Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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
Systems Engineering and Analysis Leads Design vs. vs. Conventional Design, Build and Test True Concurrent Product and Manufacturing Process Development
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.
66%
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.
66%
0.5
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.
$1k-2k
$10k - 20k
$100k - 200k
Conventional Development
-22
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
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.
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.
Steering
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
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
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
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
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.
14 Months
52 Months
12 Months 10 Months
Today
8 Months
Integrated CPPD
8 Months
14 Months
Project 4 D model
Electronic Validation
6 Months 6 Months
18 Months
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
Enterprise Knowledge Base, Enterprise Systems Integration Architecture Planning and Implementation
wl ra C
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.
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
Primary Firewall
Integration I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F I/F
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
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
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
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
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
Project Schedule
006
6/25/00
007
008 009
Tooling/Fixture Database
Jig
Process
CVG
2D/3D CAD
Gangley Wrench
May 19, 00
Indiana
Time-Sheet
Image Db
Communications
are extremely powerful, very user friendly and very inexpensive. Multiple powerful vendor packages are available in moderate price ranges. 13
Product & Process Perf/Life/Cost Analysis Process & Assembly Plan Cost & Capital
Business Model
Financial Indicators
Pricing Model
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.
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
Targets Targets
Test
Promote
Concept 2 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 3
Selection
Concept 1 Concept 1
Concept Concept 2 2
Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis Coarse Analysis
Evaluation
Basic Requirements
Test
Design History
Rejected Concepts
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.
1.2
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
Subsystem Concepts
Product Systems Engineering Simulation & Analysis Leads Design Product Concept Selection
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
What We Sell
C D E C
Subsystem Product Design Subsystem Analytical Simulation Selective Subsystem Bench & Engine Test
Simulations
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
SubAssy.
Case Sassy.
Valve Sassy.
Drive Sassy.
Main Assy.
45 sec.
Body
SubAssy. Test
Valve Assy.
Drive Assy.
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
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
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).
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