ise 670 ippd chapter 1 - supplement
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
1/33
ISE 670
Integrated Product and Process Design
Chapter 1 - Supplement
INTEGRATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:
AN OVERVIEW
Material Adapted from:
1. IPD Training Course developed by the U.S. Army Missile
Command, Huntsville, Alabama (Used with permission).
2. IPPD Training Course developed by the Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies and Development at West Virginia
University (Used with permission).
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
2/33
2
The System Development Life Cycle
Any discussion of product design and development must begin with the systemdevelopment life cycle, shown below.
T h e S y s te m D e v e lo p m e n t L i fe
C y c l e
M i s s i o n
N e e dDet e r mi n a t i o n
M i l es t o n eI
C o n c e p t
M i l es t o n e
IIP r o g r am
G o A h e a d
Val i d a t i o n E n g i n e e ri n g a n d M a n u f a c t u r in g D e v e l o pm e n t
M i l es t o n e II I
P r o d u c t i o na n d
D e p l o y m e n t
C o n c e p t
E x p l o r a t i o nD e m o n s t r a t i o n
Val i d a t i o nE n g i n e e r in g a n d M a n u f a c t u r in g D e v e l o p m e n t
I P R R P R R
S y s t emC o n c e p t s
S y s t em
R q m t sAn a l y s i s
T es t i n g
S R R
S D R S S RP D R C D R T R R
F C A P C A F Q A
P r o d u c t
B as e l i n e
F u n c t i o n a l
B as e l i n eA l l o c a t e d
B as e l i n e
S ys t em
I n t eg r a t i on
and T es t i ng
O per a t i ona lT es t and
E va l ua t i on
P r oduc t i on
an d
D e p l o y m e n t
P r o d u c t i o n
a ndD e p l o y m e n t
F ab r i -
ca t i o nDet a i l ed
D e s i g nP r e l i mn ar yD e s i g nR q m t s
An a l y s i s
Concept Exploration/Definition PhaseSystem concepts are defined and selected for further development
User requirements are translated into alternative system concepts
Concept Demonstration/Validation PhaseContinued evaluation and analysis of the most promising system designsUltimate goal to determine which concepts should progress into full scale
development System elements and critical components are assessed to identify areasof technical uncertainty that must be resolved in later program phases.
Engineering and Manufacturing Development PhasePurpose to provide the detailed design necessary to go into full scale productionActivities includes: detailed system design, design of critical manufacturing
processes, system reliability, producibility, supportability, testability, and performancecapability
ProductionConcentrates on bringing the system into full scale production at the desired costTypically consists of two segments: low rate production and full scale production.
Operation and Support Phase
Begins with deployment of the initial system and ends with its disposal
The primary activity of this phase is supporting the fielded system (i.e., tools, spareparts, obsolescence analysis, technical documentation, etc.).
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
3/33
3
The Traditional Development Approach
The traditional strategy utilized for fulfilling the requirements of the product life cycle isthrough the use of sequential, or serial design.
Tradi tional Developm ent
Appr oach
Engineer ing Dr ives DesignCus tome r
Rqmts
De s ign
E n g r
Fabricate
E n g r
Te s t
E n g rRe a dy ForProduction
Pr oduc t ion
Considerations
ProducibilityProcesses
CostTool ing
TestabilitySecond Source
Quality
LogisticsTest Equipment
Manufac turingProduct Support
QualityFinance
ProcurementHuman Fac tors
De s ign Cha nge s
Re qui r e d
How the Traditional Approach Works
Product is developed by design engineers working in relative isolation
Little input from other functional areas
Functions/ disciplines do not plan together
Some areas (i.e., manufacturing, quality, test, logistics, etc.) may not see the
design until it is virtually completed.
Ignores interdependence of functions
The Reality of the TraditionalApproach
Customer Engineering Su ppl ier s Pr oduc ti on Logistics
Outcome of Functional Isolation
Misses are
as common
as hits!!!
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
4/33
4
Pressures Forcing Change
Traditional organizations have been outstripped by the complexityof today's products, systems, and processes...
... and by the sophistication of today's global customerto
recognize value.
In the development environment of today's products we can no longer affordcostly mistakes and inefficient processes.
Designs are more complex.
Requirements are not well defined.
The systems incorporate the latest advances in technology for which
validated models of behavior do not exist.
Contracting methods and acquisition regulations that control weapon
system procurement are the result of political as well as economic
processes.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
5/33
5
Laying a Foundation for IPD
It has also been shown that 50% of the life cycle costs for an end item are set by the end
of the Concept Exploration phase and 75% of life cycle costs are set by the end of the
Demonstration/Validation phase.
Portion of Life Cycle Costs Set by End
of Each Life Cycle Phase
100
75
50
25
0
Concept
Exploration
Demonstration
Validation
Engineering
and
Manufacturing
Development
Production
Operation
and
Support
Detail design anddevelopment
System analysis, evaluation ofalternatives, system definition
Market analysis, feasibility study,operational, requirements,maintenance concept
The Timing of ChangesThe typical number of engineering/process changes during product development
NumberofEngineeering
andProcessC
hanges
IPD Production
Begins
Traditional
Sequential
Engineering
Months
8 16 24
Sources: International Technogroup,American Supplier Institute,Oregon S tate University
The Cost of ChangesTypical cost for each change made during the development
of a major electronic product
Design DesignTest
ProcessPlanning
TestProduction
FinalProduction
$ 1,000
$ 10,000
$ 100,000
$ 1,000,000
$10,000,000
Source:Dataquest, Inc.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
6/33
6
Integrated Product Development: A DefinitionOne philosophy for optimizing the system development process is to utilizean Integrated Product Development (IPD) approach. Many people try to
make IPD sound mystical and complicated but it is actually a commonsenseapproach to the design and development of systems and products. Ourworking definition of IPD comes from the Air Force IPD guide:
Integrated Product Development is a philosophy
that systematically employs a teaming of
functional disciplines to integrate and
concurrently apply all necessary processes to
produce an effective and efficient product that
satisfies the customers needs
The ultimate goal of IPD is to take a proactive view of design and addresspotential product and process problems before they become realproblems.
You may have heard the terms simultaneous engineering, concurrentengineering, total quality design, integrated product and process
design, or integrated product and process management. These are allother names for the same basic idea.
All of these terms are based on two fundamental concepts:
1) All aspects of the system life-cycle should be addressed beginning atthe conceptual design phase.
2) Products and processes (procurement, manufacturing, support, test,etc.) should be developed simultaneously rather than sequentially.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
7/33
7
A Generic IPD Model
A generic IPD model, developed by the Air Force, is shown below toillustrate the IPD relationships.
A Generic IPD Model
Customer
Approach
Teams Tools
Processes
Concurrent
Engineering
Requirements Product
Iterative Systems Engineering Process
The basic IPD model has eight primary aspects: requirements, the iterativesystems engineering process, a concurrent engineering approach, teams,processes, tools, the product, and the customer.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
8/33
8
Explaining the Basic IPD Model
Requirements
The requirements are generated by the customer, knowing the customer isan essential part of this element. Ideally, the requirements are well defined,understood, and stable. IPD expects/requires consistent and on-goingcommunication with the customer to ensure that all their needs are met.
Systems Engineering Process
The Integrated Product Development concept is based on SystemsEngineering and the Systems Engineering process. The SystemsEngineering process is a structured iterative process for design, moving
from an identified need to detailed design, production, deployment, andultimately disposal. AMC-R 70-52 defines Systems Engineering as theapplication of scientific and engineering efforts to:
a) Transform an operational need into a description of systemperformance parameters and a system configuration through theuse of an iterative process of definition, synthesis, analysis,design, tests, and evaluation;
b) Integrate related technical parameters and ensure compatibilityof all physical, functional, and program interfaces in a mannerthat optimizes the total system definition and design;
c) Integrate reliability, maintainability, safety, survivability,human and other such factors into the total engineering effortto meet cost, schedule, and technical performance objectives."
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
9/33
9
Systems Engineering Process: The basic process, pictured below, consists offour primary activities: 1) functional analysis, 2) synthesis, 3) evaluationand decision, and 4) a description of system elements.
T h e S y s t em s E n g i n e e r in gP r o c e s s
Inpu tRe qu i re m e nt s
F unc t i ona l
A na l ys i sS yn t he s i s
E va l ua t i onan d
D e c i s i on
D e sc r i p t i onof
S yst e mE l e m e nt
I t erat i ve Trade-Offs
Functional Analysis: Functional analysis addresses the two primaryquestions of system design: 1) What do we need to do to accomplish the
mission? and 2) Why does it need to be done?Synthesis: This step supplies the how answers to the what outputs offunctional analysis. Synthesis assures that the various functions are givenappropriate consideration in concept development.
Evaluation and Decision: This step in the process is concerned withevaluating program risk and cost in order to select the most appropriatesystem concepts. The ultimate goal is to evaluate all possible solutions,within the bounds of the requirements, and to select the most promisingones for further evaluation and ultimately optimization.
Description of System Elements: The last step in the systems engineeringprocess simply takes the chosen system design and describes it in terms ofthe five elements of a system: equipment (hardware), software, facilities,personnel, and procedural data.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
10/33
10
Concurrent Engineering Approach
A concurrent engineering approach attempts to break down the functional barriers byrequiring that the process and product be developed in parallel. Concurrent engineering
strives to increase communication between all members of the design team (design,quality, manufacturing, logistics, etc.) and allows the number of systems engineeringprocess iterations to be drastically reduced per life cycle phase. The Institute for Defense
Analysis, in IDA Report 338, defined Concurrent Engineering as follows:
A systematic approach to the integrated concurrent design
of products and their related processes, including
manufacturing and support. This approach is intended to
cause developers, from the outset, to consider all elements
of the product life cycle from conception through disposal,
including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements.
A disciplined concurrent engineering approach implies five specific functions:
1. The design process must continually incorporate the requirements and
expectations of the user/customer.2. There must be an integrated and continued participation of multi-
functional teams in the design of products, processes, and support systems.
3. This process of integrating multiple engineering and managementfunctions must provide for efficient iteration and closure of product and
process designs.
4. The system must identify conflicting requirements and support theirresolution through an objective choice of options based upon a
quantitative or qualitative comparison of trade-offs, as appropriate.5. A Concurrent Engineering approach should incorporate an optimization of
the product and process design.
While this explains the role of the Concurrent Engineering to IPD, it should be noted thatthe term Concurrent Engineering predates IPD. In reviewing the historical development
of the two terms, it can be found that the IPD philosophy has its origins in the ConcurrentEngineering concept. However, IPD is not limited to just engineering functions or the
development phase it focuses on all aspects of the acquisition and development process.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
11/33
11
Teams
The IPD approach uses a multi-functional design team, called an Integrated Product Team(IPT), to address design for manufacturability, design for testability, design for
supportability, and other "specialty" design requirements beginning at ConceptExploration. IPTs are the heart of IPD. They are made up of everyone who has a stake inthe outcome or product.
Successful application of IPD is based on an organizations ability to build, empower, and
nurture these multidisciplinary teams. Collectively, the team members should representthe knowledge and skills necessary to get the job done.
Processes
Under IPD, the integrated product team brings all needed functions and expertise to bear
on product decisions with a focus on product issues. To ensure the effective and efficientuse of these resources, they need to understand what processes are required and how theyimpact the product as a whole.
Tools
Tools are the documents, data systems, and methodologies that provide a sharedframework for planning, tracking, and executing a product or activity. These tools enablethe cross-functional IPT to share and integrate information and make decisions at the
lowest level commensurate with risk.
Product
Under IPD the product is everything required to design, produce, field, and support thesystem being developed. In all cases the product is the foundation of an organizations
success and ultimately dictates how well the customers needs are satisfied.
Customer
The customer is the ultimate decision authority regarding quality and product relevance.In IPD the customer is normally a member of the IPT, ensuring that their views and
concerns are heard.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
12/33
12
DIMENSIONS OF IPD
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
13/33
13
IPD TODAY
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
14/33
14
IPD Objectives
Improve the ProductCustomer Satisfaction
TimeCost
QualityFlexibility
Improve the Organization
Process capabilities and agility
Employee satisfaction and development
Innovations and competitiveness Shareholder satisfaction
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
15/33
15
IPD IN ACTION
Early discovery and resolution of problems by multi-disciplinary teams
Accountability for customer requirements
Rapid reduction of risk/uncertainty
Decision authority placed with most knowledgeable sources
Individual commitment to program success
Selection/deployment of optimal concepts, processes, and resourcesguided by focus on customer value
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
16/33
16
FEATURES OF IPD
IPD focuses on key leverage points
Empowered, interdisciplinary teams
Customer value
Collaborative processes
- early planning- manage tradeoffs- leverage resources- share knowledge
- reduce risk
Integration and automation
Improvement
- team performance- process performance- product assurance
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
17/33
17
TRANSFORMATION TO IPD
IPD is accessible to any organization.
Who: All people
What: Procedures, practices, culture, systems
How: Training and transformation
Transformation Process:
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
18/33
18
What IPD Is Not
The IPD philosophy is not something new.
IPD is not something that has to be done only one way. IPD is not just physical collocation.
IPD is not a magic formula for success.
IPD is not the arbitrary elimination of a phase of the existing,
sequential feed-forward engineering process.
IPD is not a Project Control Board.
IPD is not Conservative Design.
IPD is not just another name for TQM or Systems Engineering. An excuse to carry on business as usual under a new rubric
A quick-fix panacea or one-shot 'silver bullet'
A replacement for human intelligence, experience, and common
sense
A substitute for an organization's principles and values
An automated approach to product development
For the uncommitted and complacent
For practice by untrained teams
A task force of heroes out to save the organization
A replacement for systems engineering For organizations having weak leadership
An undisciplined process
Restricted to the defense industry or to large or small companies
Just for engineering and manufacturing functions
A new arrangement of boxes in the organization chart
Independent of other business standardization and improvement
initiatives
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
19/33
19
IPD, TQM and Systems Engineering
Dr. Jerry Westbrook has defined TQM as
A philosophy of management based on a positive
culture and respect for the customer which uses
teams, measurement, continuous improvement,
and problem solving to perpetually improve
organizational results and performance.
IPD, BPR, and TQM
IPD is a deployment
mechanismfor Total
Quality Management
IPD vs. SE vs. TQM
TQM is the philosophy of continuous improvement of all processes
IPD is an optimization of the Design Process which ensures tah all the productand processes are developed concurrently - As such it is a subset of TQM
Systems Engineering is a Structured Design Process
Systems Engineering can be attempted without IPD or TQM but it will not
be optimized However, IPD cannot be effectively implemented without the structure of
the Systems Engineering Process
TQM
IPD
SystemsEngineering
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
20/33
20
Benefits of IPD
Implementation of the IPD philosophy holds the promise of significantbenefits to your organization. The more important benefit of IPD is,
however, increased customer satisfaction. This is brought about by thedelivery of higher quality products delivered on time and on budget. Morespecific benefits of IPD include:
Reduced overall time to provide product to customer
Reduced Product Cost
Improved Quality
Improved Communication
Ease of Management
Clear Focus on Risk
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
21/33
21
Guidelines for Implementing IPD
Successful implementation of IPD requires a realization that change is needed as well as along term commitment from both management and the technical community.
Management must create and maintain an atmosphere conducive to the implementation ofthe IPD philosophy. Once this commitment has been established, an organization needs aplan of action for implementation. Ideally this should begin with specific information on
the immediate targets of change, time, energy, and resources required. Without thisinformation commitment is tenuous at best.
To achieve success, government and private industry must develop an environment whereIPD can flourish. An IPD environment will require changes in an organizations culture
and in many of the practices that have become embedded in tradition. During interviewswith industry and government group, and reviews of available literature it was found thatalthough each organization implemented the IPD philosophy in a different manner, there
were certain enablers, or critical factors, which were essential. These implementationguidelines are as follows:
Management Led Implementation:
Product Focus:
Establish Multi-functional Teams:
Select team leader from PMO or Design Community:
Encourage Customer and Supplier Participation:
Empower the Team to Make Decisions:
Begin with Training and Education:
Define Mission Statement and Goals:
Establish Milestones/Exit Criteria:
Use Regularly Scheduled Meetings and Co-location Where
Possible:
Integrate Requirements Definition:
Use the Structured Systems Engineering Process:
Use Formal Design and Problem Solving Methodologies:
Use Communication and Information Technology:
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
22/33
22
CRITICAL ELEMENTS OFAN IPDORGANIZATION
Customer Focus
Understanding of customer requirements and expectations (voice ofthe customer)
Constant attention to customer satisfaction
Rapid assessment and accommodation of new priorities
Process Focus
Systematic deployment of customer requirements
Documentation of process capabilities
Understanding of value chain and linkages with customer and supplier value chains
Representation of process work flows Identification and control critical process events and
parameters
Relentless pursuit of improvement
The Execution of Carefully Planned Strategies for Team Formationand Development Representation of all relevant life-cycle perspectives in the product development process
from the start
Rationale for team assignments
Team launch procedures and facilitator support
Team training-IDD social and analytical skills Team performance measures
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
23/33
23
Accommodation of Teams within the Organization
Physical collocation or virtual collocation
Career paths for IDD team members
Team culture, recognition, and incentives
Management directive describing team empowerment responsibilities1 authority, and
accountability
Teams operate as strategic business units in organization's value chain
Removal of organizational barriers to effective teamwork
Management Systems that Support IDD
Integrated master planning and scheduling
Risk (uncertainty) management
Value-based resource allocation
Cost/schedule control Systems
Technical performance monitoring
Program-based budget authority
Mechanisms for Rapid Product Assurance
Adoption of product standards
Use of robust design principles
Application of computer-based design and simulation tools
Rapid prototyping
Implementation of off-line and on-line quality-control methods-zero-defect program
Agility-The Ability to Respond Gracefully to Change
Coping mechanisms for schedule change, customer requirements change, operating
environment change, performance change, change-over or startup
Effective use of collaboration technology
Corporate memory
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
24/33
24
Support of Senior Management in Guiding the IDD Effort
Leadership role model
Steering committee for IDD issues
Commitment to resolution of issues at the lowest level
Commitment to support IDD through the transformation cycle
Commitment to improvement and supporting resources
Discipline
Constancy of purpose-not taking the easy way out
Doing what it takes to get the job done with integrity
Consistency of methods, measurements, policies
Foregoing 'nice-to-have' features
Minimizing changes late in the development cycle
Demanding a quality product or service
Treating a customer fairly, even when it costs
Subjugating individual interests to team consensus
Managing resources as though they are your own
Facing reality and solving problems (even in the best managed of undertakings)
Technology Systems and Tools that Provide Product Developers
Generic Services
Shared information with the ability to store and retrieve busy elements of the product, processes,
and support systems designs
Conferencing and networked communications of multimedia information among geographically
distributed team members and programs
Mechanisms for coordinating team activities
Corporate memory of best and worst practices, and the rationale for decisions taken
Integrated tools and databases
Specific Services
Computer-based analysis, synthesis, and simulation tools for supporting decisions in key
application areas
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
25/33
25
FORMULA FOR SUCCESS
The nation's most successful developers of new products and services havea lot in common.
A recent survey of 77 companies by Chicago consulting firm Kaczmarski &Associates identified some characteristics shared by successful companies.The companies:
Select new product and service team leaders based on their ability tomotivate and support team members and their willingness to "get theirown hands dirty."
Provide full-time, long-term career paths for new product and servicedevelopment professionals. More than half of successful companies
dedicate their team members to a single project, compared with 210/o of
less successful companies.
Motivate through personal recognition and financial rewards tied to
performance.
Conduct continuous market research.
Rigorously screen new product and service concepts and scrap them
when necessary.
Develop a formal process that outlines critical development steps yetallows flexibility in execution.
Make new product and service development a top priority.
Source: Investor's Business Daily, Friday, September 24, 1993
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
26/33
26
IPD PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
Customer/market focused opportunity identification, project selection
Leader identification and core team formation
Readiness assessment
Concept exploration and risk evaluation
Business case development
Executive briefing, approval, and boundary conditions
Project planning and launch of working teams
Advanced training and other remedial readiness strategies
Progress measurement-reviews at key uncertainty-reduction events
Continuous customer feedback
Lessons learned
Improvement strategies
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
27/33
27
Barriers to Implementing IPD
The Government weapon system acquisition process contains several
inhibitors to implementing IPD. These acquisition management procedurestend to reflect and reinforce an institutionalized culture of sequentialexpectations through the acquisition process. This can be identified in ourprogram office organization, in contracting procedures, in the militarystandards and specifications restrictions, and in the way in whichcontractors are rewarded for their work.
1. Customer Supplier Interface maybe functional and not team oriented.2. Design reviews are often conducted along the lines of functional
specialties.3. Financial management procedures inhibit implementation of IPD
a. Supplier initiated cost reductions can reduce profit margins.b. Incentive fee tend motivate sequential development approachc. Standards and specifications constrain innovationd. Acquisitions contracts are rigid and inflexiblee. Government regulatory structure inhibits IPD
4. Acceptance by all Organization Elements5. Team Dynamics
IPD must result in a systematic overhaul of the engineering process of thedefense industry to be effective. One danger is that IPD will be inserted asan additional requirement within contracts as opposed to a restructuring ofthose contracts. There is a risk that a misdirected advocacy for IPD merelycompetes in the current specialty trade-off environment rather thanchanging it.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
28/33
28
SUMMARY
Integrated design and delivery (IPD) involves multi-functionalteams working cooperatively to.
Satisfy customer requirements for the entire life-cycle of the product
Resolve early all conflicts among- The product requirements;
- The processes that define, test, produce, and support tile product;
and
- The resources needed by these processes.
Reduce risk during all phase of the product development
Improve all aspects of the product development process
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
29/33
29
The Results of IPD
Well understood User Requirements
New Respect for Team Members
Reduced Development Cycle Time
Lower Costs
Reduced Schedule Risks
Smoother Transition to Production
First-Time Through Producible, Supportable, Maintainable
Products
Satisfied Customers
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
30/33
30
Real World Examples of IPD
AT&T
87% reduction in defects in the 5ESSTM programmed digital switch
Reduced number of design iterations due to extensive use of CAD verification
Reduced total process time for 5ESSTM
by 46% in three years.
AT&T reduced the total process time for the 5ESS Programmed Digital Switch by46% in 3 years. They also reduced the number of design iterations and madeextensive use of computer-aided design verification saving time and money.
AT&T reduced defects in the 5ESS programmed digital switch up to 87% through
a coordinated quality improvement program that included product and processredesign.
Boeing
Reduced engineering changes per drawing from 15 to 1
Inspection-to-Production Hour ratio improved from 1:15 to 1:50
One part of design analysis reduced from two weeks (with 3-4 engineers) to
four minutes (with 1 engineer)
Boeing reduced engineering changes per drawing from 15 to 1 through improved
teamwork and use of computer-based support. Their inspection-to-productionhour ratio improved from 1:15 to 1:50 because of improved teamwork and use of
process control methods. One part of design analysis was reduced from 2 weeks(with three to four engineers) to 4 minutes (with one engineer).
McDonnell Douglas Aircraft and Astronautics Division
Cut 18 months from one step of Fighter Aircraft Development
Able to perform a preiliminary concept redesign for a high speed vehicle in 8hours instead of 45 weeks
Reduced cycle time 20-25% by using CALS digital data instead of papermethods
McDonnell Douglas cut 18 months from one step of a fighter aircraft
development. They are now able to perform a preliminary concept redesign for ahigh-speed vehicle in 8 hours instead of 45 weeks. They also reduced the cycletime 20-25% by using Computer-aided Acquisition Logistics Support (CALS)
digital data instead of paper methods.
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
31/33
31
Westinghouse
Airborne Self-Protection Jammer ALQ-165
Initial Design:
3850 Solder Joints
200 Drawings 6 Weeks to Assemble
IPD/CE Design:
0 Solder Joints
3 Drawings
4 Hours to Assemble
Naomi McAfee, Westinghouse, discussed their success on the Airborne Self-
Protection Jammer (ASPJ/ALQ-165) system. The system was designed for theNavy with the initial board design having 3850 solder joints, 200 drawings, andrequiring 6 weeks to assemble. Westinghouse engineers proposed an effort to
redesign the board funded with independent research and development funds. Amulti-disciplined product development team was established to perform the task.
The final product resulted in 0 solder joints, 3 drawings, and required 4 hours toassemble. Using this same team approach for the A-12 radar, Westinghouse wasable to deliver the radar 6 months ahead of schedule (in 13 months) and under
cost. For Westinghouse's Air Control Radar Antenna, a multi-disciplined productdevelopment team was able to design the system "for assembly". All workinstructions were patterned into the parts (i.e. tooling holes, forming directions,
assembly tabs, etc). This led to an antenna system that required no part drawings,no product inspection, just-in-time material control, and a 7:1 process-yieldimprovement.
Source: The Concurrent Engineering Conference, December 9-10, 1991,sponsored by the International Quality and Productivity Center:
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
32/33
32
Lexmark
Proprinter A PC Printer Development
Initial Design
Cost: $5,000 4-7 year development time
150-200 parts
Tool lead time of 42 weeks
IPD/CE Design:
2.5 year development time
60 parts
Tool lead time of 15 weeks
The next version of the Proprinter took only 9 months from Marketing
Personnel request to Showroom floor.
Lexmark's Robert Vines discussed the IPD(CE) successes associated with theProprinter, a PC printer development. Lexmark is an IBM alliance company.Lexmark needed a $500 printer within a 2 year development time. Their printersusually cost in the $5000 range and require a development time of 4-7 years. In
this case, the product manager was given total authority to establish a separate,"all inclusive" development team. The manager was responsible for planning,
designing, and manufacturing the product. The manufacturing engineers anddesign engineers shared offices. Direct CAD/CAM links were established withseveral vendors, so that designs and changes for long lead tooling could be
transmitted quickly. These vendors could then go directly to NC machiningresulting in further reductions in time. Using a multi-functional team approach,the total development cycle from concept to product announcement for the
Proprinter was approximately 2.5 years. Their usual printer designs hadapproximately 150-200 parts. This one had 60 parts. All parts are now loadedfrom above and there are no screws in the product. The system was completely
designed for ease of assembly. Their tool lead time went from 42 weeks to 15weeks. Their next product, a totally redesigned PC printer, took 9 months frommarket personnel request to delivering 10,000 units for showrooms. This product
also used the multi-functional team for the redesign effort.
Source: The Concurrent Engineering Conference, December 9-10, 1991,
sponsored by the International Quality and Productivity Center:
-
8/3/2019 ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement
33/33
Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned from IDA Report R-338. Note that while this report was an investigationof Concurrent Engineering whose basic principles and philosophy are foundational to IPD
as are the lessons learned. [We feel that IPD is the evolutionary result of the ConcurrentEngineering concept]
Top Management leadership and guidance is essential for successful IPD
implementation
Guiding philosophy will provide consistency in techniques
Top Management must be trained with middle and lower management to
understand their responsibility
Successful implementation requires significant cultural and managementchanges
Training should be just-in-time and specific to the task
Quality achieved through attention to the process reduces costs
Effective implementation of IPD in weapon systems development may be
hindered by DoD policy, regulations, etc.