CONCURRENT ENGINEERING-AN EMERGING TOOL FOR …Neeraj Kumar 1*, Vikash, Arun Kumar and Paramvir...

422

Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2014 Neeraj Kumar et al., 2014

ISSN 2278 – 0149 www.ijmerr.com

Vol. 3, No. 3, July, 2014

© 2014 IJMERR. All Rights Reserved

Research Paper

CONCURRENT ENGINEERING-AN EMERGING TOOLFOR PRODUCTION INDUSTRIES IN PRODUCT

DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT

Neeraj Kumar1*, Vikash1, Arun Kumar1 and Paramvir Yadav1

*Corresponding Author: Neeraj Kumar � [email protected]

Traditionally, key quality refers to conformance to design specifications. Components not meetingthe specifications are identified ‘rejects’. This emphasis on building quality by identifying poorquality components and throwing them aside as ‘rejects’ has a significant cost for the company.Firstly, workers are not being trained on how to produce required high quality and better productdesign. Secondly, rejected items mean ‘scarp’ and loss to the company and these many numbersof components have to be manufactured again. Thus, net result is higher cost and larger timeconsumption. There results in achieving good quality at higher cost & time. The tough internationalcompetition has made industry realize that for success, the winner has to learn how to producebetter products design & development and quality at less cost and less time. Based on theliterature review, this study has brought out key quality-strategies and practices followed byinternational companies which include customers’ requirement analysis, use of multi-functionalquality-management teams reliability engineering techniques such as Simultaneous Engineering/ Concurrent Engineering Approach, and quality-cost management techniques, Design for costand time to market etc.

Keywords: Quality, Product Design & Development, Simultaneous engineering

INTRODUCTION

Product for Industry

Customer & Competitor Focus

In the Industry environment, product design(and its development) is basically aimed atmaking certain profit by selling the productto the customers in the market, who use theproduct to meet their requirements and arewilling to pay for it. But before buying anyproduct, a customer compares the particular

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, SGT Institute of Engineering & Technology Farrukh Nagar Road, Budhera Gurgaon.

product with other similar products offeredby other competitors. Therefore, IndustryFirms have to carry out product-design onthe basis of detailed understanding & analysisof the Customers and the Competitors(Xiaopeng et al., 2012). In fact, customers’requirements & preferences undergo changewhen new products are offered by theCompetitors (Andrews, 2005; and Gulati,2007).

423


Figure 1: Coupling Between Product,Customers, and the Competitors

Product Design& Development

CustomersRequirement

CompetitorsProducts

Business Risk in Product Development

Due to fast changes in Customers’ require-ments consequent to increasing competition,product development poses very high risk forthe business firm.

Being “Better, Cheaper & Faster” leads to

Market Success

As business is becoming more and moreglobalised, completion is rising very fast, andnewer products are being introduced at fasterpace than before. Business Firms are strivinghard to introduce new-product ahead of theircompetitors. Therefore, time to reach themarket (also called time-to-market) isbecoming crucial for product developmentsuccess. Further, advancements in techno-logy is also facilitating entry of newer andbetter products in the markets. The custo-mers are now having more choices in themarket. Better quality products are now beingintroduced in the markets at faster pace(lesser time) and at lesser price. Thus, Better,Cheaper, and Faster is the new mantra formarket-success (Rosenthal, 1998).

STUDY OF PUBLISHED

LITERATURE

Approach For Product Design &

Development

Project-Approach for Product Development

New product development is recognized byall industrial sectors as essential to businesssuccess. Due to requirements of large resour-ces and the associated business risks, mostcompanies are adopting project-approach forproduct development. The term ‘project’ hastwo major attributes, namely (i) there is adefinite ‘start’ and also a pre-determined,well-defined ‘finish’ for the project, and (ii) theproject is a one-time activity, and is not arepetitive activity. Product development alsohas these two attributes, and is thereforeundertaken as a project.

Product development starts fromgeneration of product ideas and conceptualdesign. After a particular concept is selected,detailed product design is commenced,paying attention sub-systems, assemblies,sub-assemblies, and the componentsneeded (Xiaopeng et al., 2012).

Integrated Consideration of Product

Design and its Related Processes

A systematic consideration of product-designalong with the processes through which theproduct will be developed, manufactured andmarketed. Further, the new paradigm of beingfaster-cheaper-better requires that theproduct design must be evolved and finalizedin a manner that the product-design catersfor the following requirements (Hull et al.,1996; Pillai et al., 1997; Tennant and Roberts,2001; Cholrit et al., 2011; and Desai & Mital,2011).

424


Figure 2: Activities Involved in New-Product Development Project

Product Development Project

IdeaGeneration

ProductConcept

Product & ProjectPlanning

Detailed Design,Process Design, andProduct Development

Production &Marketing

Planning for Project Work

Repetitive Work

• Design-for-Quality

• Design-for-Cost

• Design-for-Time (Time-to-Market)

• Design-for-Manufacture

• Design-for-Assembly

• Design-for-Maintenance

• Design-for-Upgradability/Design-for-Flexibility

The importance of “integrated/simul-taneous consideration of product design anddevelopment issues” lies in the fact thateffectively performing the simultaneousconsideration can contribute directly to theultimate market success of the productdesign & development (Murphy and Kumar,1997; Smith and Reinertsen, 1998; Cooperet al., 2004; Cooper, 2007).

Simultaneous Engineering/

Concurrent Engineering Approach

Japanese Industry has been using this appro-ach, since 1950’s, for product-developmentprojects with specific objective of reducingoverall development time and also achievinghigher product quality at a lesser cost. Thisapproach was studied and adopted bynumber of American & European Teams

during early 1980s. It was adopted by theirIndustry Firms in 1983 onwards, with mixedsuccess initially, but the process wasconsiderably improved during 1984-1995period. Considerable academic research wascarried out in American and EuropeanUniversities to support the Industry Firms inmastering the Cheaper-Better-Fasterparadigm in product development projects(Ford, 1988; Cooper, 1994; Murphy andKumar, 1997; Berggren and Nacher, 2001;Sharma, 2011).

In its strict sense, this approach requiressimultaneous execution of two (or more)upstream and downstream stages like‘product design’ and ‘design of relatedsubsequent processes’; namely formanufacture, assembly, test & evaluation,and marketing. The subsequent stages aredependent on generation and finalization ofproduct information by the upstream stage(based on which issues for subsequentstages are decided and finalized).

BASIC PROCESS FORSIMULTANEOUS CONCURRENT/OVER LAPPINGDEVELOPMENT PHASES

425


Figure 3: Sequential and Overlapping Development Phases for Product Development

Traditional Sequential-Approach:

Design Fabrication Assembly Testing Marketing

Simultaneous Engineering / Concurrent Engineering Approach:

Design

Fabrication

Assembly

Testing

Marketing

Figure 4: Information Sharing & Feedback Flow among Overlapped Development Phases

I F I F I F I F

Product-Design

Fabrication Stage

Information Flow Denotes flow of Upstream information to theDownstream Stage

Feedback Flow Denotes flow of feedback fromDownstream Stage to Upstream Stage

As an example, a two-stage developmentprocess is considered, being progressedthrough simultaneous/concurrent/over-lapping phase approach. First, work starts ofthe upstream stage of product design. Assoon as some meaningful design informationis generated, the same is shared (madeavailable) to the down-stream stage. Theexpert of the downstream stage consider andanalyze the information received, to check ifit is meeting requirement of downstreamstage. The above iteration of flow of design-information followed by flow of feedbackinformation takes place number of time, again

and again, till both upstream and downstreaminformation get evolved in linked manner;thus completing work on both phases.

ISSUES IN MANAGINGSIMULTANEOUS/CONCURRENTOVERLAPPING PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT PHASES

Intense Information Exchange:

Product-Information & the Feedback

Basic fundamental issue in ensuring thatproduct design information is made availableto all other members of product developmentteam, as soon as such information is gener-

� � � �

�

--- �

�

--- �

�

--- �

�

--- �

�- - - - - - - - - - - - -

�

426


ated. The timely sharing of complete infor-mation can not be left to the personal effortsof an individual; rather a formal information-flow system needs to be put in place so thatcomplete information is made available to allconcerned in timely manner and thecorresponding feedback also reaches thedesign-team in timely manner (Clark andFuzimoto, 1991; and Sung & Wu, 2011).

In post-2000 era, large computer based“Information Sharing Systems” have beenevolved. Receipt of product-information andsubsequent feedback is managed by appro-priate hardware and software system. How-ever, in large and complex projects namelydevelopment of Car or Aircraft, humanelement is also crucial in development andimplementation of appropriate “InformationCoordination Structure”. Thus, proper atten-tion needs to be given to each of the threecrucial parts of Project-Information Systemcomprising of (a) hardware, (b) software, and(c) humanware (Schilling and Hill, 1998; Sungand Wu, 2011).

Effectiveness of Overlapping

Development Phases for Project

Success

Overlapping approach has acceleratingimpact on the project cycle-time. Howeveroptimal overlap depends on the uncertainty-resolution capability of the particular project.Project effectiveness (success) is determinedby overlapped stages getting completedproperly in a manner that there is saving oftime and simultaneously ‘quality to thecustomers’ is also improved (Zirger andHartley, 1996; Cholrit, 2011; Sharma, 2011).

Research by Krishnan (1996) and by Loch& Terwisch (1998) has shown that two factorswhich help in anticipating effectiveness ofoverlapped stages are: (a) rate/speed ofevolution of upstream information, and (b)sensitiveness of downstream stage infollowing-up the receipt of upstream stageinformation. Two set of conditions can beused to understand this effectiveness(effecting overall project success); these are(i) ‘slow’ and ‘fast’ evolution of upstreaminformation, and (ii) ‘low’ and ‘high’sensitiveness of downstream stage to thetime of receipt & completeness of theupstream stage. This is illustrated in Figure5 (a) and Figure 5 (b).

Figure 5: (a): Evolution of Product Design Information in Upstream Stage

I F I F I F I F

Upstream Stage

Downstream Stage

Evolution of Upstream Project Information:

Fast Evolution

Time

Slow Evolution

Time

427


Figure 5: (b): Sensitiveness of Downstream Stage to Changes in Upstream Information

Sensitiveness of Downstream Project Information:

Low SensitivenessHigh Sensitiveness

Time

Time

Overlapping activity is generally easierwhen the upstream evolution is fast, ratherwhen it is slow. Time gains resulting fromoverlapping activities are larger if uncer-tainties can be reduced early in the develop-ment process (Eisenhandt and Tabrizi, 1995).

The effect of various levels of “evolutionof upstream phase” and “down-stream sensi-tivity” on the feasibility of high-degree ofoverlapping development phases (concurrentengineering approach) is presented in thefigure given below:

High degree ofoverlapping is

Feasible

Finalize UpstreamInformation Early

Poor Prospect forHigh degree of

Overlapping

Pre-EmptiveOverlapping

High

Low

Down-streamSensitivity

Figure 6: Feasibility of High-Degree ofOverlapping among Development PhasesConcurrent Engineering Approach,

(Krishnan et al., 1997

Loch and Terwiech (1998) and Yang(2007) have reported that gains fromoverlapping activities must be weighedagainst the delay due to the rework resultingfrom proceeding in parallel based onpreliminary information from upstream stage,which gets revised/changed at a later time.

Empirical research by Joglekar etal (2001)and Watanbe (2007) has shown that“concurrent engineering” (high-degree ofoverlapping) need not be the optimal workstrategy in many settings.

Flexibility in Product Development

Process

Therefore, adequate degree of flexibility hasto be built into the product-developmentprocess so that such changes can be incor-porated without excessive penalty of time andcost. Higher is the flexibility, lesser is thepenalty for product-design changes at latestage in the project (Sushil 1997 & 2000).Flexible development process allows theproduct designers to continue to refine/update the design and to shape productsaccordingly even after product fabrication ormanufacture has begun (Pillai, 1997;Thomke, 2001).

428


Figure 7: Upstream & Downstream Information Finalization in Flexible Development Process

Overlapping Process

B

C

D

E

Flexible Development Process

A B C D E

Denotes that the receipt & analysis of any new information in stillkept open in the development phase till late time in the project(though the major part of work is already completed).

A B C D E

A B C D E

In flexible development process, thoughthe majority of work in a particulardevelopment phase is completed but optionis kept open to receive & analyze any “new”information (for higher customer satisfaction/ market focus) and to incorporate therequired change(s) even upto late stage inthe process. All efforts are made to ensurethat overall time & cost gets increased onlyby a minimal acceptable amount. (Takeuchiand Nonanka, 1986; Lansiti, 1995; Hsu Yen,2013).

Cross-Functional Development Teams

Use of cross-functional teams is a comple-mentary strategy to the use of overlappingdevelopment phases (Clark and Fuzimoto,1991; Zirger and Hartley, 1996; Flint, 2002;Danilovic and Browning, 2007). Such teams

are the main drivers of the product develop-ment process and facilitate integrated consi-deration of downstream issues at the up-stream stage, which is the primary principalof managing product development usingoverlapping development phases (Lynn andAkgun, 2000; Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Ulwick,2002).

Cross-functional teams bring certain keyproject capabilities: high degree of marketfocus, flexible sub-processes, periodic projectreviews, intra-project co-ordination, and highlevel of calculated risk-taking (Ulwick, 2002;Paltier, 2005; Sung and Wu, 2011).

Organizational Structures for

Effective Information Sharing &

Trade-off Decision

Effective projects are characterized by suit-

A

429


able structures that minimize “changes inproduct-design”, once the execution phasehas begun (Cooper, 2004 & 2007).Sequencing of development activities hasmajor impact of need for information whichmay evolve only in a subsequent activity. Re-sequencing the activity sequence, as donein DSM Matrix, is a common practice forevolving efficient development process(Tennant and Roberts, 2001; Petri et al.,2010).

Information co-ordination is an essentialrequirements and has to be designed and

implemented keeping in view the require-ments of overlapping phases and also thelocation & composition of the product deve-lopment teams. Coordination underlies manyof the management problems in designingproduction rapidly and effectively (Eppinger,2001).

The Figure 8, given below, presentsorganization-wide structure-based projectstrategies used for their ConcurrentEngineering (Overlapping Phases) basedproject for development of ‘Edsel Car’ in early1990’s (Haddad, 1996).

Figure 8: Platform Team-Structure for Implementation of Concurrent EngineeringApproach (Overlapping Development Phases) Used by Ford Motors, USA for

'Edsel Car' Development Project, during early 1990s (Haddad, 1996)

Building Design(Co-location of

Teams)

TechnologicalEnablers

Computer-AidedDesign

ComputerNetworking

Cross-GroupCommunication

OrganizationalEnablers

Decentralisation/Participation

HumanResource Practices

FunctionalIntegration

-------------------

-------------------Intense

InformationSharing

Key Development-Process Strategies

Implementation ofConcurrent Engg.

Philosophy

PlatformTeam

Structure

CollaborativeProblem Solving

430


CONCLUSION REMARKS

The proposed research study will be relevantand useful to:

a) Engineering organizations fromdeveloping economy, like India, intendingto develop new products for competitiveglobalized markets.

b) Engineering Organizations intending toadopt Overlapping Development Processfor integrated design, fabrication, test &trials, and production; and particularlythose interested in using CAD/CAE/CAMbased design process for virtual assem-bly & testing, and rapid prototyping.

c) Researchers and academicians interes-ted in pursuing integrated product deve-lopment in highly dynamic and compe-titive environment.

REFERENCES

1. Cooper R G (1994), “Debunking Mythsof New Product Development”,Research-Technology-Management, pp.40-51.

2. Cooper R G (2004), “Pre-DevelopmentActivities Determine New ProductSuccess”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 237-248.

3. Cooper R G (2007), “ManagingTechnology Development Projects”, IEEEEngineering Management Review, Vol.35, No. 1, pp. 67-76.

4. Danilovic M and Browning T R (2007),“Managing Complex ProductDevelopment with Design StructureMatrix and Domain Mapping Matrices”,International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 300-314.

5. Desai A and Mital A (2011), “Simplifyingthe Product Maintenance Process byBuilding Ease-of-Maintenance into theProduct Design”, International Journal ofIndustrial and System Engineering, Vol.9, No. 4, pp. 434-457.

6. Eisenhandt K M and Tabrizi B N (1995),“Accelerating Adaptive Processes:Product Innovation in the GlobalComputer Industry”, AcademyManagement Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.543-576.

7. Flint D J (2002), “Compressing NewProduct Concept-to-Delivery Cycle-Time:Deep Customer-Value Understandingand Idea Generation”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 31, No. 4,pp. 305-325.

8. Ford D (1988), “Develop Your TechnologyStrategy”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 21,No. 5, pp. 44-51.

9. Gulati R (2007), “Silo Busting: How toExecute on the Promise of CustomerFocus”, Harvard Business Review, pp.98-108.

10. Hsu Yen (2013), “Marketing Strategy andits Correlation with Design Strategy andDesign Characteristics: An Example ofConsumer Electronic Industry”,International Journal of Business andSystem Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 436-451.

11. Hull F M, Collins P D and Liker J K (1996),“Composite Forms of Organization as aStrategy for Concurrent EngineeringEffectiveness”, IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management, Vol. 43, No.2, pp. 133-142.

431


12. Joglekar N R, Yassine A A, Eppinger SD, and Whitney D E (2001), “Performanceof Coupled Product DevelopmentActivities with a Deadline”, ManagementScience, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 1605-1620.

13. Krishnan V (1996), “Managing theSimultaneous Execution of CoupledPhases in Concurrent EngineeringProjects”, IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management, Vol. 43, No 2,pp. 201-217.

14. Lansiti M (1995), “Shooting the Rapids:Managing Product Development inTurbulent Environment”, OliverwrightPublication Inc, Essex, Junction.

15. Loch C H and Terwiech C (1998),“Communication and Uncertainty inConcurrene Engineering Projects”,Management Science, Vol. 44, No 8, pp.1032-1048.

16. Lynn G S and Akgun A E (2000), “A NewProduct Development Learning Model:Antecedents and Consequences ofDeclarative and Procedural Knowledge”,International Journal of TechnologyManagement, Vol. 20, No. 5/6/7/8, pp.490-510.

17. Prencipe A and Tell F (2001), “Inter-Project Learning: Processes andOutcomes of Knowledge Codification inProject Based Firms", Research Policy,Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1373-1394.

18. Rosenthal E S (1998), “What We HaveLearnt - Managing Invention and

Innovation”, Research-Technology-Management, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 11-29.

19. Schilling M A and Hill C W L (1998),“Managing the New Product Develo-pment Process: Strategic Imperatives”,Academy of Management Review, pp.436-459.

20. Sung T J and Wu C S (2011), “The Effectsof Design Integration Mechanism on theMaturity Levels of a Collaborative DesignTeam”, International Journal ofNetworking and Virtual Organizations,Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 367-381.

21. Tennant C and Roberts P (2001), “AFaster Way to Create Better QualityProducts”, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 353-362.

22. Thomke S H (2001), “EnlightenedExperimentation - The New Imperative forInnovation”, Harvard Business Review,pp. 67-75.

23. Ulwick A W (2002), “Turn CustomerInputs into Innovation”, Harvard BusinessReview, pp. 91-97.

24. Watanbe K (2007), “Lessons fromToyota’s Long Drive”, Harvard BusinessReview, pp. 74-83.

25. Xiaopeng Li, Mique Zhao and Wei Wang(2012), “Model and its Applications of 7-Design Planning of Product-Design”,International Journal of Materials andProduct Technology, Vol. 45, No. 1/2/3,pp. 191-202.

CONCURRENT ENGINEERING-AN EMERGING TOOL FOR …Neeraj Kumar 1*, Vikash, Arun Kumar and Paramvir...

Documents

Transcript of CONCURRENT ENGINEERING-AN EMERGING TOOL FOR …Neeraj Kumar 1*, Vikash, Arun Kumar and Paramvir...