ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement

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).


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.).


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!!!


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.


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.


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.


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.


8/33

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."


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.


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.


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.


12/33

12

DIMENSIONS OF IPD


13/33

13

IPD TODAY


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


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


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


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:


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


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


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


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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:


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:


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.

Documents

ISE 670 IPPD Chapter 1 - Supplement