Customizing Concurrent Engineering Processes: Five Case Studies

Abstract Once hailed as the salvation of U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, concurrent engineering (CE) offers the potential for faster development of higher quality, more producible products. Unlike traditional, serial approaches to new product development (NPD), CE emphasizes cross-functional integration and concurrent development of a product and its associated processes. As Morgan L. Swink, J. Christopher Sandvig, and Vincent A. Mabert explain, however, CE is not a plug-and-play process. Successful CE implementation approaches differ depending on such factors as product characteristics, customer needs, and technology requirements. We can better understand those differences by examining CE implementation in the five NPD programs discussed here: the Boeing 777 aircraft, the heavy duty diesel engine at Cummins Engine Co., the thermoplastic olefin automotive coating at Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co., the airborne vehicle forward-looking infrared night vision system at Texas Instruments, and the digital satellite system at Thomson Consumer Electronics. Teams provide the primary integration mechanism in CE programs, and three types of teams appeared frequently in these projects: a program management team, a technical team, and numerous desing-build teams. Depending on the project's complexity, an integration team may be needed to consolidate the efforts of various design-build teams. Task forces also may be formed to address specific problems, such as investigating an emerging technology. Some projects emphasized collocation and face-to-face communication. Others relied on phone conversations, documents, and electronic mail. Projects focusing on design quality relied on formal presentations and periodic review meetings. Projects emphasizing development speed required frequent, informal communications. Programs addressing design quality required extended product definition and performance testing, with input from design engineering, marketing, and customers. Efforts to reduce development time involved small, informal teams led by design engineers and managers. Aggressive product cost goals necessitated intensive interaction between product designers and manufacturing personnel. Highly innovative products required early supplier involvement and joint engineering problem solving. Formal design reviews and shared design data systems aided information sharing between internal and external design groups.

[1]  P. Kotler Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control , 1972 .

[2]  B. Zirger,et al.  A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[3]  D. Wilemon,et al.  A Model for Studying R&D–Marketing Interface in the Product Innovation Process , 1986 .

[4]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product Development in the World Auto Industry , 1987 .

[5]  W. Souder,et al.  Managing New Product Innovations , 1987 .

[6]  R. Cooper,et al.  New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers? , 1987 .

[7]  D. Garvin Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality , 1987 .

[8]  Ulli Arnold,et al.  Just-in-time: Some marketing issues raised by a popular concept in production and distribution , 1989 .

[9]  K. Clark Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development , 1989 .

[10]  W. Souder,et al.  An information transfer model for integrating marketing and R&D Personnel in new product development projects , 1990 .

[11]  C. Crawford The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development , 1992 .

[12]  S. Hart,et al.  Where to Now in New Product Development Research , 1992 .

[13]  A. Griffin,et al.  Patterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing-A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams , 1992 .

[14]  Michael E. McGrath,et al.  Product development : success through product and cycle-time excellence , 1992 .

[15]  Lars Trygg,et al.  Concurrent Engineering Practices in Selected Swedish Companies: A Movement or an Activity of the Few? , 1993 .

[16]  Roy Rothwell,et al.  SAPPHO updated - project SAPPHO phase II , 1993 .

[17]  A. Griffin Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time , 1993 .

[18]  Michael Burda,et al.  Revolutionizing product development , 1993 .

[19]  R. Cooper Perspective third-generation new product processes , 1994 .

[20]  M. Graham Integrating Design and Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage , 1994 .

[21]  Vincent A. Mabert,et al.  Adding “zip” to product development: Concurrent engineering methods and tools , 1996 .