Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-19T14:26:52.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Devops in Product-Service System Development

Part of: Product-Service-System (PSS) Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Rajaram Srinivasan ,
Steven D. Eppinger  and
Nitin Joglekar
Rajaram Srinivasan
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Steven D. Eppinger*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Nitin Joglekar
Affiliation:
Boston University
*
Contact: Eppinger, Steven, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, United States of America eppinger@mit.edu

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.

We study a DevOps software development process for a Product-Service System (PSS) using a design structure matrix (DSM) representation. We find unique features such as nested, planned iterations at differing rates which are not evident in conventional engineering development projects. We describe the impact of integrating ongoing operations into a development process and identify some of the enablers that lead to adoption of a DevOps process. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and raise questions for further research.

Keywords

Product-Service Systems (PSS)Design processAgile DevelopmentProcess modelling

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3111 - 3120
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) 2019

References

Ahmed, A., Ahmad, S., Ehsan, N., Mizra, E. and Sarwar, S.Z. (2010), “Agile Software Development: Impact on Productivity and Quality”, In: IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology, Singapore. https://doi/org/10.1109/ICMIT.2010.5492703Google Scholar
Agile Alliance (2001), What is Agile Software Development [online], www.agilealliance.org/agile101 (Nov 2018).Google Scholar
Agile Manifesto (2001), Manifesto for Agile Software Development [online], www.agilealliance.org/agile101/the-agile-manifesto (Nov 2018).Google Scholar
Allspaw, J. and Hammond, P. (2009), 10+ Deploys Per Day: Dev and Ops Cooperation at Flickr”, O'Reilly Velocity Conference, San Jose.Google Scholar
Anderson, E., Lim, S.Y. and Joglekar, N. (2017), “Are More Frequent Releases Always Better? Dynamics of Pivoting, Scaling, and the Minimum Viable Product”, In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi/org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.705Google Scholar
Böhmer, A.I., Hostettler, R., Richter, C., Lindemann, U., Conradt, J. and Knoll, A. (2017), “Towards Agile Product Development: The Role of Prototyping”, In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vancouver.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (1990), “Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products”, Business Horizons, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 44–54.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. and Sommer, A.F. (2016), “From experience: The agile–stage-gate hybrid model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 513–526.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012), Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Feldhusen, J., Löwer, M. and Bungert, F. (2009), “Agile Methods for Design to Customer”, In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Grashiller, M., Luedeke, T. and Vielhaber, M. (2017), “Integrated Approach to the Agile Development with Design Thinking in an Industrial Environment”, In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver.Google Scholar
Leffingwell, D., Yakyma, A., Jemilo, D. and Knaster, R. (2013), Scaled Agile Framework [online], scaledagileframework.com (Nov 2018).Google Scholar
Puppet Labs. (2015), State of DevOps Report, Puppet Labs [online], puppet.com/resources/whitepaper/2015-state-devops-report (Nov 2018).Google Scholar
Sakao, T. and Lindahl, M. (Eds.) (2009), Introduction to Product/Service-System Design, Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017), The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum - The Rules of the Game, Scrum Inc. [online], scrumguides.org (Nov 2018).Google Scholar
Smith, R.P. and Eppinger, S.D. (1997), “A predictive model of sequential iteration in engineering design”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1104–1120.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D. and Yang, M.C. (2019), Product Design and Development, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Unger, D.W. and Eppinger, S.D. (2009), “Comparing product development processes and managing risk”, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 382–402.Google Scholar
Viszlai, L. (2015), Introducing Kanban to IT Operations, VMware Blogs [online], blogs.vmware.com/accelerate/2015/11/kanban-it-operations.html (Nov 2018).Google Scholar