# 1 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
What Drives our ECAD Strategy ?
Neil Whitehall
Electronics Process Manager
GEC Marconi Avionics
Radar Systems Division
# 2 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
What Drives our ECAD Strategy ?
1. Intuition ?
2. The ECAD Marketplace ?
3. What can you do to focus your intuition ?
4. What elements of your ECAD Vendor’s Strategy should be built into your own company’s design process ?
5. How do you answer Q3 without relying completely on intuition ?
# 3 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Alternatives to ‘Intuition Alone’
What could add the necessary focus ?• Theory of Constraints (TOC).• Just In Time (JIT).• Quality Optimisation.• Concurrent Engineering (CE).• SEI Capability Maturity Model (CMM).• Benchmarking.• Phases of Development.
# 4 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Theory of Constraints (TOC)
# 5 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
The history of science is divided into three phases of increasing maturity of approach.• Phase 1 : Classification (Ancient Greeks)• Phase 2 : Correlation (Ptolemy)• Phase 3 : Effect-Cause-Effect (Newton)
TOC uses this three phase approach as the basis of all problem solving activities.
# 6 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
Goldratt’s work adds a 5 stage focusing technique.• Step 1 : Identify the System’s Constraint(s).• Step 2 : Decide how to exploit the System’s
Constraint(s).• Step 3 : Subordinate everything else to the above
decision.• Step 4 : Elevate the System’s Constraint(s).• Step 5 : If, in the previous steps, a constraint has been
broken, go back to Step 1.• NB : Don’t allow inertia to cause a System Constraint.
# 7 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
What is a constraint ?• An obstacle that prevents the company from achieving it’s
goal.
What is the goal of the company ?• To make more money, now and in the future.
How do we get nearer to our goal ?• Any step that simultaneously ....
• Increases Throughput (Rate of Sales)• Unlimited, except by the market.
• Decreases Cost of Inventory• Limited by Zero, Eventually nothing left to minimise.
• Decreases Cost of Material• Limited by Zero, Eventually nothing left to minimise.
# 8 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
Examples of Constraints ?
How do you identify the constraints ?• Find a “Level 1 Effect”.
What is a “Level 1 Effect” ?• At a “High level” within organisation it attracts Visibility.• Linked to throughput at a business/divisional level.
How do you relate Level 1 Effects to Constraints within the Design Process ?• Start at the output of the process.• Back-trace using the 5 step focusing technique.• Link underlying problems causing “Level 1 Effect” to the
(possible) constraint within the Design Process.
# 9 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
THE GOAL : TO MAKE MONEY
Bottom line measurements ...
NET PROFIT(Absolute)
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
(Relative)
CASH FLOW(Survival)
ACTIONS
What is the bridge ?
# 10 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
THE DIRECT IMPACT : OPERATIONAL MEASUREMENTS AND THE BOTTOM LINE
NET PROFIT RETURN ONINVESTMENT
CASH FLOW
THROUGHPUT INVENTORYOPERATINGEXPENSE
# 11 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
THE COMPETITIVE EDGE IMPACT : OPERATIONAL MEASURES LINKED TO ACTIONS THROUGH THE BRIDGE.
NET PROFIT RETURN ONINVESTMENT
CASH FLOW
THROUGHPUT(FUTURE)
OPERATINGEXPENSEINVENTORY
COMPETITIVE EDGE
# 12 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
TOC
Supported by the Avraham Goldratt Institute.• http://www.goldratt.com # TOC.• http://www.rogo.com/cac # ’Crazy About Constraints’.• tel : (01628) 74468 # Courses and Book Orders.
Texts• ‘The Theory of Constraints’ (TOC)
• ISBN 0-88427-085-8• ‘The Goal (Introduction/Manufacturing)
• ISBN 0-88427-061-0• ‘It’s Not Luck’ (Supply Chain Management)
• ISBN 0-566-07637• Speak to Analogy about ‘Flexible Access’ and ‘Open Access’
• ‘The Race’ (Manufacturing)• ISBN 0-88427-062-9
• ‘Critical Chain’ (Project Management)• ISBN 0-88427-153-6
# 13 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
JIT
# 14 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
JIT
MONTHS
HIGHINVENTORY
Engineeringchange one monthafter start of order
MONTHS
LOWINVENTORY
Improved product willbe available only
several months after engineering change.
Improved product willbe available in less
than two weeks.
HIGH VERSUS LOW INVENTORY SYSTEMS :ENGINEERING CHANGES
# 15 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
JIT
HIGH INVENTORY LOW INVENTORY
HIGH VERSUS LOW INVENTORY SYSTEMS :DUE DATE PERFORMANCE.
Production starts based on a guess. Weoscillate between excess finished goods inventory and missed due dates.
Production starts based on goodknowledge. Due date performance >> 90%
FORECAST VALIDITY
% %
# 16 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
JIT
The Role of Reduced Inventory in Establishing a Competitive Edge.• Product
• Quality• Features (Engineering)
• Price• Higher Margins• Lower Investment per Unit
• Responsiveness• Due Date Performance• Shorter Quoted Lead Times
# 17 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Framework for Synchronised Manufacturing
Design Engineering
MRP
CDMPDM
Manufacturing
Procurement
PDM = Product Data ManagementMRP = Materials Requirements PlanningCDM = Component Data Management
# 18 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
JIT
CompletionDate
FB
FB
FB
FB
FBProjectBufferDE
DE
DE
DE
DE
Critical Chain
Critical Path
FB Feeding Buffer
DE Design Engineer
# 19 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Quality Optimisation
# 20 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Quality Optimisation
Six Sigma.• Focuses on notional ‘Defects’ rather than Product Dependability.• Why choose ‘Six’ ? Why not 3, 4, 5.5, 6.1 or 7 ?• How does ‘Six’ relate to real product dependability.• What would rigid adherence to ‘Six’ cost ?
Quality Optimisation• What do failures do to ‘Time Buffers’ in Production ?• How do you ensure that the most cost effective solution is
designed in ?
An excellent reference ...• ‘Optimising Quality in Electronics Assembly’• James Allen Smith & Frank Whitehall.• McGraw Hill, 1997.• ISBN 0-07-059229-2.
# 21 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Quality Optimisation
Yield predictionYield prediction Yield maximisationYield maximisation Design centeringDesign centering
yield=100%Phase 2
yield < 100%Phase 1
robustPhase 3
CPK=!MAX
# 22 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Quality Optimisation
Cpl LSL
3
Cpu USL
3Cpk min Cpl,Cpk
LSL USL
safetymargin
¤ The Process Capability Ratio
measures the robustness of a
design
¤ A Cpk of 1 is equal to a yield of
100%
¤ The higher the Cpk, the more
reliable the product will operate in
the field.
# 23 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Quality Optimisation
Apply Pareto Analysis ?
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Soldering Failures
Component Failures
Parametric Yield Loss
Build Errors
Catastrophic Design Errors
PERCENT OF TOTOAL FAILURES
Attributed to ...
# 24 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Concurrent Engineering (CE)
# 25 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Concurrent Engineering (CE)
Concurrent Engineering (CE)• Definition #1 : Cultural Focus.
• “defined as the earliest possible integration of the overall company’s knowledge, resources, and experience in design, development, marketing, manufacturing, and sales into creating successful new products, with high quality and low cost, while meeting customer expectations.”
• Sammy G. Shina.• Concurrent Engineering and Design for
Manufacture of Electronic Products, 1991.• ISBN 0-442-00616-0.
# 26 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Concurrent Engineering (CE)
Concurrent Engineering (CE)• Definition #2 : Logistical Focus.
• “Get the right data, To the Right Place, At the Right Time, In the Right Format”.
• Don Carter & Barbara Stillwell Baker.• ‘Concurrent Engineering - The Product
Development Environment for the 1990s’.• Volume 1 & 2 : ISBN 0-201-56349-5.
Can data be managed in the same way as inventory in production ?
Can people be disciplined enough to change their own working cultures ?
# 27 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Concurrent Engineering (CE)
Carter’s book introduces the concept of a layered approach to the support of the process of Concurrent Engineering.• Layer 1 : Inter-operable Network
Computing.• Layer 2a : Inter-operable Tools.• Layer 2b : Inter-operable Tasks.• Layer 3 : Product Data Management.• Layer 4 : Workflow Management &
Metrics.• Layer 5 : Decision Support.
# 28 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
SEI Capability Maturity Model
# 29 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
SEI Capability Maturity Model
People Process Technology
Capability
Product/Service
Quality
Combine todefine
In turn defines
# 30 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
SEI Capability Maturity Model
OrganisationalFactors
BusinessFactors
SE-CMM
Organisation’s Engineering
ProcessDevelopment
=+
* Size* Structure* Culture* Roles
* Strategic Focus* Market Pull Vs Technology Push* Contract Vs Market Driven* Technology/ Method Support
* Focus Area (Domains)
* Capability * Support
Guidance * Design of Process
* Development of Process * Validation & Verification of Process
# 31 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
SEI Capability Maturity Model
SE-CMM
DOMAIN PORTION CAPABILITY PORTION
Result of an appraisal is a capabilitylevel profile establishing organisationalsystems engineering process capabilityin each process area.
**
**
**
*
**
Continuously Improving
Quantitatively Controlled
Well Defined
Planned and Tracked
Performed
InitialCapability Levels
Organisation
Project
EngineeringProcess Area Categories
Process AreasCommon Features
Base PracticesGeneric Practices
Generic Practices
*
*
*
1 to n
1 to n
1 to n
1 to n
1 to nBase Practices
Capability LevelPA
123.N
0 1 2 3 4 5
AppraisalResult
# 32 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
SEI CMM ‘Staircase’ of Improvement
0
1
2
3
4
5
NOTPERFORMED
PERFORMEDINFORMALLY
Base Practice Performed
PLANNED &TRACKED
Commitmentto Planning
DisciplinedTracking &Verifying ofPerformance
WELL-DEFINED
Standard ProcessDefined
Standard ProcessTailored
Defined Processis Performed
QUANTITATIVELYCONTROLLED
Measurable QualityGoals Defined
Linkage betweenProcess Capabilityand Established Goals
Objective managementof performance
CONTINUOUSLYIMPROVING
Quantitative ProcessEffectiveness isEstablished
ContinuouslyImproving ProcessEffectiveness
# 33 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Benchmarking
# 34 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Benchmarking Process
Benchmarking Process
BenchmarkMetrics
BenchmarkPractices
Benchmark Gapa) How Muchb) Wherec) When
How To Close Gapa) Improved Knowledgeb) Improved Practicesc) Improved Processes
Management Commitment
Organisation & Communication
Employee Participation
Superior Performance
# 35 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Projecting the Benchmark Gap
Time Now Endpoint(Years)
PerformanceMetricUnderMeasurement
(Product orProcessRelated)
IndustryPractices
BenchmarkGap
SuperiorPerformance
?
# 36 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Benchmarking Steps
1. Identify what is to be benchmarked.2. Identify Comparative Companies.3. Determine Data Collection Method and Collect Data.
4. Determine Current Performance Gap.5. Project Future Performance Levels.
6. Communicate benchmark findings and gain acceptance.7. Establish Functional Goals.
8. Develop Action Plans.9. Implement Specific Actions and Monitor Progress.10. Recalibrate Benchmarks.
* Leadership Position Attained.* Practices Fully Integrated Into Process.
Planning
Analysis
Integration
Action
Maturity
# 37 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
A Benchmarking Appraisal
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Design Process ControlTechnologyFacilitiesElectronic Design TeamElectronic Design ProcessProject Design ProcessTrouble ReportsInterfaces To/From the TeamStandardsCustomer RequirementsProject ManagementElectronic Design DataComponent Engineering
# 38 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
A Correlation Between Divisions
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Customer Requirements
Technology
Design Process Control
Component Engineering
Project Design Process
Interfaces To/From Team
Electronic Design Data
Electronic Design Process
Electronic Design Team
Facilities
Standards
Trouble Reports
Project Management
# 39 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
A Benchmarking Trend Analysis
0
20
40
60
80Project Management
Customer Requirements
Project Design Process
Component Engineering
Electronic Design Data
Electronic Design Team
Electronic Design Process Interfaces to/from Team
Facilities
Technology
Standards
Trouble Reports
Design Process Control
1997
1996
Best in Class
Aerospace Average
# 40 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Benchmarking & Planning
BenchmarkingInvestigations
BenchmarkPartnerVisits
Benchmarking Process
Planning Analysis Integration Action Maturity
Long RangePlans
AnnualPlans &Budgets
Time
Mid YearStart Year End Year
Special Benchmarking Study
BenchmarkMetrics &Practices Recalibrate
# 41 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Phases of Development
# 42 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Phases of Development
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Focus Delivery &ProcessPlanning
Quality &ProcessControl
Cost &ProcessImprovement
Variety &SystemIntegration
Culture
Structure
Leader/Follower
Functional Matrix
Participatory Empowering
Product Team Project Team
Innovative
CMMLevel 4
‘Managed’
CMMLevel 2
‘Repeatable’
CMMLevel 3
‘Defined’
CMMLevel 1‘Initial’
CMMLevel 5
‘Optimised’
# 43 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
A Simplistic ‘Recipe’ Approach
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
13 CMMProcessAreas
ProcessSupport :
Carter’sLayers
CMMLevel 4
‘Managed’
CMMLevel 2
‘Repeatable’
CMMLevel 3
‘Defined’
CMMLevel 1‘Initial’
CMMLevel 5
‘Optimised’
People
Technology
QualityOptimisation
# 44 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
A Simplistic ‘Recipe’ Approach
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
13 CMMProcessAreas
ProcessSupport :
Carter’sLayers
CMMLevel 4
‘Managed’
CMMLevel 2
‘Repeatable’
CMMLevel 3
‘Defined’
CMMLevel 1‘Initial’
CMMLevel 5
‘Optimised’
People
Technology
QualityOptimisation
# 45 19/11/97 N.Whitehall
Questions and Answers.