Concurrent Process_Product Development

8/6/2019 Concurrent Process_Product Development

1/20

1

Concurrent Product/Process Development (CPPD)Breakthrough Results in Product Development Time to MarketJason R. Lemon, Ph.D., William E. Dacey, Michael A. LemonInternational TechneGroup Incorporated (ITI)

Executive Summary

Worldclass product performance, cost, quality and reliability aregivens in the global marketplace. Time to Market andDevelopment Productivity are the Key Measures of adevelopment organization today. Only the fastest, most productiveand best value global producers can achieve market leadership.

For most companies to affect time to market and developmentproductivity, major changes are required in development processesand in how technology is implemented and leveraged. ProductDevelopment organizations must utilize a defined and testedapproach which integrates process and technology to facilitatemajor change.

Concurrent Product and Process Development (CPPD) is adisciplined computer integrated product and manufacturing processdevelopment methodology. Many industry-leading companies aresetting the standards for world-class time to market anddevelopment productivity using CPPD methodologies.

Introduction

CPPD is not a silver bullet that solves all product development problems instantly. It is not a new set ofbuzzwords and it is not a new set of software. CPPD is a methodology which determines relatedcustomer needs, makes competitive assessments and converts the voice of the customer into

predictable and measurable product specifications and requirements using Quality Function Deployment(QFD) methods and software. CPPD defines and evaluates multiple product and process alternatives

using computer simulation capabilities. In a CPPD program the product development team doesextensive manufacturing and predictive cost what-ifs analyses. Engineers focus on design formanufacturing, design for assembly, design for quality and design for cost. Managers utilizes businessmodels, decision tables and decision support systems to select market, product, manufacturing andbusiness strategies that are optimized for their global competitive environment.


2/20

2

CPPD combines a multi-disciplined core team, derived from all functional groups to drive productdevelopment. These members coordinate activities and represent their respective functionalorganizations on a product development program. A strongmanagement Steering team streamlines redtape and eliminates cross-functional barriers. Manufacturing and Key Suppliers must be involved earlyand often in the development process from concept initiation to customer delivery.

Process change studies and reports do not automatically affect change when published. Tools alone donot instantly solve problems when deployed. Networks and infrastructure do not instantly improve time tomarket when they are turned on. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts to world-class product

performance, cost structures, quality levels and competitive time-to-market. Any organization that impliesotherwise simply does not understand the complexity and difficulties involved.

Concurrent Development of Product andConcurrent Development of Product andManufacturing ProcessesManufacturing Processes

Target Setting, CompetitiveTarget Setting, Competitive

Vehicle Assessments andVehicle Assessments andTargets CascadingTargets Cascading

Systems Engineering andSystems Engineering and

Analysis Leads DesignAnalysis Leads Design vsvs..Conventional Design, BuildConventional Design, Buildand Testand Test

Integrated Test,Integrated Test,

Analysis, DesignAnalysis, Designand Stylingand Styling

True Concurrent ProductTrue Concurrent Product

and Manufacturing Processand Manufacturing ProcessDevelopmentDevelopment

Project Data Management, Global Collaboration, andProject Data Management, Global Collaboration, andNew Process InfrastructureNew Process Infrastructure

Cross FunctionalCross Functional

Teams and EffectiveTeams and EffectiveProject ManagementProject Management

World ClassWorld Class

Reliability atReliability atProduction LaunchProduction Launch

Page 13

DesignMarketing

Finance

Suppliers

Purchasing Manufacturing

Engineering

CoreTeam

Steering Team

Process (People) Technology (Tools) Infrastructure (Environment)

CP/PD Multi-CP/PD Multi-

FunctionalFunctionalOrganization forOrganization forIntegrated SolutionsIntegrated Solutions


3/20

3

The elements of people, tools and environment must be considered within a single framework. Anintegrated approach to manage change and leverage technology is required. CPPD concurrentlyaddresses development process change, technology deployment and infrastructure implementation.

Background

Major economic considerations prompt companies to implement Concurrent Product/Process

Development. Fundamentally, CPPD methods and capabilities are applied to improve the manufacturingapproach, reduce the costs of engineering changes, lower total product cost and shorten time to market.

Manufacturing Approach

Level of technology and cost of total quality are key factors when assessing the manufacturing approachused to achieve total product quality. Level of technology examines the extent to which technical toolsand methods are applied to product development process. The cost of total quality evaluates costsassociated with all phases of product development and manufacturing operations.

Level of Technology

A low technology producer achieves acceptable product quality mainly through a build and test productdevelopment approach and through a heavy reliance on inspection methods throughout manufacturingoperations

A middle range producer achieves acceptable product quality primarily through rigorous implementationof statistical methods; i.e., design of experiments, Taguchi methods, etc., for product development andstatistical process control and related quality systems on the shop floor.

World-class manufacturers achieve total acceptable product quality primarily through design; i.e., byimplementing product and manufacturing process development methods which achieve quality by design.

Methods to Achieve Total Product Quality

Test

&

Inspection

DOE/SMDesign of

Experiments,Statistical

Methods &Process Control

(SPC)

CP/PD

Quality viaProduct & Process

Design

Concurrent Product/Process Development

LowTechnology

World-class

Acceptable Quality

100%

66%

33%

Total

Product

Quality

Manufacturing Methods


4/20

4

Relative Cost of QualityRelative Cost of Quality

Test

&Inspection

DOE/SM

Design of

Experiments,Statistical

Methods &

Process Control

(SPC)

CP/PD

Quality viaProduct & Process

Design


Low

Technology

Worldclass

Acceptable Quality

100%

66%

33%

TotalProductQuality

Manufacturing Methods

10.0 Relative

Cost

Of

Quality($)

1.0

0.5

0.1

Relative Cost of QualityRelative Cost of Quality

5.0

10.0

1.0

Most producers fall somewhere in the middle range. They are very good at statistical methods inproduct/process development and manufacturing operations, but they are not advanced with regard toworld-class capabilities to achieve and control total quality via fundamental product and process designand development.

Cost to Achieve Total Product Quality

The cost to achieve total quality involves all product development and manufacturing phases and can beevaluated in four categories:

1. Product development costs; such as design of experiments, durability left tests, etc.

2. Manufacturing planning and engineering cost to develop systems for incoming inspection, in-processgauging, statistical process control, final product run-off testing, etc.

3. Manufacturing operations cost after the product is released to production, to conduct and controlquality systems.

4. Field warranty and product recall costs.

An objective of most CPPD programs is to reduce costs to achieve total product quality by a factor of 2 or

3 to one compared with todays methods. These reductions are achieved by designing both products andprocesses for total quality and production control without heavy reliance on statistical or manualinspection methods.


5/20

5

Cost of Engineering Changes

Conventional Design, Build, Test (Design Iteration after Release) is expensive and time consuming.Design Innovation is traded for creative fire fighting, when designs and problems are thrown over the wallto manufacturing and suppliers. The objectives of Concurrent Product and Manufacturing ProcessDevelopment (CPPD) are to reduce cost, save time and create opportunities for quality by eliminatingengineering changes made after design release.

The cost of engineering changes to achieve and maintain total acceptable product is quality dependentupon the development phase in which the change occurs.

The cost of engineering changes, involving production, tooling and equipment modifications, afterproduction has started, can exceed $150,000 per change (an average) in many product industries. Ifchanges are made before production, in the build and test phase, the cost might be $10-20,000 perchange (on average).

If these same changes are made in the predictive simulation phase within the computer, the estimatedcost, while impossible to nail down precisely, is $1,000 to $2,000 per engineering change (on average).

A major CPPD strategy is to evaluate multiple product and manufacturing process alternatives at theearliest stages of development using computer simulations. When multiple product and processalternatives are evaluated concurrently with what-if market and business models, better product andprocess decisions can be made where costs of change are in the $1,000 to $2,000/change range, asopposed to the $20,000 to $100,000/change ranges.

The CPPD process relies extensively on predictive methods and computer simulation to moveengineering change into early development phases. Moving this curve requires cultural change for mostcompanies and major revisions in the way products and processes are developed and in how technologyis leveraged.

Engineering and Process ChangesEngineering and Process Changes

-2 2 -1 6 -3 0 3

Concurrent Product/ProcessDevelopment

ConventionalDevelopment

Months from Production

Number ofEngineering andProcess Changes

$1k-2k $10k - 20k $100k - 200k

Cost of Engineering Change


6/20

6

Total Product Cost

While impossible to identify precisely, an estimated 75% or more of a products cost is locked-in whenthe first layouts are developed during the concept design phase. Internal cost reduction programs andsupplier cost reduction programs squeeze and squeeze on the remaining 25% or less, but very little realsavings can be achieved after a product concept is selected.

CPPD program teams attack total product costs when changes can be made easily and quickly in thecomputer. Using integrated target setting, simulation and business modeling, teams evaluate multipleproduct and process alternatives, compare relative product and manufacturing costs of these alternatives(i.e., material costs, capital investment, amortization costs, etc.) and evaluate buy versus make trade-offs.

In the product development processes used by most industrial manufacturers today, at the end of theconcept phase, an estimated 50% or less of final product and process decisions, to achieve total productcost and quality, have been made. Only 5% to 7% of the total product and process development budgethas been expended at this stage.

Utilizing predictive analysis and simulation capabilities, it is the objective of CPPD programs to be 80% to90% certain that the correct product concepts and the correct manufacturing and assembly strategieshave been selected at concept initial design.

In order to achieve World-class costs and total product quality compared with the competition, productand related manufacturing process decisions must be influenced significantly by related product familymix and volumes before detail design begins. This mandates that management be willing to allocatefour to five times more budget and resources at the concept stage of product/process development; i.e.,20% - 25% of the total product development budget, compared to the typical 5% to 7% today.

Product Development Cost and Quality

CP/PD vs. Conventional Method

Acceptable Quality

133%

100%

66%

33%

ConceptInitial Design Detail Design& Validation ProductionEngineering Production

CP/PDTime & CostObjectives

ConventionalTime & Cost

80% - 90%

20-25%

5 - 7%

QualityObjective

ConventionalQuality


7/20

7

Time-to-Market

The final economic driver is time-to-market, from concept development to fully implemented production.Advanced technology introduced by competitors or demanded by customers makes current productsobsolete and forces new product development programs for companies to remain competitive. Productlife cycles are becoming shorter and in most industries will be even shorter in the future.

Currently, it can take as long as six years or more to develop a new product with total qualitycharacteristics demanded by the market place. If it takes six years of a ten year product life cycle forproduct development, there simply is no way to recover product and process development and relatedcapital investments. Reduced time-to-market is strategic regardless of cost to remain viable inbusiness tomorrow.

At most companies, processes for developing and producing new products take too long, are tooexpensive, are too narrow in focus and do not always result in products with the precise performance andfeatures that customers want to buy. Concurrent product and process development methods andcapabilities can provide significant results:

World-class standards for product quality

Reduction of overall product costs by 25% to 30% compared with product costs of leadingcompetitors that are still using todays build and test serial product and process developmentmethods

Shortened time-to-market by 35% to 50%

Reduced product and process development costs by 20% to 30%

Reduced capital investment for state-of-the-art automation by 40% or more

Significantly lowered overall product business risk

Cash Flow and Useful LifeCash Flow = $

Dev.Cost

Tomorrow Today Yesterday

Dev. Time Useful Life

Present

Future


8/20

8

Approach

Organizing and Structuring for CPPD Programs

CPPD programs involve parallel versus serial development. The organization must be structured forteam management of multiple parallel, related activities. Successful implementation of CPPD methods isguided by structured program management and is continually enhanced through application ofexperience and data gained in a series of phased CPPD projects.

Product Control Management is responsible for selecting the pilot projects. During the project(s), productcontrol management approves major milestones; i.e., moving the program forward from one activity to thenext, recycling the program, if necessary, or killing the program if results do not warrant continuation.

Top management is responsible for establishing objectives and providing the environment for CPPDprogram managers and core teams to function. CPPD requires established methods and procedures formanaging resources and resolving conflicts among functional groups.

The first step in a CPPD project is to organize the Core Multifunction team under a strong ProgramManager. The team must be carefully selected to insure the proper skills are available to support theproject. The core multifunctional team is the focal point of the CPPD process but must be implementedwithin an overall organizational structure that supports the achievement of CPPD objectives. The

Program Steering Committee is made up of top functional organization managers and is chartered towork with the program manager and core team to resolve scheduling, resource, budget and technicalproblems judiciously and effectively when they arise in the program.

The program manager and core team must identify and coordinate required resources and relatedfunctional organizations.

DesignMarketing

Finance

Suppliers

Purchasing Manufacturin

Engineering

CoreTeam

Steering

CP/PD Multi-Organization

Integrated Process Technology Infrastructure


9/20

9

Metrics for Measuring Productivity and Time to Market

Given the economic drivers of CPPD, the metrics for evaluating and implementing development processand infrastructure change can be established. Time to Market and Development Productivity objectivesare established by management at the beginning of each concurrent product and process developmentproject. These objectives become the basis for all process and technology decisions and the criterion formeasuring program status and success.

Customers are positioned relative to Worldclass on a matrix of process vs. technology. A strategy ismapped to implement CPPD in a step-by-step approach toward achieving Worldclass developmentproductivity. The quickest route to Worldclass for most companies is not a direct route. Process changeis prioritized and the requirements of process change pull technology deployment. Heaping more

CP/PD SupportingProcesses Defined

ConventionalEnvironment

EffectiveEnvironment

ProductiveEnvironment

LeanEnvironment

CP/PDSupportingProcessesImplemented

Target .5

1.0

1.5

2.0

3.0

Advanced Technology & Innovation intoCP/PD

R&D Integrated into CP/PD Process

Electronic Validation of Product & Mfg.Processes

Integrated Systems Knowledge Based Systems Engineering Data Mgmt., Release & Change Control Effective Strategic Supplier Program Technical Data Interchange Interactive Costing Proactive Reliability Process Mfg. Process Simulation Broad Decision Support Processes

Parallel Development Process Structured Development Documentation DFA & DFM Methods Effective Systems Engineering Effective Reliability Processes Concurrent Engineering Team Effective QFD Processes Team Development Organization Effective Project Management

Basic Systems Engineering Process Planning & Cost Computer Aided Engineering DOE & SPC Basic Reliability Processes CAD/CAM Systems Drawing Release & Change Control Serial Development Process Functional Organization

Significant Overlap

Significant Rework

Warranty Issues

Long DevelopmentCycles

Cost Problems

Significant Waste

Defined Roles &Responsibilities

Annual QualityImprovementPrograms Defined

Efforts to Simplify &Streamline Started

Overlap & ReworkReduced

Effective EmployeeInvolvementPrograms

Competitive Cost,Quality & TTMCapabilities

Competitive Leaders

No Waste

Simplified &Streamlined Operations

Concurrent

Product and Manufacturing

Process Development

Leadership

CP/PD Product Development Productivity MetricCP/PD Product Development Productivity Metric

AdvancedCP/PD

ProductiveCP/PD

InitialCP/PD

ConventionalDevelopment

ConventionalEnvironment

EffectiveEnvironment

ProductiveEnvironment

LeanEnvironment

Target .5

1.0

1.5

2.0

3.0

Time & Cost to

Develop Worldclass Products

(Development Productivity)

Concurrent

Product and Manufacturing

Process Development

Leadership

Legend (Months) 50 40 30 20 10 0

Client Milestones KO SI SC PH PA AA PR CP CC LR LS J#1

KPMG WorldclassMilestones KO SI SCPHPA AA PR CP CC LR LS J#1

Client Time Line 0 9 20 32CPPD 32 23 18.5 13.5 10 0

Legend (Months) 0 10 20 30 40 50

Current KPMGClient Worldclass Key Dates

Kick Off KO 50 32Strategic Intent SI 41 23

Strategic Conformation SC 36 18.5Proportions & Hard Points PH 33.5 16.75Program Approval PA 30 15Appearance Approval AA 25.5 13.5Product Readiness PR 19 11.5Conformation Prototype CP 14.5 10Change Cut-Off CC 8 6Launch Readiness LR 4.5 3.5Launch Sign-Off LS 3.25 2Job #1 J#1 0 0

World-class Timing (Case History)


10/20

10

enterprise level technology on top of weak and chaotic operations only wastes the technology investmentand in some cases is detrimental to development productivity. To make the greatest strides toward world-class companies must clean up their act along the process axis while incrementally moving up thetechnology axis. The information requirements between engineering functional groups using new productdevelopment methods must be analyzed and used to guide the re-engineering of processes. Thedeployment of information technology is prioritized according to the impact on re-engineered processes.

Even with a concise understanding of the goals, development process change must be done step-by-stepon a project by project basis. The various disciplines covered by CPPD cannot be absorbed in a singleproject. A multi-phased plan must be developed for piloting and leveraging CPPD development methodson current and future programs.

Information technology must be pulled in for development teams using a crawl-walk-run methodologycorresponding to CPPDs step by step implementation approach. It cannot be overemphasized that thecriterion for technology deployment prioritization must be based upon impact to development processes.

Project-by-Project Implementation, Step-by-Step Improvement

Project 1 A model

Project 2 B model

Project 3 C model

Project 4 D model

Project 5 A model,replacement

Product Development Projects

52 Months

14 Months14 Months

12 Months

10 Months

8 Months

6 Months6 Months

6 Months

14 Months

18 Months

Time for CPPD Development Time

Today8 Months

Example: Target Setting/Systems Engineering

Design for Reliability & Assembly/Mfg.

Product Data Integration and Management

Integrated CPPD

Electronic Validation

Proven Implementation ProcessProven Implementation Process

Information Technologies Applied to Product DevelopmentInformation Technologies Applied to Product Development

Group-wareCollaboration

Information Sites

Technical DataInterchange (TDI)

Integration ofInternal Engineering

Systems/Applications

Distributed TeamEngineering Portals

Enterprise Systems IntegrationPDM/ERP

Product/ProcessData Driven

Manufacturing

OutsourcingOver Internet

Virtual

Enterprises

Project Based Data Management/Team CollaborationProject Based Data Management/Team Collaboration

Product Development Infrastructure, Engineering Portals,Product Development Infrastructure, Engineering Portals,

Security, Data IntegrationSecurity, Data Integration

Enterprise Knowledge Base,Enterprise Knowledge Base,

Enterprise Systems IntegrationEnterprise Systems Integration

Architecture Planning andArchitecture Planning andImplementationImplementation

Supplier Integration

Craw

l

Craw

l

Walk

Walk

Run

Run

InfrastructureInfrastructure

MultimediaContent Generation

DatabaseSupportISP

Web/Database Integration

Secure Internet Web/ApplicationServers

High Speed ExtraNet

3 Tier Systems Architecture

Extended Vendor/Supplier Systems

MRP/ERP Integrated Systems

Data Management Integration


11/20

11

To begin to crawl, existing systems and infrastructure are leveraged to rapidly deploy collaborative andtechnical data interchange capabilities for a specific project phase. On subsequent phases walkinginvolves further enhancement of the product development infrastructure through the integration of keyapplications and systems. Engineering dashboards and portals are established for tracking key metricsand the integration of information and data to drive manufacturing is addressed. As crawl activities feedrequirements to walk activities, walk activities feed requirements to run activities. Companies are runningas enterprise systems are leveraged for the development team. Running involves integrated PDM andERP systems providing a link between engineering BOM and manufacturing BOM. The concept of virtual

enterprise is realized as integrated enterprise systems are extended to external customers and suppliers.

Continuous Enhancement of CPPD Process, Tools and Resources

After the first or second CPPD pilot projects, a Technology and CPPD Process Development andEnhancement Committee is formed to develop and enhance the CPPD process itself, to develop andenhance required CPPD integrated tools and to identify and implement required CPPD training andeducational programs at all required organizational levels.

CPPD Considerations Over the Total Product Life Cycle

The product life is determined by the products continuing ability to profitably satisfy customer wants.Costs such as service, maintenance, shipping and distribution can be equally as important as themanufacturing costs throughout the product life. Therefore, design for service and maintenance and

design for shipping and distribution are included in CPPD programs.

CPPD provides a shorter and less costly development cycle and emphasizes flexibility in the product andprocess. Therefore, there is an opportunity to increase the rate of product enhancement or new productintroductions to better meet the customer and competitive requirements.

Design for Maintenance and Service

Design for maintenance and service is included as a requirement and is addressed concurrently withDesign for Assembly and Design for Manufacturing. For example, an important customer requirement foran electronic automotive switch might be that it is easy to replace. This requirement must betransformed into a functional specification that is considered early in the process of evaluating andselecting the best overall alternative.

Distribution and Shipping

The same analytical approach (simulation and analysis) which applies to product and processdevelopment must also be applied to evaluating and selecting packaging, distribution and shippingalternatives. Results from simulation and analysis are then used to evaluate alternatives againstrequirements such as packaging material usage and total distribution time and cost.

Rate of Product Enhancement and New Product Introduction

With traditional methods, product enhancements and new product introductions are minimized due tohigh cost and long development times. With CPPD, a strategy for more frequent product enhancementsand new product introductions can be implemented to gain competitive advantage.

This capability comes from planning for product enhancements and emphasizing flexible manufacturing

capabilities. Where more significant enhancements or technology introductions are required, CPPDprovides a process for proving-out technologies prior to initiating a typical CPPD program.


12/20

12

CPPD Detailed Activities

CPPD activities require management tools capable of facilitating the high level of communication that willbe needed to support CPPD management and development teams.

Information Management

Information access and integration is essential. CPPD teams must be linked together through a globalproduct development infrastructure. The purpose of the product development infrastructure is to create a

strategic framework in which current and future systems communicate with each other and end usersthrough a well-defined set of interfaces. System to system and system to user communications arebased on well-established Internet mechanisms.

Product Development InfrastructureProduct Development Infrastructure

ShopFloor

ActualsCAD

ScheduleTools

DesignParameters

DBCIL

I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F

PDMS

Industl

Design

Test AnalysisMass

Properties MRPFEP

Spreadsheets

I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F

Integration

Mappings

Internet/Intranet

Tool

I/F

Communication

Primary

Firewall

WWWWWWClient APs

Plug-n-Play of Elements Ready for Future Technology

Insertion

Secondary

Firewall

Authentication- PW/ID- Certificates- SSL- IP Filtering

Customer/SupplierNeutral

Zone

Collaboration and Data Flow Between Electronically Co-Collaboration and Data Flow Between Electronically Co-

located Development Teamslocated Development Teams

P/M Targets/Test Results

Test Results Data

Images/Plots

WIP

Systems Modeling

Coarse FEA Analysis

Concept Selection

Visualization

WIPWIP

3D Design3D Design

Assembly ModelingAssembly Modeling

Detailed DesignDetailed Design

2D/3D CAD

Geometry

Images

StylingAsynchronous

Web Portal

Central Data Access

Data Management

Data Integration

Results Visualization

SynchronousApplication Sharing

Tele-conferencing

(VOICE).

Video

Whiteboard


13/20

13

CPPD reduces time-to-market by permitting work to be done in parallel instead of sequentially. Multipleinterrelated parallel activities introduce several scheduling, tracking and resource planning requirements.Manual project and data management methods will not work effectively in this environment.

The CPPD project manager, related functional managers, team members, suppliers and customers, asappropriate, should have immediate access to the project plan and status, market models, product andprocess alternative data, capital and cost estimates, market and business models, etc., as needed.

Electronic interactive project planning, budgeting and resource allocations are essential. Currenttechnology for data and information sharing is powerful and yet very inexpensive compared to its

importance to CPPD program success. Modern PC based interactive project management capabilities

are extremely powerful, very user friendly and very inexpensive. Multiple powerful vendor packages areavailable in moderate price ranges.

Secure Web Server - Project Plan ElementSecure Web Server - Project Plan Element

M S 9 8

ODBC/SQL

LAN/VPN

MSProject

R

Scheduler/PMCustomer

Supplier

Core Project TeamStrategic Partners

Centralized Plan

Unlimited Browsers

Data Linking

Visualization

Engineering Portal Data ElementsEngineering Portal Data Elements

Project Schedule

Process

2D/3D CAD

Time-Sheet

Image Db

Communications 3D Assembly

Model

Visualization

Assembly

DrawingDatabase

Process

Documents and

Tables

7/16/00Add toDoc Mgmt

009

7/6/00Make

Iterations008

6/30/00SurveyUsers

007

6/25/00

Final

Release toHardCopy

006

6/20/00EditReview005

6/9/00ElectronicProof

004

6/3/00BuildDocument

003

6/1/00ImageSystem

002

6/1/00AssembleData

001

StartTaskWBS

Project

Schedule

Assembly Parts

Library

Assembly

Process

Imaging/Video

Indiana

May19,

00Gangley

Wrench

CVG

May19,00

FroGnostic

Indicator

Wilmington

May19,

00PressureGuage

Cincinnati

May19,00

Jig

LocationDate

Needed

Tooling

Required

Tooling/Fixture

Database

Tools/Fixtures


14/20

14

CPPD Roadmap and Key Enabling Technologies

CPPD develops products and manufacturing processes using predictive computer simulationtechnologies, looking at multiple product and process alternatives. Equally important, are market drivenvoice of the customer evaluations, product requirement definitions and market forecast models usingrigorous and disciplined QFD Quality Function Deployment methods and procedures.

CustomerRequirementsCapture (QFD)

ProductAlternatives

A B C D

ProcessAlternatives1 2 3 4

MarketOpportunity

Model

SupplierInvolvement

Product & ProcessPerf/Life/Cost

Analysis

Process & AssemblyPlan

Cost &Capital

FinancialIndicators

ProductLaunch

Plan

BusinessModel

Sales &Service Support

PricingModel

MarketCompetition

Model

Market ForecastModel

CP/PD Process RoadmapCP/PD Process Roadmap

To communicate with management and to achieve optimum product and process decisions fromalternative studies, business models are developed, compared and evaluated for each conceptconsidered.

Page 14

Planning &

Piloting

SEDB Support &

Requirements Generation

Implementation

& Integration

RequirementsDefinition

DeploymentPlanning

ConceptDevelopment

ConceptSelection

PrototypeDesign

ProductionDesign

AnalysisLeads Design

Promote

Basic

Requirements

SelectedConcepts

Rejected

Concepts

Concept 1Concept 1

Selection

Concept 2Concept 2

Concept 3Concept 3

Concept 4Concept 4

Concept 5Concept 5

Coarse AnalysisCoarse Analysis

Concept5

Concept5





OptimizedConcept

OptimizedConcept


Concept2

Concept2





SelectedApproach

SelectedApproach

Rejectedapproach

Rejectedapproach

OptimizedConcept

OptimizedConcept

Selection

TargetsTargets

Promote

DesignHistory

DesignHistory

DesignHistory

DesignHistory

Test

Test

Feedback(Analysis Leads Design)

Evaluation

Evaluation

CPPD - Systems Engineering Data FlowCPPD - Systems Engineering Data Flow


15/20

15

Market Opportunity Model

To get an idea of market modeling consider the following example (see Figure 12): with the market dataon line in the PC network, any team member can investigate market opportunities for a given productcategory and market segment. In this case, the question might be to define total fuel systemopportunities for small diesel engines in the global light truck market for past years 1980 and 1985 and asforecast for the year 2000. Note client share versus all competition and client share plus a single knownmajor engine OEM that buys fuel systems.

Market Opportunity AnalysisMarket Opportunity Analysis

1980 1985 2000

Years

Client + OEM

Com (-CAP/OEM)

Client Captive

Com (-Client Captive)

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

This type of what if market exercise identifies and quantifies specific opportunities for QFD requirementdefinition and competitive assessments. It is beneficial to identify where the product is today andprojected to be in the future regarding customers and technology. Product strategy must also includecompetitive assessments. Who else is competing to supply similar products to the same customers?What are the market, financial, product and technical strengths and weaknesses of current competitors?

Customer Requirements

Given specific market opportunities and targets it is essential to define the customer needs (the voice ofthe customer), convert needs into specific functional specifications and engineering requirements and toconduct both subjective and quantitative competitive evaluations using very disciplined and rigorousQuality Function Deployment (QFDcapture) capabilities and procedures.

Sub-system

ConceptSelection

Subsystem SystemEngineering,Simulation &

Analysis LeadsDesign

ProductConceptSelection

SubjectiveTargets to P/M

ProductCharacteristics

SubsystemTargets &Priorities

Importance & Priorities

Subjective CompetitiveEvaluations

Best in ClassSubjective Measures

Subjective Targets andPriorities

Importance & Priorities

Technical CompetitiveEvaluations

Best in Class TechnicalMeasures

Predictable, MeasurableTargets & Priorities

Expert SubjectiveMeasures

SubjectiveTargets &Priorities

CustomerNeeds toExpert

Measures

CustomerNeeds

ProductAlternativeConcepts

Predictable/MeasurableProduct Characteristics

Components & PartsTargets & Priorities

Sub-system

Concepts

Product SystemsEngineering Simulation

& Analysis LeadsDesign

ProductP/M Targets& Priorities

Integrated ProductSystems Engineeringand Target SettingProcess Flow

Product Development Systems Engineering and Target Setting ProcessProduct Development Systems Engineering and Target Setting Process


16/20

16

Collection of Voice of the Customer data and transforming of needs into specifications are critical to thesuccess of a product development project. Meaningful specifications (such as the product planningphase) must include a ranking in importance of customer requirements to enable the CPPD team to makecorrect trade-offs in product features.

To arrive at functional/engineering specifications a CPPD team must identify the product/processcharacteristics that impact the products ability to satisfy the customer requirements. QFD is an excellent

approach to analyze large amounts of related information and for drawing intelligent conclusions. QFDsystematically organizes the data and allows the development team to focus on product characteristicswhich have the biggest impact on how well the product will satisfy the market place and gain acompetitive advantage.

Alternative Product and Manufacturing Concepts

Defined alternative market opportunities together with related functional specifications and target costsmake it possible to formulate alternative product and manufacturing concepts accordingly. PredictiveCPPD simulation and analysis methods encourage CPPD teams and related functional groups to identifymultiple product and process concepts.

Day one on the project, the team begins defining current product extensions, competitor concepts andinnovative concepts. Coarse simulation and analyses methods are used to evaluate each concept

against specific functional specifications and engineering requirements defined using QFD capabilitiesand procedures. It is important that the team not get bogged down in detailed modeling and simulation atthis juncture. Multiple product and process alternatives must be evaluated very quickly at the earlydevelopment stages

The combined QFD requirement capture technique for multiple potential market targets, together withmultiple product and process alternative simulation, analyses and competitive evaluations, generate hugeamounts of data and information. A very detailed decision support system is required to allow the team to

make recommendations and for management to gain sufficient knowledge to make correct selections.

With management decisions on both product and process concepts at the end of Activity II, the process isrepeated at the subsystem level in Activity III. Combined system stimulation and QFD methods are useto define detailed subsystem engineering requirements for the overall concept or concepts selected forfurther development. Alternative materials and processing strategies are evaluated for core components.Buy/make trade-offs are assessed for all major subsystems and components.

Again at early product and process development phases, manufacturing, assembly and buy/make trade-off evaluations are done coarse and quickly. Sometimes as few as three or four alternative mix and


WhatWeSell

A

B

C

D

E

A

C C

Strategic SupplierSelection

SelectiveSystemEngine

Test

SubsystemProcessDesign

SubsystemProductDesign

SubsystemAnalyticalSimulation

Selective SubsystemBench & Engine Test

Activity I Activity II Activity II

ProductFunctionalSpecs

System Selection Sub-system Selection

Simulations

DecisionTable

DecisionTable


17/20

17

volume assumptions are used to plot a cost/volume curve for a given manufacturing strategy; i.e.,manual, semi-automated, fully automated cellular manufacturing for example.

The key to these efforts are to define rough manufacturing cost estimates and mix/volume ranges atstrategy cross over points. These decisions involve major capital investment considerations in addition tofundamental manufacturing cost structures that the client must compete and survive with over anextended period of time, fifteen years or more in some cases.

The economics usually warrant significant up-front evaluation and analysis to assure that managementmake correct business decisions; i.e., capital investment decisions (refurbish an existing production

facility, build a new factory within an existing factory, build a Greenfield facility, etc.), what should thecompany buy, what should it make, what costs structures are needed to compete globally in selectedmarket segments, today, in the future, etc. These usually are very difficult decisions that end up beingmade by product engineering and manufacturing planning departments instead of by management.

CPPD programs attempt to provide management with the information and knowledge that they need tomake such decisions intelligently, with a longer range focus but with less business risk.

Engineering Manufacturing Analyses

Given subsystem concept selection and related manufacturing strategies by management at the end ofActivity III, overall product and manufacturing/assembly simulation models are upgraded for those choiceand evaluated in an intermediate level of detail. High risk product and process assumptions are breadboarded and tested to assure simulation and analysis validity. Final level III specifications andengineering requirements are set at component and part segmentations.

The type of automation and the level of automation is evaluated for each product concept (such asrelated bill of material). The team identifies optimum manufacturing strategies based upon forecast mixand volume for the product family. The shop floor information integration requirements are defined as

well as interface requirements for higher level computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) requirementsdefined by the client organization.

Concurrent with product development, the team evaluates process plans, tooling and fixtures, purchasecosts, work standards and scheduling rules for each manufacturing and assembly operation. Dynamicprocess simulation and analyses capabilities are used to identify process bottlenecks, throughput, cycletimes, queue storage, outage recovery sequences, proper statistical burden rates, etc. Classical costvolume curves are recommended to identify correct manufacturing strategies for alternative product mixand volumes.

Coarse Layouts - To Analyze Process Flow

Sub-Assy.

CaseSassy.

ValveSassy.

DriveSassy.

MainAssy. Body

Case &SpringAssy.

Sub-Assy.Test

ValveAssy.

DriveAssy.

Test&

Inspect

Pack-aging

20 sec. 20 sec. 44 sec. 37 sec.

45 sec. 30 sec. 23 sec. 7 sec. 10 sec. 20 sec. 10 sec.Manual Assembly - DFA Assembly Times

Flow


18/20

18

One very important lesson learned by working with clients on CPPD programs is the importance ofdesigning the product for the type and level of automation to be used in the production facility.Regardless of the manufacturing strategy used; i.e., job shop, flexible cellular machining and assemblycells or higher volume flexible transfer line systems, design for manufacturing (DFM) and design forassembly (DFA) pay handsome economic benefits.

With detailed subsystem requirements defined, alternative subsystem and core component concepts andrelated manufacturing strategies are defined, evaluated and compared .. again using detailed decisiontables and management decision support systems.

CPPD uses manufacturing process simulation capabilities extensively to evaluate and optimize various

manufacturing and assembly line and/or cells, Again, coarse layouts and simulations are developed fromprocess plans and routings which are used until fundamental alternative manufacturing processes andstrategies are developed and evaluated for various product and business alternatives. Similar to productsimulations and analyses, manufacturing process simulations help the CPPD team and manufacturingplanning organization to identify high risk operations, estimate value added manufacturing plant costs andto estimate capital requirements for each alternative considered. These simulations become moredetailed in Activities IV and V when detailed manufacturing and assembly systems are developed forselected processes and manufacturing strategies.

CPPD

Seven Phases of Concurrent Product Process

I II III IV V VI VII

Strategic

SelectionSupplierSelection

Purchasing

Cost Removal Cost Removal

Cost vs. Volume Factors Flexible Cellular Manufacturing

and Assembly Automation

Cost

Volume

Flexible AutomationGroup Technology

Job ShopLow/Variable VolumesHigh Part Variability

Programmable Transfer LineHigh/Fixed VolumesLow Part Variability

Flexible

Group

Technology


19/20

19

Advanced manufacturing development must be an ongoing process to identify and develop advancedtechnologies for incorporation into CPPD programs. Strategic suppliers and vendors must join the CPPDteam. The establishment of processes and strategic relationships must be piloted on the first CPPDprograms to initiate the network of suppliers needed to fully implement CPPD.

In CPPD programs purchasing is involved day one and strategic suppliers (major cost and quality relatedsystems and components) are selected shortly thereafter. Strategic suppliers participate as part of the

CPPD team and are expected to achieve similar overall objectives. Major costs are attacked early butcontinuous improvement cost reduction programs continue after production start-up as normal.

Business Models

Business modeling provides the tools to evaluate or simulate the business alternatives with the samepredictive approach applied to product and process simulation (see Figure 19). There are an unlimitednumber of What-If alternatives that can be evaluated in a CPPD program. Many of the alternatives caneasily be evaluated by the CPPD team(s), but management must remain involved to understand thestrategic decisions that must be made throughout the programs

The effective use of business modeling provides the team and management with the tools andinformation to make good decisions. The business models perform the basic business calculations thatare standard in the business community. The key issue is the data flow and integration with other CPPDmodels

The business model must efficiently accept data from other models to support the many What-Ifalternatives and multiple iterations required to support the decision process. The business models mustalso support the process through the coarse-to-detail sequence.

Examples of these business model inputs include: costs from manufacturing analysis; marginpercentages from pricing models; volumes from market forecast models; capital investment estimatesfrom manufacturing analyses; and product/process development investment from project plan.

The output of models must be easily accessible to the team and management. With many iterations andWhat-If alternatives, the communication and change control requirements are more significantcompared with more traditional development programs. Examples of business model outputs include:

revenue streams; costs; profit stream; investments; cash flow; and any graphics and/or financial analysis(see Figure 20).

Summary - Key Management Issues

There is no shortage of ideas today concerning what to do to become more competitive ... how to do itand doing it are quite different matters. There are no quick fixes. The common denominators forsuccess with any new program have to include plain hard work, effective application of the basics,tenacity of purpose and attention to detail. The key issues for management are: recognize need,establish and communicate objectives, establish environment for success, participate in and supportCPPD project, establish measures of performance, and provide appropriate recognition.


20/20

Background

International TechneGroup Incorporated

International TechneGroup Incorporated was founded in 1983 by the same management that foundedStructural Dynamics Research Corporation (formerly UGS now Siemens). ITI offers integratedEngineering, Software Development, Communication and Education services. ITI provides customerstechnical resources for development and implementation of Concurrent Product and Process

Development (CPPD) within client product development and automated manufacturing operations. ITIwith a staff of over a hundred highly skilled engineering and software professionals has applied CPPDmethods and capabilities to improve manufacturing approaches, reduce cost of engineering changes,lower total product cost and shorten time to market for numerous Fortune 100 clients.

About the Authors

Dr. Jason R. Lemon is Chairman of the Board of Directors for International TechneGroup Incorporated.He is a successful business manager with extensive experience in rapid growth, high technology,markets in the mechanical engineering and manufacturing automation fields. This diverse experienceincludes advanced product and process development, together with in-depth knowledge of relatedapplication software development.

Dr. Lemon founded and developed Structural Dynamics Research Corporation (SDRC) into aninternationally recognized engineering and application software development organization of more than400 people with over $25 million in sales before leaving in 1983. SDRC has recently been sold to UGSfor $1 billion dollars. ITI his second start-up company has become a recognized leader in theproduct development, data interoperability and global collaboration marketplaces is currently at over $35million in sales.

Dr. Lemon is recognized internationally as a pioneer and principal developer of:

- Modal test and analysis methods and capabilities- Building Block Analysis (BBA) and simulation methods utilized worldwide in the analysis and

development of complex mechanical products and systems.- Integrated Mechanical Computer Aided Engineering (MCAE) Systems. Many widely used computer

software capabilities and related product development methods now associated with MCAE can beattributed to Dr. Lemon's software integration and development work in the late 1970's and early1980's.

- Concurrent Product/Process Development (CPPD) methods and related next-generation softwaredevelopment.

Mr. William Dacey is Director of CPPD Re-Engineering Services for International TechneGroupIncorporated. He has had extensive experience in manufacturing engineering with Siemens-Allis andproduct/process development with ITI. He pioneered the first application of CPPD and has sincemanaged CPPD programs in the aerospace, automotive, and equipment manufacturing industries.

Mr. Dacey has played a major role in the continuous improvement of CPPD and the development ofstate-of-the-art applications of supporting methods and tools, such as Quality Function Deployment(QFD). Prior to joining ITI, he was Manager of Advanced Manufacturing Engineering for Siemens-Allis.

Mr. Michael Lemon is Vice President of Virtual Product Development for ITI. Having been with thecompany since its inception, he has been a pioneer for the application of technology for productdevelopment information management and global collaboration. He has led technology and infrastructureimplementation and deployment for numerous CPPD programs within several global customers.

Concurrent Process_Product Development

Documents

Transcript of Concurrent Process_Product Development