10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.01.019 · DOI
  3. Baccarini, 1996, The concept of project complexity—a review, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 14, 201, 10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3 · DOI
  4. Bandecchi, 2000, The ESA/ESTEC concurrent Design Facility, Proc. EUSEC, 9, 2000
  5. Belvedere, 2014, Can lean systems engineering enhance the value of astrophysical projects, Hum. Syst. Manag., 99, 10.3233/HSM-140815 · DOI
  6. Billings, 2010, Space science: the telescope that ate astronomy, Nature, 467, 1028, 10.1038/4671028a · DOI
  7. Bjorvatn, 2018, Project complexity and team-level absorptive capacity as drivers of project management performance, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 36, 876, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.05.003 · DOI
  8. Browning, 2014, Managing complex project process models with a process architecture framework, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 32, 229, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.008 · DOI
  9. Browning, 2009, Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs with evidence from the F-22 program, J. Oper. Manag., 27, 23, 10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009 · DOI
  10. Browning, 2012, Can Innovation be Lean?, Calif. Manag. Rev., 54, 5, 10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.5 · DOI
  11. Browning, 2002, Adding Value in Product Development by Creating Information and reducing risk, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 49, 443, 10.1109/TEM.2002.806710 · DOI
  12. Carbone, 2004, Project risk management using the project risk FMEA, Eng. Manag. J., 16, 28, 10.1080/10429247.2004.11415263 · DOI
  13. Chiozza, 2009, FMEA: a model for reducing medical errors, Clin. Chim. Acta, 404, 75, 10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.015 · DOI
  14. Chuang, 2007, Combining service blueprint and FMEA for service design, Serv. Ind. J., 27, 91, 10.1080/02642060601122587 · DOI
  15. Clark, 1987, Product Development in the World Auto Industry, Brook. Pap. Econ. Act., 729, 10.2307/2534453 · DOI
  16. Cooke-Davies, 2007, We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto: mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory and its relationship to project management, Proj. Manag. J., 38, 50, 10.1177/875697280703800206 · DOI
  17. Daniel, 2018, Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: from a paradigm of regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 36, 184, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.004 · DOI
  18. Davis, 2016, A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual stakeholder groups, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 480, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.009 · DOI
  19. Eriksson, 2017, Managing complex projects in the infrastructure sector—a structural equation model for flexibility-focused project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 35, 1512, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.015 · DOI
  20. Geraldi, 2011, Now, let's make it really complex (complicated) a systematic review of the complexities of projects, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 31, 966, 10.1108/01443571111165848 · DOI
  21. Hensley, 1999, A review of operations management studies using scale development techniques, J. Oper. Manag., 17, 343, 10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00051-5 · DOI
  22. Heravi, 2018, The Influence of Project Risk Management Maturity and Organizational Learning on the Success of Power Plant Construction Projects, Proj. Manag. J., 49, 22, 10.1177/8756972818786661 · DOI
  23. Honour, 2004, Understanding the Value of Systems Engineering, INCOSE Int. Symp., 14, 1207, 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2004.tb00567.x · DOI
  24. Hu, 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model., 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hu, 2009, Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP, Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 7142, 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.031 · DOI
  26. Karlsson, 1996, Assessing changes Towards Lean production, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 16, 24, 10.1108/01443579610109820 · DOI
  27. Krishnan, 2001, Product Development decisions: a Review of the Literature, Manag. Sci., 47, 1, 10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10668 · DOI
  28. Lawson, 2001, In praise of slack: Time is of the essence, Acad. Manag. Exec., 15, 125
  29. Liker, 2011, Lean Product Development as a System: a Case Study of Body and Stamping Development at Ford, Eng. Manag. J., 23, 16, 10.1080/10429247.2011.11431884 · DOI
  30. Liker, 1996, Involving suppliers in Product Development in the United States and Japan: evidence for Set-based concurrent Engineering, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 43, 165, 10.1109/17.509982 · DOI
  31. Locatelli, 2014, Systems Engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 32, 1395, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.007 · DOI
  32. Lu, 2015, Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 33, 610, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.005 · DOI
  33. Metcalfe, 2013, Complex project conceptualisation and argument mapping, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 31, 1129, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.004 · DOI
  34. Oppenheim, 2004, Lean product development flow, Syst. Eng., 7, 352, 10.1002/sys.20014 · DOI
  35. Oppenheim, 2011, Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering, Syst. Eng., 14, 29, 10.1002/sys.20161 · DOI
  36. Padalkar, 2016, Are complexity and uncertainty distinct concepts in project management? A taxonomical examination from literature, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 688, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.009 · DOI
  37. Papke-Shields, 2017, Strategic planning characteristics applied to project management, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 35, 169, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.015 · DOI
  38. Pfeifer, 2015, Quantifying the risk of project delays with a genetic algorithm, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 170, 34, 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.007 · DOI
  39. Popaitoon, 2014, The moderating effect of human resource management practices on the relationship between knowledge absorptive capacity and project performance in project-oriented companies, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 32, 908, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.002 · DOI
  40. Reinertsen, 2005, Let it flow: how lean product development sparked a revolution, Ind. Eng., 37, 40
  41. Rezvani, 2016, Manager emotional intelligence and project success: the mediating role of job satisfaction and trust, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 34, 1112, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.012 · DOI
  42. Rossi, 2017, CLIMB: maturity assessment model for design and engineering processes, Int. J. Product Lifecycle Manag., 10, 10.1504/IJPLM.2017.082998 · DOI
  43. Segismundo, 2008, Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in the context of risk management in new product development: a case study in an automotive company, Int. J. Quality Reliab. Manag., 25, 899, 10.1108/02656710810908061 · DOI
  44. Serrador, 2015, The relationship between project success and project efficiency, Proj. Manag. J., 46, 30, 10.1002/pmj.21468 · DOI
  45. Serrador, 2015, What is enough planning? Results from a global quantitative study, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 62, 462, 10.1109/TEM.2015.2448059 · DOI
  46. Sobek, 1998, Another look at how Toyota Integrates Product Development, Harv. Bus. Rev., 76, 36
  47. Sobek, 1999, Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering, Sloan Manag. Rev., 40, 67
  48. Sobek, 1999, Toyota's principles of setbased concurrent engineering, Sloan Manag. Rev., 40, 67
  49. Turner, 2012, Forecasting success on large projects: developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames, Proj. Manag. J., 43, 87, 10.1002/pmj.21289 · DOI
  50. Van de Vonder, 2005, The use of buffers in project management: the trade-off between stability and makespan, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 97, 227, 10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.08.004 · DOI
  51. Vidal, 2011, Measuring project complexity using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 29, 718, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.005 · DOI
  52. Whitty, 2009, And then came complex project management (revised), Int. J. Proj. Manag., 27, 304, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.004 · DOI
  53. Williams, 1999, The need for new paradigms for complex projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 17, 269, 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00047-7 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Belvedere, V., Cuttaia, F., Rossi, M., & Stringhetti, L.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • Osservatorio di Astrofisica e Scienza dello Spazio (IT)
  • National Institute for Astrophysics (IT)
Corresponding author
Belvedere, Valeria
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Project Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
410-424
ISSN
0263-7863 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.008
OpenAlex
W2915984784
Cited by
32
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Project Management (publishedVersion)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Product Development and Customization
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
Keywords
lean product development, waste mapping, complex projects, value-added activities, project development process, INAF, waste reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review