Concurrent Product/Process Development (CPPD)

Breakthrough Results in Product Development Time to Market

Jason R. Lemon, Ph.D., William E. Dacey, Michael A. Lemon International TechneGroup Incorporated (ITI)

Executive Summary
Worldclass product performance, cost, quality and reliability are givens in the global marketplace. Time to Market and Development Productivity are the Key Measures of a development organization today. Only the fastest, most productive and best value global producers can achieve market leadership. For most companies to affect time to market and development productivity, major changes are required in development processes and in how technology is implemented and leveraged. Product Development organizations must utilize a defined and tested approach which integrates process and technology to facilitate major change. Concurrent Product and Process Development (CPPD) is a disciplined computer integrated product and manufacturing process development methodology. Many industry-leading companies are setting the standards for world-class time to market and development productivity using CPPD methodologies.

Introduction
CPPD is not a silver bullet that solves all product development problems instantly. It is not a new set of buzzwords and it is not a new set of software. CPPD is a methodology which determines related customer 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 does extensive manufacturing and predictive cost what-ifs analyses. Engineers focus on design for manufacturing, design for assembly, design for quality and design for cost. Managers utilizes business models, decision tables and decision support systems to select market, product, manufacturing and business strategies that are optimized for their global competitive environment.

CPPD combines a multi-disciplined core team, derived from all functional groups to drive product development. These members coordinate activities and represent their respective functional organizations on a product development program. A strong management Steering team streamlines red tape and eliminates cross-functional barriers. Manufacturing and Key Suppliers must be involved early and often in the development process from concept initiation to customer delivery.
CP/PD MultiFunctional Organization for Integrated Solutions
Process (People) Technology (Tools) Infrastructure (Environment)

Steering Team

Marketing Core Team

Design

Finance

Engineering

Purchasing

Manufacturing

Suppliers Page 13

Process change studies and reports do not automatically affect change when published. Tools alone do not instantly solve problems when deployed. Networks and infrastructure do not instantly improve time to market 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 implies otherwise simply does not understand the complexity and difficulties involved.
Concurrent Development of Product and Manufacturing Processes

Target Setting, Competitive Vehicle Assessments and Targets Cascading

Systems Engineering and Analysis Leads Design vs. vs. Conventional Design, Build and Test True Concurrent Product and Manufacturing Process Development

Integrated Test, Analysis, Design and Styling

Cross Functional Teams and Effective Project Management

World Class Reliability at Production Launch

Project Data Management, Global Collaboration, and New Process Infrastructure

The elements of people, tools and environment must be considered within a single framework. An integrated approach to manage change and leverage technology is required. CPPD concurrently addresses 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 manufacturing approach, reduce the costs of engineering changes, lower total product cost and shorten time to market.

Methods to Achieve Total Product Quality

Acceptable Quality 100%

CP/PD Quality via Product & Process Design

66%

Total Product Quality

33%

Test & Inspection

DOE/SM Design of Experiments, Statistical Methods & Process Control (SPC)

Concurrent Product/Process Development

Low Technology World-class

Manufacturing Methods

Manufacturing Approach Level of technology and cost of total quality are key factors when assessing the manufacturing approach used to achieve total product quality. Level of technology examines the extent to which technical tools and methods are applied to product development process. The cost of total quality evaluates costs associated 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 product development approach and through a heavy reliance on inspection methods throughout manufacturing operations A middle range producer achieves acceptable product quality primarily through rigorous implementation of statistical methods; i.e., design of experiments, Taguchi methods, etc., for product development and statistical process control and related quality systems on the shop floor. World-class manufacturers achieve total acceptable product quality primarily through design; i.e., by implementing product and manufacturing process development methods which achieve quality by design.

Most producers fall somewhere in the middle range. They are very good at statistical methods in product/process development and manufacturing operations, but they are not advanced with regard to world-class capabilities to achieve and control total quality via fundamental product and process design and development. Cost to Achieve Total Product Quality The cost to achieve total quality involves all product development and manufacturing phases and can be evaluated 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-process gauging, statistical process control, final product run-off testing, etc. 3. Manufacturing operations cost after the product is released to production, to conduct and control quality systems. 4. Field warranty and product recall costs.

Relative Cost of Quality

Acceptable Quality 100% 10.0 10.0 Relative Cost Of Quality ($)

Relative Cost of Quality CP/PD

5.0 DOE/SM Design of Experiments, Statistical Methods & Process Control (SPC)

66%

Quality via Product & Process Design

1.0 1.0

Total Product Quality

33%

Test & Inspection

0.5

Concurrent Product/Process Development

Low Technology

0.1 Worldclass

Manufacturing Methods

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 and processes for total quality and production control without heavy reliance on statistical or manual inspection methods.

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 wall to manufacturing and suppliers. The objectives of Concurrent Product and Manufacturing Process Development (CPPD) are to reduce cost, save time and create opportunities for quality by eliminating engineering changes made after design release. The cost of engineering changes to achieve and maintain total acceptable product is quality dependent upon the development phase in which the change occurs.

Engineering and Process Changes

Cost of Engineering Change

$1k-2k

$10k - 20k

$100k - 200k
Conventional Development

Concurrent Product/Process Development Number of Engineering and Process Changes

-22

-16 -3 Months from Production

The cost of engineering changes, involving production, tooling and equipment modifications, after production has started, can exceed $150,000 per change (an average) in many product industries. If changes are made before production, in the build and test phase, the cost might be $10-20,000 per change (on average). If these same changes are made in the predictive simulation phase within the computer, the estimated cost, 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 the earliest stages of development using computer simulations. When multiple product and process alternatives are evaluated concurrently with what-if market and business models, better product and process decisions can be made where costs of change are in the $1,000 to $2,000/change range, as opposed to the $20,000 to $100,000/change ranges. The CPPD process relies extensively on predictive methods and computer simulation to move engineering change into early development phases. Moving this curve requires cultural change for most companies and major revisions in the way products and processes are developed and in how technology is leveraged. 5

Total Product Cost

While impossible to identify precisely, an estimated 75% or more of a products cost is locked-in when the first layouts are developed during the concept design phase. Internal cost reduction programs and supplier cost reduction programs squeeze and squeeze on the remaining 25% or less, but very little real savings 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 the computer. Using integrated target setting, simulation and business modeling, teams evaluate multiple product 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.

Product Development Cost and Quality

CP/PD vs. Conventional Method
133% Acceptable Quality 100% 80% - 90% 66% CP/PD Time & Cost Objectives 33% 20-25% 5 - 7% Conventional Time & Cost Conventional Quality Quality Objective

Concept Initial Design

Detail Design & Validation

Production Engineering

Production

In the product development processes used by most industrial manufacturers today, at the end of the concept phase, an estimated 50% or less of final product and process decisions, to achieve total product cost and quality, have been made. Only 5% to 7% of the total product and process development budget has been expended at this stage. Utilizing predictive analysis and simulation capabilities, it is the objective of CPPD programs to be 80% to 90% certain that the correct product concepts and the correct manufacturing and assembly strategies have been selected at concept initial design. In order to achieve World-class costs and total product quality compared with the competition, product and related manufacturing process decisions must be influenced significantly by related product family mix and volumes before detail design begins. This mandates that management be willing to allocate four 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.

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 products obsolete and forces new product development programs for companies to remain competitive. Product life cycles are becoming shorter and in most industries will be even shorter in the future.

Cash Flow and Useful Life

Cash Flow = $ Tomorrow Today Yesterday

Dev. Cost

Present Future

Dev. Time

Useful Life

Currently, it can take as long as six years or more to develop a new product with total quality characteristics demanded by the market place. If it takes six years of a ten year product life cycle for product development, there simply is no way to recover product and process development and related capital investments. Reduced time-to-market is strategic regardless of cost to remain viable in business tomorrow. At most companies, processes for developing and producing new products take too long, are too expensive, are too narrow in focus and do not always result in products with the precise performance and features that customers want to buy. Concurrent product and process development methods and capabilities can provide significant results: World-class standards for product quality Reduction of overall product costs by 25% to 30% compared with product costs of leading competitors that are still using todays build and test serial product and process development methods 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

Approach
Organizing and Structuring for CPPD Programs CPPD programs involve parallel versus serial development. The organization must be structured for team management of multiple parallel, related activities. Successful implementation of CPPD methods is guided by structured program management and is continually enhanced through application of experience and data gained in a series of phased CPPD projects. Product Control Management is responsible for selecting the pilot projects. During the project(s), product control management approves major milestones; i.e., moving the program forward from one activity to the next, 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 CPPD program managers and core teams to function. CPPD requires established methods and procedures for managing resources and resolving conflicts among functional groups.

CP/PD MultiOrganization Integrated

Process Technology Infrastructure

Steering

Marketing Core Team

Design

Finance

Engineering

Purchasing

Manufacturin

Suppliers

The first step in a CPPD project is to organize the Core Multifunction team under a strong Program Manager. The team must be carefully selected to insure the proper skills are available to support the project. The core multifunctional team is the focal point of the CPPD process but must be implemented within 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 to work with the program manager and core team to resolve scheduling, resource, budget and technical problems judiciously and effectively when they arise in the program. The program manager and core team must identify and coordinate required resources and related functional organizations.

Metrics for Measuring Productivity and Time to Market Given the economic drivers of CPPD, the metrics for evaluating and implementing development process and infrastructure change can be established. Time to Market and Development Productivity objectives are established by management at the beginning of each concurrent product and process development project. These objectives become the basis for all process and technology decisions and the criterion for measuring program status and success.
World-class Timing (Case History)
Legend (Months) Client Milestones 50
KO SI

40
SC PH

30
PA AA

20
PR CP

10
CC

0
LR LS J#1

KPMG Worldclass Milestones Client Time Line CPPD Legend (Months)

KO

SI

SCPHPA AA PR CP

CC

LR LS J#1

0 32 0

9 23 10

18.5

20 13.5 10 20 30

32 0 40 50

Current KPMG Client Worldclass Kick Off Strategic Intent Strategic Conformation Proportions & Hard Points Program Approval Appearance Approval Product Readiness Conformation Prototype Change Cut-Off Launch Readiness Launch Sign-Off Job #1 KO SI SC PH PA AA PR CP CC LR LS J#1 50 41 36 33.5 30 25.5 19 14.5 8 4.5 3.25 0 32 23 18.5 16.75 15 13.5 11.5 10 6 3.5 2 0

Key Dates

Customers are positioned relative to Worldclass on a matrix of process vs. technology. A strategy is mapped to implement CPPD in a step-by-step approach toward achieving Worldclass development productivity. The quickest route to Worldclass for most companies is not a direct route. Process change is prioritized and the requirements of process change pull technology deployment. Heaping more
CP/PD Supporting Processes Defined
Advanced CP/PD
Advanced Technology & Innovation into CP/PD R&D Integrated into CP/PD Process Electronic Validation of Product & Mfg. Processes

CP/PD Product Development Productivity Metric

Concurrent Product and Manufacturing Process Development Leadership

Productive CP/PD

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

Target

.5

1.0

Initial CP/PD

1.5

Time & Cost to Develop Worldclass Products (Development Productivity)

2.0

Conventional Development

3.0

Conventional Environment
Significant Overlap Significant Rework Warranty Issues Long Development Cycles Cost Problems Significant Waste

Effective Environment
Defined Roles & Responsibilities Annual Quality Improvement Programs Defined Efforts to Simplify & Streamline Started

Productive Environment
Overlap & Rework Reduced Effective Employee Involvement Programs Competitive Cost, Quality & TTM Capabilities

Lean Environment
Competitive Leaders No Waste Simplified & Streamlined Operations

CP/PD Supporting Processes Implemented

enterprise level technology on top of weak and chaotic operations only wastes the technology investment and in some cases is detrimental to development productivity. To make the greatest strides toward worldclass companies must clean up their act along the process axis while incrementally moving up the technology axis. The information requirements between engineering functional groups using new product development methods must be analyzed and used to guide the re-engineering of processes. The deployment 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-step on a project by project basis. The various disciplines covered by CPPD cannot be absorbed in a single project. A multi-phased plan must be developed for piloting and leveraging CPPD development methods on current and future programs.

Proven Implementation Process

Project-by-Project Implementation, Step-by-Step Improvement
Example: Target Setting/Systems Engineering

Product Development Projects Project 1 A model

14 Months
52 Months

Design for Reliability & Assembly/Mfg.

12 Months 10 Months

Project 2 B model Project 3 C model

Product Data Integration and Management

6 Months

Today

8 Months

Integrated CPPD

8 Months
14 Months

Project 4 D model

Electronic Validation

6 Months 6 Months
18 Months

Project 5 A model, replacement

Time for CPPD Development Time

Information technology must be pulled in for development teams using a crawl-walk-run methodology corresponding to CPPDs step by step implementation approach. It cannot be overemphasized that the criterion for technology deployment prioritization must be based upon impact to development processes.
Information Technologies Applied to Product Development
Virtual Enterprises

Infrastructure
Extended Vendor/Supplier Systems MRP/ERP Integrated Systems Data Management Integration 3 Tier Systems Architecture High Speed ExtraNet Secure Internet Web/Application Servers Web/Database Integration Multimedia Content Generation Database Support ISP

n Ru alk W

Outsourcing Over Internet

Supplier Integration Enterprise Systems Integration PDM/ERP

Enterprise Knowledge Base, Enterprise Systems Integration Architecture Planning and Implementation

Product/Process Data Driven Manufacturing Distributed Team Engineering Portals

wl ra C

Product Development Infrastructure, Engineering Portals, Security, Data Integration

Integration of Internal Engineering Systems/Applications Technical Data Interchange (TDI)

Group-ware Collaboration Information Sites

Project Based Data Management/Team Collaboration

10

To begin to crawl, existing systems and infrastructure are leveraged to rapidly deploy collaborative and technical data interchange capabilities for a specific project phase. On subsequent phases walking involves further enhancement of the product development infrastructure through the integration of key applications and systems. Engineering dashboards and portals are established for tracking key metrics and the integration of information and data to drive manufacturing is addressed. As crawl activities feed requirements to walk activities, walk activities feed requirements to run activities. Companies are running as enterprise systems are leveraged for the development team. Running involves integrated PDM and ERP 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 and Enhancement Committee is formed to develop and enhance the CPPD process itself, to develop and enhance required CPPD integrated tools and to identify and implement required CPPD training and educational 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 the manufacturing 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 and process. Therefore, there is an opportunity to increase the rate of product enhancement or new product introductions 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 with Design for Assembly and Design for Manufacturing. For example, an important customer requirement for an electronic automotive switch might be that it is easy to replace. This requirement must be transformed into a functional specification that is considered early in the process of evaluating and selecting the best overall alternative. Distribution and Shipping The same analytical approach (simulation and analysis) which applies to product and process development must also be applied to evaluating and selecting packaging, distribution and shipping alternatives. Results from simulation and analysis are then used to evaluate alternatives against requirements 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 to high cost and long development times. With CPPD, a strategy for more frequent product enhancements and 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, CPPD provides a process for proving-out technologies prior to initiating a typical CPPD program.

11

CPPD Detailed Activities CPPD activities require management tools capable of facilitating the high level of communication that will be needed to support CPPD management and development teams. Information Management Information access and integration is essential. CPPD teams must be linked together through a global product development infrastructure. The purpose of the product development infrastructure is to create a

Product Development Infrastructure

Shop Floor Actuals CAD PDMS Schedule Tools Design Parameters DB CIL

Primary Firewall
Integration I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F

Customer/ Supplier Neutral Zone

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

Client APs

Internet/Intranet

WWW

Mappings

I/F

I/F

I/F

I/F

I/F

I/F

Industl Design

Test

Analysis

Mass Properties

MRP

FEP Spreadsheets

Secondary Firewall

Tool I/F

Plug-n-Play of Elements Ready for Future Technology Insertion

Communication

strategic framework in which current and future systems communicate with each other and end users through a well-defined set of interfaces. System to system and system to user communications are based on well-established Internet mechanisms.
Collaboration and Data Flow Between Electronically Colocated Development Teams

WIP 3D Design Assembly Modeling Detailed Design WIP Systems Modeling Coarse FEA Analysis Concept Selection Visualization

2D/3D CAD Geometry Images Styling

Synchronous
Application Sharing Tele-conferencing (VOICE). Video Whiteboard P/M Targets/Test Results Test Results Data Images/Plots

Asynchronous
Web Portal Central Data Access Data Management Data Integration Results Visualization

12

CPPD reduces time-to-market by permitting work to be done in parallel instead of sequentially. Multiple interrelated 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, as appropriate, should have immediate access to the project plan and status, market models, product and process alternative data, capital and cost estimates, market and business models, etc., as needed.

Secure Web Server - Project Plan Element Centralized Plan Unlimited Browsers Data Linking Visualization

Core Project Team Strategic Partners

Supplier

LAN/VPN MSProject

MS98 O D B C /S Q L

Customer

Scheduler/PM

Electronic interactive project planning, budgeting and resource allocations are essential. Current technology 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
Engineering Portal Data Elements
Process Documents and Tables

WBS 001 002 003 004 005

Task Assemble Data Ima ge Sys tem Build Doc ument E lec tronic P roof Edit Re vie w Fina l Release to Hard Copy Surve y Us ers Mak e Itera tions Add to Doc Mgmt

S ta rt 6 /1/0 0 6 /1/0 0 6 /3/0 0 6 /9/0 0 6/20/00

Project Schedule

006

6/25/00

007

6/30/00 7 /6/0 0 7/16/00

Project Schedule Tools/Fixtures

008 009

Tooling/Fixture Database

Tooling Date Location Required Needed May 19, Cincinnat 00 i

Jig

Process

May 19, Pressure 00 Wilmingt Guage on

Assembly Parts Library

May 19, Fro Gnostic 00 Indicator

CVG

2D/3D CAD
Gangley Wrench

May 19, 00

Indiana

Time-Sheet

Assembly Drawing Database

Image Db

Assembly Process Imaging/Video

Communications

3D Assembly Model Visualization

are extremely powerful, very user friendly and very inexpensive. Multiple powerful vendor packages are available in moderate price ranges. 13

CPPD Roadmap and Key Enabling Technologies

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

CP/PD Process Roadmap

Customer Requirements Capture (QFD) Product Alternatives A B C D Process Alternatives 1 2 3 4 Market Opportunity Model Supplier Involvement

Product & Process Perf/Life/Cost Analysis Process & Assembly Plan Cost & Capital

Market Forecast Model

Business Model

Financial Indicators

Market Competition Model

Pricing Model

Sales & Service Support

Product Launch Plan

To communicate with management and to achieve optimum product and process decisions from alternative studies, business models are developed, compared and evaluated for each concept considered.

CPPD - Systems Engineering Data Flow

Requirements Deployment Definition Planning Concept Development Concept Selection Analysis Leads Design Prototype Design Production Design

Evaluation

Selection

Selected Concepts
Concept Concept 5 5

Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis

Promote
Optimized Optimized Concept Concept
Design History

Selected Selected Approach Approach Rejected Rejected approach approach

Design History

Targets Targets

Feedback (Analysis Leads Design)

Test

Promote
Concept 2 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 3

Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis

Selection

Concept 1 Concept 1

Concept Concept 2 2

Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis

Evaluation

Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis

Optimized Optimized Concept Concept

Design History

Basic Requirements

Concept 4 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 5

Test

Design History

Rejected Concepts

Planning & Piloting

Implementation & Integration

SEDB Support & Requirements Generation

Page 14

14

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

Market Opportunity Analysis

1.4

1.2

Client + OEM Com (-CAP/OEM) Client Captive Com (-Client Captive)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

1980

1985

2000

Years

This type of what if market exercise identifies and quantifies specific opportunities for QFD requirement definition and competitive assessments. It is beneficial to identify where the product is today and projected to be in the future regarding customers and technology. Product strategy must also include competitive 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 of the customer), convert needs into specific functional specifications and engineering requirements and to conduct both subjective and quantitative competitive evaluations using very disciplined and rigorous Quality Function Deployment (QFDcapture) capabilities and procedures.
Product Development Systems Engineering and Target Setting Process
Expert Subjective Measures Customer Needs Customer Needs to Expert Measures Predictable/Measurable Product Characteristics Subjective Targets & Priorities Subjective Targets to P/M Product Characteristics
Importance & Priorities Technical Competitive Evaluations Best in Class Technical Measures Predictable, Measurable Targets & Priorities

Importance & Priorities Subjective Competitive Evaluations Best in Class Subjective Measures Subjective Targets and Priorities

Integrated Product Systems Engineering and Target Setting Process Flow

Product P/M Targets & Priorities

Subsystem Concepts

Product Alternative Concepts

Product Systems Engineering Simulation & Analysis Leads Design Product Concept Selection

Subsystem Targets & Priorities

Subsystem System Engineering, Components & Parts Simulation & Targets & Priorities Analysis Leads Design Subsystem Concept Selection

15

Collection of Voice of the Customer data and transforming of needs into specifications are critical to the success of a product development project. Meaningful specifications (such as the product planning phase) must include a ranking in importance of customer requirements to enable the CPPD team to make correct trade-offs in product features. To arrive at functional/engineering specifications a CPPD team must identify the product/process characteristics 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. QFD systematically organizes the data and allows the development team to focus on product characteristics which have the biggest impact on how well the product will satisfy the market place and gain a competitive advantage. Alternative Product and Manufacturing Concepts Defined alternative market opportunities together with related functional specifications and target costs make it possible to formulate alternative product and manufacturing concepts accordingly. Predictive CPPD simulation and analysis methods encourage CPPD teams and related functional groups to identify multiple product and process concepts. Day one on the project, the team begins defining current product extensions, competitor concepts and innovative concepts. Coarse simulation and analyses methods are used to evaluate each concept against specific functional specifications and engineering requirements defined using QFD capabilities and procedures. It is important that the team not get bogged down in detailed modeling and simulation at this juncture. Multiple product and process alternatives must be evaluated very quickly at the early development stages
Concurrent Product/Process Development
Activity I Product Functional Specs Activity II Activity II

System Selection
Strategic Supplier Selection
A B

Sub-system Selection

Decision Table
A

Decision Table Subsystem Process Design

C

What We Sell

C D E C

Subsystem Product Design Subsystem Analytical Simulation Selective Subsystem Bench & Engine Test

Simulations

Selective System Engine Test

The combined QFD requirement capture technique for multiple potential market targets, together with multiple product and process alternative simulation, analyses and competitive evaluations, generate huge amounts 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 is repeated at the subsystem level in Activity III. Combined system stimulation and QFD methods are use to define detailed subsystem engineering requirements for the overall concept or concepts selected for further 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 tradeoff evaluations are done coarse and quickly. Sometimes as few as three or four alternative mix and

16

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 at strategy cross over points. These decisions involve major capital investment considerations in addition to fundamental manufacturing cost structures that the client must compete and survive with over an extended period of time, fifteen years or more in some cases. The economics usually warrant significant up-front evaluation and analysis to assure that management make correct business decisions; i.e., capital investment decisions (refurbish an existing production

Coarse Layouts - To Analyze Process Flow

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

SubAssy.

Case Sassy.

Valve Sassy.

Drive Sassy.

Main Assy.
45 sec.

Body

Case & Spring Assy.

SubAssy. Test

Valve Assy.

Drive Assy.

Test & Inspect

10 sec.

Packaging

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

facility, build a new factory within an existing factory, build a Greenfield facility, etc.), what should the company buy, what should it make, what costs structures are needed to compete globally in selected market segments, today, in the future, etc. These usually are very difficult decisions that end up being made 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 to make 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 of Activity III, overall product and manufacturing/assembly simulation models are upgraded for those choice and evaluated in an intermediate level of detail. High risk product and process assumptions are bread boarded and tested to assure simulation and analysis validity. Final level III specifications and engineering requirements are set at component and part segmentations. The type of automation and the level of automation is evaluated for each product concept (such as related bill of material). The team identifies optimum manufacturing strategies based upon forecast mix and 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) requirements defined by the client organization. Concurrent with product development, the team evaluates process plans, tooling and fixtures, purchase costs, work standards and scheduling rules for each manufacturing and assembly operation. Dynamic process simulation and analyses capabilities are used to identify process bottlenecks, throughput, cycle times, queue storage, outage recovery sequences, proper statistical burden rates, etc. Classical cost volume curves are recommended to identify correct manufacturing strategies for alternative product mix and volumes.

17

Cost vs. Volume Factors Flexible Cellular Manufacturing and Assembly Automation
Job Shop Low/Variable Volumes High Part Variability

Cost

Flexible Automation Group Technology

Programmable Transfer Line High/Fixed Volumes Low Part Variability

Flexible Group Technology

Volume

One very important lesson learned by working with clients on CPPD programs is the importance of designing 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 assembly cells or higher volume flexible transfer line systems, design for manufacturing (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA) pay handsome economic benefits. With detailed subsystem requirements defined, alternative subsystem and core component concepts and related manufacturing strategies are defined, evaluated and compared .. again using detailed decision tables 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 from process plans and routings which are used until fundamental alternative manufacturing processes and strategies are developed and evaluated for various product and business alternatives. Similar to product simulations and analyses, manufacturing process simulations help the CPPD team and manufacturing planning organization to identify high risk operations, estimate value added manufacturing plant costs and to estimate capital requirements for each alternative considered. These simulations become more detailed in Activities IV and V when detailed manufacturing and assembly systems are developed for selected processes and manufacturing strategies.

CPPD
Seven Phases of Concurrent Product Process D l II t III I IV V VI Strategic S Selection li Supplier Selection VII

Purchasing t Cost Removal

Cost Removal

18

Advanced manufacturing development must be an ongoing process to identify and develop advanced technologies for incorporation into CPPD programs. Strategic suppliers and vendors must join the CPPD team. The establishment of processes and strategic relationships must be piloted on the first CPPD programs 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 related systems 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 but continuous 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 same predictive approach applied to product and process simulation (see Figure 19). There are an unlimited number of What-If alternatives that can be evaluated in a CPPD program. Many of the alternatives can easily be evaluated by the CPPD team(s), but management must remain involved to understand the strategic decisions that must be made throughout the programs The effective use of business modeling provides the team and management with the tools and information to make good decisions. The business models perform the basic business calculations that are standard in the business community. The key issue is the data flow and integration with other CPPD models The business model must efficiently accept data from other models to support the many What-If alternatives and multiple iterations required to support the decision process. The business models must also support the process through the coarse-to-detail sequence. Examples of these business model inputs include: costs from manufacturing analysis; margin percentages from pricing models; volumes from market forecast models; capital investment estimates from 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 and What-If alternatives, the communication and change control requirements are more significant compared 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 it and doing it are quite different matters. There are no quick fixes. The common denominators for success 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 support CPPD project, establish measures of performance, and provide appropriate recognition.

19

Background
International TechneGroup Incorporated International TechneGroup Incorporated was founded in 1983 by the same management that founded Structural Dynamics Research Corporation (formerly UGS now Siemens). ITI offers integrated Engineering, Software Development, Communication and Education services. ITI provides customers technical resources for development and implementation of Concurrent Product and Process Development (CPPD) within client product development and automated manufacturing operations. ITI with a staff of over a hundred highly skilled engineering and software professionals has applied CPPD methods 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 experience includes advanced product and process development, together with in-depth knowledge of related application software development. Dr. Lemon founded and developed Structural Dynamics Research Corporation (SDRC) into an internationally recognized engineering and application software development organization of more than 400 people with over $25 million in sales before leaving in 1983. SDRC has recently been sold to UGS for $1 billion dollars. ITI his second start-up company has become a recognized leader in the product development, data interoperability and global collaboration marketplaces is currently at over $35 million 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 be attributed to Dr. Lemon's software integration and development work in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Concurrent Product/Process Development (CPPD) methods and related next-generation software development.

Mr. William Dacey is Director of CPPD Re-Engineering Services for International TechneGroup Incorporated. He has had extensive experience in manufacturing engineering with Siemens-Allis and product/process development with ITI. He pioneered the first application of CPPD and has since managed 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 of state-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 the company since its inception, he has been a pioneer for the application of technology for product development information management and global collaboration. He has led technology and infrastructure implementation and deployment for numerous CPPD programs within several global customers.

20