Integrated Product Design And Process Development Pdf
- and pdf
- Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:47:30 AM
- 3 comment
File Name: integrated product design and process development .zip
- An integrated product development‐quality management system for manufacturing
- Integrated Product and Process Development
- Integrated Product and Process Design and Development
For instance, while engineering product designers begin to design the product, the sales team can start working on the marketing and the product support department can start thinking about the after-sale support. This systematic approach is intended to force all the stakeholders to be involved and the full engineering product cycle to be considered from concept to after-sale support. There are plenty of incentives to choose Concurrent engineering over sequential engineering product development.
A critical factor in product innovation creativity is the development of design methodologies in various fields. The design and manufacture of a product, whether new or existing, is a significant part of engineering activities. Among these capabilities is the ability to design products that are competitive, cost-effective, and ready to be marketed on time. One key factor for maintaining competitiveness in the market is the focus on product and innovation processes by using various integrated design methods that are implemented as a standard part of design activities. The innovative integrated method, which combines various product design methods precisely can solve the main contradictory problems in the process from product demand analysis, product design, to production.
An integrated product development‐quality management system for manufacturing
Challenged by world-class competitors, manufacturing companies in the United States have undergone a renaissance in the last decade. The renaissance started on the shop floor with an emphasis on built-in quality, the elimination of waste, and faster throughputs.
But attention quickly turned upstream to product development, where Japanese companies were outperforming U. Observers concluded that the key to Japanese success, and U. A great many companies attacked the issue head on. Typical solutions were such product-development tools as quality function deployment and Taguchi methods. Companies also introduced organizational solutions; those solutions ranged from keeping the basic functional organization intact and assigning people to temporary project teams to disbanding the functional organization altogether in favor of organizing around products, as Chrysler did in the early s.
Here we use the term function broadly to mean the various groups of specialized expertise required to make new models work—including the engineering specialties within the design process, such as electrical, body, or test engineering, as well as other business functions, such as manufacturing and marketing. The new solutions have brought substantial improvements to the companies and dramatic results in the marketplace.
But they have also created problems of their own. Cross-functional coordination has improved, but at the cost of depth of knowledge within functions, because people are spending less time within their functions. Organizational learning across projects has also dropped as people rotate rapidly through positions. Standardization across products has suffered because product teams have become autonomous.
In organizations that combine functional and project-based structures, engineers are often torn between the orders of their functional bosses on the one hand and the demands of project leaders on the other. As these new problems take their toll, U. More important, that effectiveness seems to have leveled off far short of the best Japanese companies. This article explores how one of those companies, Toyota, manages its vehicle-development process.
Interestingly, we found that in many ways the company does not resemble what is often considered the model of Japanese product development—it has maintained a functionally based organization while achieving its impressive degree of integration, and many of its practices are actually similar to those that U.
Three of them are primarily social processes: mutual adjustment, close supervision, and integrative leadership from product heads. The other three are forms of standardization: standard skills, standard work processes, and design standards. Alone, each mechanism would accomplish little, but every piece has its own role and at the same time reinforces the others, unlike many of the sophisticated tools and practices at companies in the United States, which tend to be implemented independently.
Together, the mechanisms give Toyota a tightly linked product-development system that achieves cross-functional coordination while still building functional expertise. This balance allows the company to achieve integration across projects and over time, as well as within projects. Cross-functional teams, for example, work well within individual projects, but the temporary, personal nature of these teams makes it hard for them to transmit information to teams on other projects.
Toyota combines a highly formalized system with twists to ensure that each project is flexible and benefits from other projects. Toyota, by contrast, seems to go to the opposite organizational extreme. It relies on highly formalized rules and standards, and puts limits on the use of cross-functional teams. Such rigid policies can have enormous drawbacks.
To avoid those drawbacks, Toyota has added a number of twists to ensure that each project has the flexibility it needs and still benefits from what other projects have learned. This mutual adjustment often takes the form of a meeting: a product designer and a manufacturing engineer, for example, get together to discuss the effects that a proposed design for a particular car body would have on the cost of production.
Direct contact between the members of different functions is certainly important—some say it is the essential ingredient in getting functional groups that have traditionally been at odds to work together. Indeed, many observers, managers, and engineers claim that face-to-face interaction is the richest, most appropriate form of communication for product development. Numerous companies now colocate functional experts so that interaction can occur with much greater ease and frequency.
Often these companies have done away with written forms of communication because, as some claim, written reports and memos do not have the richness of information or interactive qualities needed for product development. Meetings, however, are costly in terms of time and efficiency, and meeting time increases with colocation.
Meetings usually involve limited value-added work per person, and they easily lose focus and drag on longer than necessary. Toyota, by contrast, does not co-locate engineers or assign them to dedicated project teams. Most people reside within functional areas and are simply assigned to work on projects—often more than one at a time—led by project leaders. By rooting engineers in a function, the company ensures that the functions develop deep specialized knowledge and experience.
In lieu of regularly scheduled meetings, the company emphasizes written communication. When an issue surfaces that requires cross-functional coordination, the protocol is first to write a report that presents the diagnosis of the problem, key information, and recommendations, and then to distribute this document to the concerned parties.
Usually, the report is accompanied by either a phone call or a short meeting to highlight the key points and emphasize the importance of the information. The recipient is expected to read and study the document and to offer feedback, sometimes in the form of a separate written report. One or two iterations communicate a great deal of information, and participants typically arrive at an agreement on most, if not all, items. In such problem-solving meetings, participants already understand the key issues, are all working from a common set of data, and have thought about and prepared proposals and responses.
The meeting can focus on solving the specific problem without wasting time bringing people up to speed. By contrast, at many U. They can spend the first half of the meeting just defining the issue, and responses are shoot-from-the-hip reactions to a problem that people have had little time to think about.
Toyota takes its focused style of meeting quite seriously. One engineer we talked to showed us his schedule for the day, which included two meetings at separate times with the same group of people. When asked why he would schedule separate meetings with this group, he explained that they needed two meetings to discuss two distinct problems. It was important not to confuse the issues by combining them into one meeting.
Once the writer of the original report has consulted with all interested parties, he or she writes a final version of the report that presents all sides of the question. The overall reporting process therefore has two benefits.
First, it documents and summarizes analysis and decision making in a convenient form for the rest of the organization. Second, and more important, it forces engineers in every function to gather opinions from other functions regarding the ramifications of the changes they are proposing.
Twist: Although Toyota often relies on written communication as the first line of attack in solving problems, it does not suffer from the voluminous paperwork we associate with bureaucracy. The reports all follow the same format so that everyone knows where to find the definition of the problem, the responsible engineer and department, the results of the analysis, and the recommendations.
The standard format also helps engineers make sure they have covered the important angles. The result is a clear statement of a problem and solutions that is accessible not only to people within a particular project but also to those working on other projects.
Writing these reports is a difficult but useful skill, so the company gives its engineers formal training in how to boil down what they want to communicate. Supervisors see to it that engineers do the appropriate groundwork to ensure that all pertinent views are taken into consideration. Indeed, we heard about a certain Toyota executive who refused to read any report longer than two pages. In product development, supervision traditionally took place within individual functions.
Electrical engineers, for example, were supervised by other electrical engineers because only they fully understood the work involved.
Recently, some U. Chrysler, for example, is organized around product platforms rather than functions, and the platform team leader heads all product engineering in the platform. Toyota, however, has not forgotten the value of instructive supervision within functions. Supervisors and higher-level managers are deeply involved in the details of engineering design. The company depends on supervisors to build deep functional expertise in its new hires—expertise that then facilitates coordination across functions.
But functional supervisors also teach engineers how to write reports, whom to send the reports to, how to interpret reports from other functions, and how to prepare for meetings. Direct supervision thus works in concert with mutual adjustment in order to promote coordination. Twist: To American eyes, such intensive supervision would seem to be a kind of meddling that stifles the creativity and learning of new engineers and other specialists.
But Toyota has succeeded in keeping its supervision fresh and engaging, in two ways. Instead of merely managing the engineering process, they hone their engineering skills, stay abreast of new technology, maintain their contacts and develop new ones, and remain involved in the creative process itself. Functional engineers are not frustrated by the experience of working under someone less skilled than they are. In many U. They rarely tell subordinates what to do and instead answer questions with questions.
They force engineers to think about and understand the problem before pursuing an alternative, even if the managers already know the correct answer. Perhaps the most powerful way to integrate the work of people from diverse specialties is to have a leader with a broad overview of the whole.
Many U. Heavyweight project managers coordinate all the specialists from functional departments around a common project with a common set of goals. Their authority in these matrix organizations comes from their complete control over their particular project rather than from any direct supervisory authority over the individual functions.
Before attaining their position, they must demonstrate both exemplary technical expertise and fluency in synthesizing technical knowledge into clever, innovative designs. Chief engineers also need to be able to conceptualize whole systems. It is one thing to understand the mechanics of a brake system and another to apply that knowledge toward an actual brake system design; but it is quite another thing to be able to conceptualize a brake system and visualize how it can be integrated with the rest of the vehicle.
By contrast, a number of companies with heavyweight product managers do not have such stringent technical requirements. All chief engineers have a small staff of 5 to 15 engineers to assist them in managing the development process and in coordinating the work of the functional specialties.
The hundreds of other engineers on the project report only through the functional chain of command. But his extensive technical expertise wins him tremendous respect, even admiration, from functional engineers—a key source of his enormous informal authority. For example, in designing a new model of the Celica sports car several years ago, the styling department suggested a longer front-quarter panel.
The manufacturing engineer assigned to door panels, however, opposed the change because the altered panel would be difficult to produce. After assessing both sides, the chief engineer for the vehicle favored the altered front panel. Nevertheless, the manufacturing engineer felt strongly that the change was unwise. If Toyota had organized around projects rather than functions, styling would likely have gotten its way, and the car might well have suffered production problems.
After substantial argument, the two sides reached an innovative compromise that achieved the cutaway look that styling wanted with a satisfactory level of manufacturability. Its absence implies that some functional areas are being too accommodating—to the detriment of the project as a whole. Still, when managers resolve conflicts through organizational influence, horse trading, or executive fiat, the results are often poor.
And while the chief engineers keep individual projects on track, the autonomous functional engineers and managers ensure that knowledge and experience from other projects are not forgotten in the current one.
Integrated Product and Process Development
These two concepts have been considered in the past as a separate identity. However, there is a need to develop a system that would consider quality management and improvement at the design stage by incorporating the principles of total quality management TQM at every stage of the design and other upstream and downstream value adding activities. TQM has been considered with reference to firm orientation and identifies market advantages, that are product design efficiency, process efficiency and product reliability. The special feature of the system proposed here is that it advises designers, product developers and process planners on improvements that can be made to the design to improve product quality and manufacturing efficiency, and customer satisfaction. Also, a framework has been discussed in this paper for the integration of CE and TQM in manufacturing. Gunasekaran, A. Report bugs here.
Integrated Product and Process Design and Development
Challenged by world-class competitors, manufacturing companies in the United States have undergone a renaissance in the last decade. The renaissance started on the shop floor with an emphasis on built-in quality, the elimination of waste, and faster throughputs. But attention quickly turned upstream to product development, where Japanese companies were outperforming U.
Show all documents Interdisciplinary work, process - oriented thinking and functioning, as well as creativity require integrated product development processes. An Integrated Printed Textile Design and Apparel Product Development Process Following the concept meeting, themes for each delivery are decided upon and the textile and apparel design functions meet to discuss the number of prints they will need for each collection, and the feel and look they are want to achieve through each print. The textile designer then takes this information and designs a print for each garment. To create a design the purchased artwork or original artwork is scanned into the CAD system or motifs are designed in the CAD system.
Через несколько секунд всем стало ясно, что эта затея бессмысленна. Числа были огромными, в ряде случаев не совпадали единицы измерения.
Coordination Based on Writing
Или надумает продать кольцо. Беккер не мог ждать. Он решительно поднял трубку, снова набрал номер и прислонился к стене. Послышались гудки. Беккер разглядывал зал. Один гудок… два… три… Внезапно он увидел нечто, заставившее его бросить трубку.
Можно ли ему доверять. А не заберет ли он ключ. Фонтейну нужно было какое-то прикрытие - на всякий случай, - и он принял необходимые меры.
Да, это. Он - лжец. Он вел себя бесчестно по отношению ко многим людям, и Сьюзан Флетчер - одна из .
Джаббе потребовалось почти шесть часов, чтобы их настроить. Бринкерхофф выглядел растерянным. - Стратмор был вне .