organization prototypes for global innovation and design ...€¦ · six sigma master black belt...

Organization Prototypes for

Global Innovation and Design Excellence

A Six Sigma Project

Using the DFSS DMADV Framework

Bernard Johnson

Analytic and Leadership Excellence

Please use your <<back>> button to return to www.alefulcrum.com

Six Sigma Master Black Belt Project: Operational Improvements, Innovation, Design, and Development

Analytic and Leadership Excellence LLC, www.alefulcrum.com 2

Executive Summary This is a Six Sigma treatment of Organizational Operations at the Executive Level.

Problem statement

There is a need to improve top and bottom lines. Costs due to nonconformance and waste are too high. While cost cutting has afforded improvements, opportunities found further ahead in the design process have more room to be explored. As illustrated below, reduction of cost is a maturing approach. A new focus on "cost prevention with premium price ", that addresses global requirements engineering, robust optimization, Design for X, concept selection, Innovation and TRIZ, reduction of complexity, and knowledge management, shows much promise.

Needed (Sustainable)Competitive Level

Cost Reductions,Process Tuning, and "Leaning"

Current CostStructure

Exclusive focus on cost reduction

may lead to higher cost.

Cost (NCC) Prevention

• (Global) Requirements Engineering• Robust Optimization• Design For Manufacturing• Concept Selection• Innovation/ TRIZ• Reduction of Complexity/ Tailoring• Knowledge Management• etc



Current CostStructure



Current CostStructureCurrent CostStructure

Exclusive focus on cost reduction

may lead to higher cost.






As we can manufacture only what has been first designed, it is arguable that a focus on the design process will lead to the required future sustainable improvements. Up-front design affects all activities that support or follow. It is therefore a big "integrator" of improvements. Design-For -Manufacturability is one example.

Purpose

The purpose of the report is to communicate changes that would serve to improve operational performance within the scope of organization footprint, Innovation, Design, and Development, with reduction of waste as a central tactic. Company Divisions are the entrepreneurial managers of their own value streams and thus an audience of this report. It is also a purpose to help an organization understand the context of the many tool sets available and how to select the correct approach for a given problem.

Project Scope

Innovation, Design, and Development operations for a Global Company.



Basis and Methods used

This paper results the experience of the author in leading engineering organizations while using and developing effective methods and approaches. The scope of this experience covers Defense, Automotive, and Heavy Machinery Development Industries, and System, Embedded System, Electrical, and Components. The scope must always integrate: Leadership and People, Product Development, and Design and Innovation, with Method. While all these are needed, they are listed in order of importance. The DMADV Design for six sigma structure was selected over the DMADV Six sigma structure as the intention is to design fundamental changes.

Summary Findings and Conclusions

Western companies are at a crossroads, needing to evolve firmly entrenched cultures to bring a more competitive company. We are facing the challenge of maturing products, global competition, and global wages imbalances.

• Innovation and up-front design excellence promises sustainable results. • Exclusive Focus on end phase material cost can increase life-cycle cost • High reliance on process alone can increasing complexity and impede execution • Need to lean or tailor existing processes • Need to define and exploit synergies • Organization complexity can impede execution • Requirements engineering is essential to keeping rework to a minimum. • Networks should continue to be developed as a means to manage knowledge. • DFSS embodies many of the improvement needs • A company-wide DFSS Framework should be established rather than by division

• Industry may have products that are mature relative to their technology "S" curve

• To counter this, a company's operations must deliver innovation and high quality in every sense. Up front quality prevents excessive life-cycle cost through waste and innovative products supports higher prices.

Define

As a result of the discovery interviews, $xxx M of annual possible savings are estimated within the categories of Material, Resources, Depreciation, and Sales affected by factors described by executives. The customer of this effort and information are Division and Corporate Leaders. This report aims to illustrate operational design changes to divisional and corporate leaders.

Measure



How do we know we have a problem? Product development processes are usually measured during execution and these measurements usually reflect ample improvement opportunity. Examples:

• % red projects, % objectives attained, design review status, NCC cost metrics, milestone reviews, and other gated process measures.

Consolidating information from multiple sources yielded the following

Concerns

• Timely resource availability • Design Issues • Supplier issues • Requirements Engineering • Missed Milestones • Not (able to) Follow process • Late project Kick-off • Poor estimation • Customer changes • Late product releases

• Safe Launch • Cost • Improve Design-to-cost • Knowledge management • Complexity • Shareable Functions • Process Execution • Improve Innovation • Insufficient OEM VOC

• Project members may be unable to consistently execute all prescribed processes. • The Red, Green, Yellow trends are not improving over months or years • High percent of NCC as a percent of sales • Warrantee costs may be a concern. • Significant rework within the Innovation, Design, and Development phase • 50% of the NCC cost should be target for prevention • Supplier capability to deliver may not always be well understood before sourcing • Experiences are not always translated into organization-wide knowledge

Those organization procedures that address these concerns may already exist, and so

should be considered for a DMADV Six Sigma and/or Lean improvement projects.

This list is reduced in order to focus on the Priority Targets: Complexity, Suppliers, Shareable Functions, Requirements Engineering, Knowledge, NCC Other targets such as Platform, Cost, Launch, and Innovation are considered secondary as they are a consequence of or are blocked by the primary targets. This thinking is related to Theory of constraints. The primary drivers should be addressed first. This

causality is determined with the concept of the transfer function or X-Y diagram.

At a more detailed level, other opportunities can be identified by establishing a company wide Manager Network and clustering “resistant" problems, or those that that have resisted solution and incur significant cost.



Example Resistant Problem Clusters:

• Plastics present quality, bonding, injection, and intellectual property opportunities • CAD tools may be fragmented by the need to serve multiple customers • Sensors and actuators having thermal, durability, or emissions concerns • Warrantee/ Quality and Process • Software architecture and ability to effectively test • PCB: Layout, EMC, manufacturing issues • Packaging: Failing to meet environmental/ leak specifications • Cost gaps

Analyze

"Stability" is a new term added to the triple constraint (Time, Cost, and Scope), and is used as a central argument in selecting the primary areas to further investigate. Those related to Muda, which consumes energy and results in excess cost and inability to execute. We should release this energy sink to enable additional improvement activities or processes.

Primary Drivers:

1. Complexity 2. Suppliers

3. Shareable functions

4. RE

5. Knowledge 6. NCC

Transfer Functions

An organization's basic mission is to transform money or resources into more money or resources, the more effectively it can do this the better. This is called adding value. Contemporary thinking often focuses on identifying constraints or weaknesses in the processes and then improving them, often by adding more of them. If indiscriminately applied, a negative consequence of this approach can be increased operational complexity with performance and process adherence metrics still declining. Determining the relationships or causality of this project is difficult due to its scope. An X-Y diagram is used to understand the interrelationships of important factors and to help prioritize the critical few.



Functional Requirements

The key functional requirements identified are all related to reducing waste. It is desired to free up this energy to apply it to other improvement activities. Therefore they must be addressed first. This approach is far superior to simply cutting short term costs. Functional Requirements

• Process Tailoring • Timely Resources • More-Common Processes • Value Stream Mapping • Improve up Front Design • Adopt a Preventative Culture • Follow the Process

• Measure organization complexity • Assess supplier capability • Global RE Process • Deploy RE Tool • Effectively Share expertise • Effectively Share Functions • Improve knowledge management

Design

The purpose of the Design step is to produce detailed design actions that address the Functional Requirements. The design actions addressed in this report are: • Deploy DFSS • Develop Networks to better utilize

knowledge

• Global Requirements Management • Manage Organization Complexity

Other areas that are also important but not addressed are: • Better assess/ Control Suppliers • Make processes more common

• Tailor Processes • Early Resource deployment

Deploy DFSS

DFSS addresses the Time, Function, Quality issue earlier described by adding stability and sustainability to an organization. DFSS address almost all of the concerns mentioned in the "Functional Requirements or Features" listed above. DFX includes manufacturability, quality, serviceability, and the like. If all factors within DFX are not considered, it is more likely that the savings found within an isolated change will be offset by costs later incurred by quality problems for example. While DFSS introduces incremental engineering costs earlier, the overall engineering costs and life-cycle costs are likely to be reduced as there will be less need for re-work later in the product development cycle. Starting earlier with DFX for example, also benefits us with incremental EBIT through a lower cost and higher quality product at the initial production stage, rather than waiting for optimizations during production, later. The introduced terminology "cost prevention with premium price" means that the cost is prevented rather than extracted or "saved" later, while also affording the opportunity for higher price due to a better designed product. Finally, DFSS may be demanded by OEM Customers, as has been the case for other frameworks such as CMMI.



Implementation Tactics:

Long term instructions on how to roll out such an initiative is available in the literature (Pyzdek, Yang). In the mid term, there is a risk that your company divisions may approach DFSS independently, which would result in waste and complexity. To avoid this risk a common DFSS framework should be constructed, to which all divisions can subscribe. This also presents a single process interface to customers that may buy different products from different divisions, but still see you as the same company. Such a framework can be approached through a company wide Network of Managers as was described in the problem clustering section above. Short term, quick successes should be demonstrated to build confidence and set the stage for the mid and long term.

Design to Cost

To make fundamental improvements, it must be understood that waste (rework and NCC for example) contributes to a shortage of resources. The shortage of resources for a project spills over and prevents proper execution of the next project. The cost of that next product is therefore too high. Design to cost (DTC) should not be confused with cost extraction, which is a reactive tactic. DTC can also benefit by using methods beyond basic brainstorming. Another improvement opportunity is to use the ideal (or targeted) cost as the target rather than a budgeted target. The targeted cost can be based on technological limits rather than business targets, thus affording the opportunity to reach lower costs.

Rework/ NCC/ Defects

Correctly Make

the wrong thing

Incorrectly Make

the right thing

Requirements

understood

Incorrectly

Correctly

Execute

Faulty

Process

Incorrectly

Execute

The right

Process

Deviations

Not agreed

By Customer

Requirements

Not complete

Those:

Solution dependent

Technology dependent

Insufficient Resources

Those:

Consumed by Muda

Provided too late

Lacking expertise

Muda

Cost Reduction Cost too

high



Deploy Networks

The sharing of expertise, knowledge, and resources for the benefit of eliminating redundancy and increasing effectiveness is a long known and fundamental opportunity. While approaches such as lessons learned databases have been attempted, they have not yet provide satisfactory benefit. Forming core focus groups is an effective alternative. It is essential that the network is drawn to be involved, by demonstrating to the participants that the activity adds value to them personally.

Example Networks:

Network Status Importance DFSS Framework Engineering Managers Design to Cost The DFSS network should be a high priority as it embodies so many improvement opportunities. Knowledge management through networks is the organizational implementation formula for "lessons Learned" and "DFX". Much of what needs to be improved can benefit from effectively managing knowledge and people.

Tools to Control Complexity

Complexity is a characteristic relevant to organization, process, and documentation.

Documentation Complexity

The tremendous amount of communication required to develop products crosses organizational and geographical boundaries and poses serious challenges. This situation can be aided by designing a documentation structure and management protocol which will result in reducing ad-hoc trial & error iterations. The phrase avoid "design by email", a metaphor indicating informal communication, is posed. A document tree approach affords the following advantages: - Transparency or visibility of the overall project by all participants - Enables the ability to assign ownership of the documents - Enables Quality Assurance - Enables Change control - Enables improved quality - Enables scrutiny to assure that the document architecture is relevant to:

• Customer Modularity Reuse • Platform Available Technology

In addition, a central internal specification or guideline is an excellent way to capture lessons learned. This type of specification is updated with all the key technical lessons and referred to for each new project.



Organizational Complexity

Up to the present time, the capability of team members is often the strongest consideration in composing a team. Organizational complexity should be used as a balancing metric in making decisions concerning the organization at all levels. A simple equation can describe the number of organizational interfaces within the scope of a project for example. If this metric is high, the organization structure should be reevaluated. Up to the present time cost figures strongly in organization footprint. Considering skill set distribution through proximity analysis according to the methods prescribed in a separate paper, is another consideration in designing organizations or teams.

Process Complexity

Value stream mapping should be conducted on key processes

Suppliers NCC Platform/ Portfolio Innovation DTC

Process to better manage requirements globally

Larger companies often centralize development to develop core solutions or platforms that are intended for broad application. If these solutions require too high of a percent rework to suit local markets, then Muda or waste is generated, and this can not be afforded by a competitive organization. Estimating the percent reuse-of-off-the-shelf-solutions per original-work produces a direct insight into % reused, or not-Muda.

• Improved RE can reduce the amount of funding spent on Global Generic • These savings can be directed to targeted region specific generic • Requirements Engineering along with an overall systems engineering approach,

both strongly supported by DFSS, can reduce the amount of development iterations (waste or Muda).

• Additional waste is incurred by having to test not only the final product, but the iterations

as well.

Holistic Requirements Engineering Approach

A holistic understanding of how requirements flow from the customer through the organization is required in order to design a solution. Products may be considered to be composed of:

A. Region Specific Generic B. Global Generic C. Project Specific components

Suppliers also play a key role in the requirements management process.



Needs: 1. Clearly define and effectively management the three mentioned areas 2. Reflect Requirements Engineering in your organization. For example roles,

responsibilities, and accountability should be established. 3. Metrics, such as percent-reuse must drive improvement through accountability.

An example of how to allocate responsibilities between regional and the platform groups is provided in the paper.

Collaborative Framework

A collaborative framework or process is required to manage the aforementioned needs. Several regions or Markets feed requirements into the Global RE process. Once requirements from the Markets are defined, decisions can be made concerning which of the three types of development will address each requirement. An organization structure can be established where each market or region has a local domain representative or LDR. These LDR's collaborate with or even comprise the global RE organization. The scope of such a requirements engineering organization might includes important areas such as: Architecture, Microcontrollers, ECU roadmaps, Software Architecture, software drivers, etc. This global organization would work to generate the specified platform solutions. It is important to measure the use of these solutions in the actual products, and to have the reward system of key personnel tied to this metric. Through this means reuse can be increased, and Muda reduced.

Role out Concept

Product development cost is composed of development that is Project Specific, Reused from prior projects, Region Specific Generic, and Global Generic. These are presented generally in order of decreasing costs. Transforming the organization will take years or generations of products as the pipeline of development responds to the new process. Cost 1. Current products have high cost attributed to rework and project specific solutions 2. The next generation may reuse more from prior projects and funding to Global

Generic activities should be reduced. This should result in lower cost. 3. The future product should enjoy the lowest cost due to the new RE framework. This is the end of Executive Summary. For Further information please see the following report outline and introduction, followed by the body of the report and appendix.



Outline 1 Define

Need: Determine the need, mission, and what is important to the company. Define goals of the design activity. Define the project scope. Financial Benefits, Definition of the Customer, Problem and Business Need, Project Charter, and abbreviated SIPOC

2 Measure Data: Measure what is CTQ from the customer's perspective. This section comprises or refers to raw data. Establish the design goals of functional requirements. Introduction, how do we know we have a problem? Information Gathering Process. Information Sources, Consolidation of information, Additional Information, Prioritization CTQ's, Project Assessment Methods, Correlating the VOC and CTX's, Validating Measurement Systems

3 Analyze Analyze the options available for meeting the goals. Define and evaluate innovative concepts to meet the goals and create value for the customer, Introduction, Mission, CTX's and Muda, X-Y transfer Function, Potential Design Concepts, Functional, Requirements or Features

4 Design Detailed Design of the new product, service, or system to deliver value to the customer Introduction, Deploy DFSS, Implementation Tactics, Improvements to DTC, Deploy Networks, Tools to Control Complexity, Process to manage Requirements Globally, Continuous Improvement Process

5 Verify

6 Conclusions

References

Pyzdek The Six Sigma Handbook Yang Design for Six Sigma Kennedy Product Development for the Lean Enterprise Morgan The Toyota Product Development System

List of Appendices

Appendix 2A PMO Appendix 3A Operational Dynamics Appendix 2B NCC Appendix 3B Process Complexity Appendix 2C Not Exist Appendix 4A Reuse Appendix 2D Discovery Appendix 4B Savings Appendix 2E Customer F Appendix 2F EngMgr

Appendix 4C Continuous Improvement

List of Figures

Introduction Fig 0A DFSS vs. SS Map Fig 0B Method Selection Process Fig 0C Map of Report Structure Fig 0D QFD Linkage Fig 0F P-Diagram Architecture

Define Fig 1A Relationship of Project to Customer Fig 1B QFD Structure

Measure Fig 2A Company Performance Fig 2B Information Sources Fig 2C Information sources Fig 2D Potential CTX's Fig 2E Discovery Data Fig 2F VOC CTX Correlation Fig 2G VOC to CTX Mapping

Analyze Fig 3F Propagation of Waste Fig 3A X-Y Diagram Fig 3A2 Financial Driver Tree Fig 3B Defect Entry Point Fig 3C Key to 3B Fig 3D CTX to Function Mapping Fig 3E Analyze P-Diagram

Design Fig 4A FR to DP Map Fig 4B FR to DP P-Diagram Fig 4C DFSS Umbrella Fig 4D DTC as a DFX subset Fig 4E DFSS Swing Diagram Fig 4F DFSS Strategy Fig 4G Project December Plan Fig 4H Problem to Tool Space projection Fig 4I Improvement to DTC Fig 4J Context of DTC Fig 4K Complexity Illustration Fig 4K2 Complexity and Skill Set Process Fig 4L Requirements engineering Muda Fig 4M Global RE Context Fig 4N Global Responsibilities Allocation Fig 4O RE Collaborative Framework Fig 4P Composition of Development Cost Figure 4Q RE Document Structure



0 Introduction

0.0 Problem Statement

The problem statement can be found in the Executive Summary and the Charter.

0.1 Qualifications

The author uses terms such as may, might, could, estimate to indicate relations or assertions that could require further validation.

0.2 Why is this paper important

Western companies are at a crossroads. They need to improve yet their cultures are firmly entrenched and it is very difficult to change such a large system quickly. Attempts to improve over the past decades, through waves of new paradigms, have enlivened the ranks of consultants, while insufficient success has left industry a bit pessimistic. While the core ideas behind the SEI's CMMI, the PMI's PMP, Lean, Six Sigma, Kaizen, Toyota production system, TRIZ, TQM, and the like, are useful, collectively they can and do simply overwhelm an organization. The virtues of these methods only become effective after they have been internalized and part of the culture. If we assume that the "time constant" of such cultural change is on the order of two to five years, what will happen if a new wave hits every six months? Will the company's culture understand, digest, test, and learn enough to gain advantage from the approach? Making matters worse, each camp and group of consultants is motivated first to grow their company, and so they sell; and we buy. The resulting complexity and confusion overshadows western product development.

At a time when we need to be most effective, our operations are generally in a state of high, and increasing, complexity. The root of this lays in the strong and real need felt by companies to improve their top and bottom lines. As ventures with "new methods" have been accompanied by less than the needed improvements, management is understandably cautious. At the same time, they do not wish to reject the possibility that the latest method will help, or be left off the popular band-wagon, so these methods are usually given anemic support for the most part. Such a watered down approach may actually reduce value, as it brings in additional cost while sometimes reducing effectiveness. Management, understanding this, shifts their focus to the cost side, which is also unlikely to produce. Why?

Managing cost directly is not the only or best way to reduce cost. Cost is a lagging metric, and those tactics taken to reduce it directly may set the stage for higher costs later. Thus a "positive feedback loop" is established that can push the organization toward instability. A common example is holding back resources in the beginning of a project but providing more resources later when the program demonstrates symptoms. Similar effects are due to removing material cost from a product, but somehow increasing warrantee costs or reducing customer satisfaction. While this situation is known, it is often not acted on.



Regarding methods (such as those mentioned above), resources sufficient to truly understand and internalize the knowledge are often not available. Consultants therefore are often employed, but they do not necessarily have our company's best interest in mind, as their first motivation is to make their company successful. According to this story, bits and pieces of various methods, seeds, can integrate themselves into a company's culture. As the seeds grow, rather unnourished, operations become complex and confused. What is the answer?

Knowledge is the key to catering to the company's values, and selecting from available methods. This knowledge is something to be acquired, and that takes energy. A rational person will expend energy only if there is motivation. The interested reader can explore the various motivation models. For example, Maslow's hierarchy of motivation enumerates self-actualization, esteem, belonging, safety and security, and basic needs. A company reserves the right to grant these rewards to an employee based on their knowledge, and more importantly results. An employee is also best suited to act in accordance to the company's values. Thus consultants may not deliver the knowledge as effectively as an employee. Of course consultants have their place and further, the right employees must be in care of the knowledge.

Employees have a more vested interest in the success of their organization and are a latent source of knowledge, innovation, and energy.

0.3 Purpose:

The report has two purposes 1. Communicate changes that would serve to improve operational performance within

the scope of Organization Design, Innovation, Design, and Development. The author is not aware of existing processes that prescribe how to assess and operate an optimal organization or improve these operations across many organizational units. As the divisions are the entrepreneurial managers of their own value streams, it is they that seek to understand and effectively meet the needs of their OEM customer specific to their products. This report proposes specify changes that reduce Muda and sub-optimization.

The Muda (or waste) terminology is adjusted for the development phase rather than manufacturing. Those items most applicable are underlined. "Parts" includes non physical items such as software modules as well as physical. a. Complexity is the unnecessary or excessive: steps, documentation,

permissions, or interfaces. b. Labor: inefficient operations or excessive headcount. c. Over-production: producing more than or before it is needed. d. Space is storage, parts waiting or waiting rework e. Energy Wasted human energy through redundancy, loss of knowledge f. Defects is repair, rework, repeated service g. Idle Materials are idle parts or assets



h. Time spent that adds no value i. Transportation or movement that adds no value j. Safety

2. Help the organization understand the context of the many tool sets available and how to select the correct approach for a given problem.

0.4 Audience:

1. Division and Corporate leaders for insight to their operations 2. Engineering managers to understand the application DFSS to operations 3. Six Sigma Black Belt course requirements

0.6 Difficulties:

1. Balancing between the needs of listed audiences was difficult. For example in order to effectively address our operational complexities, the tools or methods used were either tailored or additional to those prescribed in the black belt course.

2. The project was difficult due to its addressing a large scope at a very high level. 3. The recommendations contained herein could be considered large projects

themselves. 4. It was also a challenge to integrate a large body of preexisting findings into the

DMADV framework. 5. Characteristic to all preventative or avoidance oriented endeavors, the

recommendations contained herein, must be taken with a little faith. This is no different than the decision to introduce Six Sigma into an organization, a recommendation that only proves itself over time.



0.8 Key Terms used in this report are

Muda Waste, see the purpose section

RE Requirements Engineering

COPQ Cost of poor quality

NCC Non Conformance Cost, a superset of COPQ

OD Organization Design Paper

IDND Innovation, Design, and Development

DFSS Design For Six Sigma

PDP Generic term meaning Product Development Process

DMADV Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify

CA Customer Attributes

CTXs Critical to "X": Quality, Cost, Service, Reliability, Satisfaction, etc

FR Functional Requirements without implementation

DP Design Parameters

PV Process Variables

QFD Quality Function Deployment

VOC Voice of the Customer: Often interpreted as more qualitative in nature. In this report the VOC will be taken as Corporate directives as mentioned in the Measurement section.

Sub-optimization: Optimizing of one part without due consideration to the whole system.

Global Generic: Core assets developed to be used by a division across all regions

Region Specific Generic: core assets developed to meet the needs of a specific region

Project Reuse: Assets from a prior project applied to a following project

Project Specific: Development exclusively applied to a specific project



0.9 Structure of the approach

Select Method: This report is structured to the DFSS DMADV approach; a systematic approach using a collection of tools that help design quality into the subject rather than to improve an existing product, the latter being the focus of Six Sigma under the framework of DMAIC. DFSS can be applied to: products, operations, organizations, or processes. While the Define, Measure, and Analyze phases are contained in both the Six Sigma and Design for Six Sigma approaches, the content can be different between the two approaches. Figure 0A.

Fig 0B describes how to navigate to the appropriate method. This report uses DFSS DMADV

Figure 0B

OrganizationOrganization Operations

ProceduresProducts

DFSS

Existing

New DFSS

SS SS

•Products are affected by both Operations and Organization•Procedures compose operations and are affected by Organization•New Products or Procedures should be generated through DFSS, Designed.•Existing Products or Procedures should be addressed through SS, Improved.•At the highest level, organization and Operations can be viewed as a system

Do you havea problem?

Root Cause•KT•Clarify•Is/ Is Not•5 Why•8 D•TRIZ

Procedure Exists?

ConsiderDMAIC

Process Related?

Yes

WasteRelated

ConsiderLEAN

Need toImprove?

ConsiderKAIZEN

Procedure Executed?

Eliminatereason fornot using

Yes, but still have a problem

Select Method

ConsiderDFSS

Yes

No, Product Related

Yes

Yes

1

1

In Production

Yes1

•Deviation•Unknown Cause•Need Cause

or

Yes

-New-Innovate-Create

-Existing-Improve-Repair

Basic Screening

Do you havea problem?

Root Cause•KT•Clarify•Is/ Is Not•5 Why•8 D•TRIZ

Procedure Exists?

ConsiderDMAIC

Process Related?

Yes

WasteRelated

ConsiderLEAN

Need toImprove?

ConsiderKAIZEN

Procedure Executed?

Eliminatereason fornot using

Yes, but still have a problem

Select Method

ConsiderDFSS

Yes

No, Product Related

Yes

Yes

1

1

In Production

Yes1

•Deviation•Unknown Cause•Need Cause

or

Yes

-New-Innovate-Create

-Existing-Improve-Repair

Basic Screening



Structure of Report

In keeping with the purpose of this report to rationalize the many approaches available, the below figure seeks to show the chosen DFSS approach in short form along with Kepner Tregoe and Deming frameworks.

Fig 0C

Plan

Appraisal

Problem Analysis Decision Analysis Potential Analysis

Do

Kepner Tregoe

Deming

Assess Value at all times: Cost/ Benefit, Feasibility/ Risk

Measure Analyze Design

Define DFSS

Verify Choose Approach Try to solve problem Select best

NEED VOC/ Identify Cust.

• Business

• Needs/ goals Gap Analysis Project Charter Risk Analysis

DATA

•Discovery

•Lessons Learned

•Affinity Diagrams

•QFD:VOC to CTX CTX:

• Identify and

• Prioritize Relate to Metrics Measurement Systems Risk Analysis

SPECIFY/ DECIDE 'XY' T-Function QFD: CTX to FR Functional Req Structure the Problem

• Affinity

• Pareto

• Architecture

•Process Maps Design Alt's

•Modeling

•Benchmarking

•Standards Select Concept Risk Analysis

DESIGN QFD: FR to DP Design Parameters Innovate

•TRIZ

•Simulations

•Prototypes

•Architecture Specific Design Assure Design

• DOE, FMEA

• Value Stream

• Robust Design

• Axiomatic

• S/N Implementation

• Plan Pilot

• Process Cap

VERIFY Control Plan

•Standardize

•Metrics Tool Transition Plan

•Pilot/ Prototype

•Final Adjustments

•Train

•Hand-off to Proc owner Project Closure

•Lessons Learned

Measure Analyze Design Verify

Do

Allocation

Function Budget

Size Serviceability

Reliability Weight

etc



0.10 Use of QFD

A strict QFD approach is not used in this report as the scope is complex and large, and there are many (perhaps nonlinear) ways to approach waiting and decisions. The philosophy of it is used however, to develop the information. P-Diagrams are also used as a navigation aid.

Fig 0D

CA: Customer Attributes CTXs: Critical to "X": Quality, Cost, Service, Reliability, etc FR: Functional Requirements without implementation DP: Design Parameters PV: Process Variables Interpretation of QFD coordinates in light of operational intention CA: Generally rather vague or high level CTXs: More precise, a step in the direction of how to realize the CA's FR: Solution oriented Requirements but not able to implemental DP: Implement able or Design oriented PV: Integration into the operations

CTXs

CA

H

Wh a t

House Of

Quality 1

Functional Requirement

CTXs

H

Wh a t

House Of

Quality 2

Design Parameters

FRs

H

Wh a t

House Of

Quality 2

Process Variables

DPs

W h a t

House Of

Quality 2

Prioritized CTXs

Prioritized Functions

Prioritized Parameters

Prioritized Variables

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify



0.11 Use P-Diagrams

The P-Diagram is based on the concept of converting 100% of input energy (input signal) into 100% of the ideal function.

A system is ideal when 100% of all of its input (energy) is transformed into output energy. Anything under 100% means energy goes into undesired function. The Parameter Diagram or P-Diagram takes the inputs from a system/ customer and relates those inputs to desired outputs of a design that the engineer is creating, considering non-controllable outside influences to document Signal Factors, Response Variable (or ideal function), controllable Factors, noise or uncontrollable factors, and error states or failure modes. The Signal inputs transfer through the design process of the product and is output into the Ideal response. The signal is operated on by Control Factors such as design, materials and processes that are controllable. Error States are experienced by an end user when using the product, system, or process. Noise Factors can influence the design but are outside of the influence of the designer, such as environmental factors, customer usage, interfaces with other systems, degradation over time, piece-to-piece variation, and others. The Noise factors should be dealt with by making the system insensitive or robust with respect to them

Application to this project

The P-diagramming approach is used to help decompose the scope of the project. Several P-diagrams are therefore used rather than one, and they are modified to suit the need at each stage of the decomposition. Outputs are not typically separated into Response verses Error states, leaving this to be understood implicitly. For example High NCC could be considered an error state, or zero NCC could be considered the Ideal Response. This distinction of Response verses error is not made.

Fig 0F, P-Map Architecture

MeasurementSection

Prim

ary

CT

X's

ToAnalyzeProcess

Secondary CTX's

Fig 2BInformation

Sources

Signal Response

Controllable Factors, FR

ToDesignProcess

Signal

AnalyzeSection F

R

Noise Factors


ToImplementation

Process

DesignSection D

P

Noise Factors


RepeatVerifySection D

P

Noise Factors

MeasurementSection

Prim

ary

CT

X's

ToAnalyzeProcess

Secondary CTX's

Fig 2BInformation

Sources

Signal Response


ToDesignProcess

Signal

AnalyzeSection F

R

Noise Factors


ToImplementation

Process

DesignSection D

P

Noise Factors


RepeatVerifySection D

P

Noise Factors



0.12 How to use this report

• Executive Summary informs the reader of the subject matter and key conclusions. • Outline directs the reader to sections of interest for more Body (Define, Measure,

Analyze, Design, Verify) uses the appendix for further information. • Introduction provides introductory information, qualifying comments, and key terms.

A list of figures is shown which may guide the reader to information of interest. • Design section provides proposals while the Define, Measure, and Analyze

Sections describe the reasoning that maps the VOC to those proposals.

1 Define Phase

1.1 Financial Benefits Assessment

$xxxM of estimated possible savings are identified in the measurement section, these calculated by estimating the percentage of waste within the categories of Material, Resources, Depreciation, and Sales affected by the CTX's described by the interviewed stakeholders. The amounts were risk adjusted before arriving upon the final figure. As this is a hypothetical* project, the calculations should be considered preliminary, pending involvement from finance. * The author prefers to consider the results a prototype design, as it is the first synthesis of such scope and sets the stage for further refinement.

1.2 Define the Customer

The customer of this effort and information are the Division and Corporate Leaders. The end consumer is generally an OEM. As each division within a company is formally responsible for understanding and meeting the specific needs of their many OEM customers, it is they that must be the customer of this report and its purpose. This report serves to illustrate operational design changes to divisional and corporate leaders. Please see Fig 1A.



Fig 1A

1.3 Problem and business need/ COPQ

The following factors impinge upon the automotive industry in general.

1. Maturity: end products that are mature relative to technology or "S" curve 2. Competition: from emerging economies 3. Wage imbalance: output per cost can be higher in developing economies.

These factors affect OEM and supplier market share and profit. To counter these factors, a

company's operations, PDP, and organization must deliver high quality in every sense, at the

lowest cost. Innovation is related as more capable products can demand higher profit margins.

These business-needs drive the VOC as described in the Measure section.

Fig 1B

Business

Needs

CTXs

CA

H

Wh a t

House Of

Quality 1

End Consumer

OEM

OEM

Integrated Product

Division

Division

Sub- System

DFSS Black Belt

Project

Design Changes

Operations Operation

Customer



1.4 Project Charter

Note: A SIPOC structure can be found within the charter

Project Title: IDND Operations Improvement

Mission: Recommend opportunities for improving operations and OD to gain efficiencies, effectiveness, and superior innovation and customer orientation to enable future market success. Scope: Company Operations: Innovation Design, and Development, IDND.

Problem Statement: NCC is too high (quality needs to improve), Function can improve to capture more market and higher prices (innovation). Costs are too high. Milestones are not met with sufficient regularity.

Stakeholders

Name Title OEM customers CEO

Team

Name Title Sponsor

Project Leader Bernard Johnson Team Members Members of OD team

Manager Network Representatives

Success Criterion

Item Description Opportunities for improvement are defined Opportunities are accepted by executive

management A plan and strategy exist for implementation



Requirements and Constraints

Item Description Finish by Consider Global constraints

RISKS/ Potential Problems/ Barriers

Description The scope is large and data is difficult to obtain. na

Control

Item Description Link Quality Cost

Schedule Reporting

Key Milestones: Measurable Deliverables

Topic Date

Key Actions: What needs to be done to enable progress?

Topic Status

INPUTS: Inputs, Suppliers, and Specifications, and rank

Input Supplier Specification NCC Reports Component and Material

Surveys Project Reviews Company Targets

Customer Issue Reports

Customers

Process Owners Division Heads Operational Excellence



2 Measure

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to gather information and requirements. Existing information may be considered as well as new information found through additional discovery processes. Product development operations are by necessity adaptive, and as such there is less quantitative data available than what might be found in a high volume process. Never the less there is ample qualitative data available and such was discovered in the following process.

2.2 How do we know we have a problem?

Companies typically have a PDP, below which may be division specific procedures. Performance to those procedures may be measured and reported. Measurements probably indicate ample improvement opportunity. As the purpose of this report

is to design improvements, process measurements will not be recounted here. See Appendix 2A

for supporting evidence. Additional evidence is found through the author's tracking of

Engineering reviews. In this case formal metrics were put into place along with a continuous

improvement program and root cause classification

Fig 2A

Inputs ---- Tasks ---- Outputs -----




Process

Procedure

Phase

Measurement

•Object Reviews

•Financials

•Status

Supporting Methods

Need/ Best in

Minimum

Both Product Quality, Process Execution The chart is a characterization of all projects rolled up. Difficulties exist in both:

-product quality and

-process execution



2.3 Information Gathering Process

The information was gathering according to the following process

1. Develop and gain approval for the purpose of the activities and the approach

2. Identify key stakeholders and interview them according to the purpose and approach

3. Send the interview results back to those interviewed to afford opportunity for corrections

4. Compile the information into tabular form, combining and classifying similar information

5. Communicate the compiled information to the stakeholders to verify the conclusions

6. Assess the possible actions

2.4 Information Sources

The following sources of information are used

Fig 2B

Fig 2C

Report Source How processed Possible Sources Appendix 2A PMO Statistics and inspection Proj Managers/ RY Project

Reviews Appendix 2B NCC None Division Controllers Appendix 2C Null Null Appendix 2D Discovery Classified, structured,

reviewed, approved CEO, COO, Div VP's, Corp Heads

Survey Stakeholders

A 2D

Lessons Learned

8-D's FMEA's Project Reviews

A 2A

OEM INPUT

Consolidate Clarify

Prioritize

NCC

A 2B

Cust Issues A 2E

Mgr Network

A 2F

OD

A 2E

a b c d



Appendix 2E Customer Classified, structured, reviewed, approved

Division representatives

Appendix 2F Manager Network Classified, structured,

reviewed, approved Engineering Manager Network

Appendix 2G RDFP Classified, structured, reviewed, approved ,reviewed

CEO, Div Representatives

2.5 Consolidation of information

Information gathered during according to the above process constituted a blend of advice, vague

information, CTX's, Functional Requirements, and solutions or designs. This overlapping

information, was clarified, aggregated, and reviewed.

Fig 2D

Potential CTX's/ Appendices 2A 2B * 2D 2E 2F 2G ** Timely resource availability Y SV Design Issues Y Y Y Y Supplier issues Y Y Y Y Requirements Engineering Y Y Y Y Missed Milestones Y Y Not (able to) Follow process Y Late Kick-off Y Poor estimation Y Customer changes Y Y Y Customer late releases Y Safe Launch Y Y Cost Y Y Y Improve DTC Y Knowledge Y Y Complexity Y Y Shareable Functions Y Y Y Process Execution Y Improve Innovation Y Y Y Y Insufficient OEM VOC Y .



2.6 Additional Information

Information relative to the Appendices but not captured elsewhere in the report. Appendix 2A PMO

• PM's are unable to consistently execute all prescribed processes of the PDP

• Customer issues tracking must sufficiently represent the external VOC

• Red, Green, Yellow trends may not be improving over long periods Appendix 2B NCC

• NCC of $xx per sales of $xx or roughly x% • NCC

"NCC is all cost due to deviations of defined processes. This includes additional cost before and after delivery + all cost not fulfilling process requirements before SoP. For example

• Scrap • Cost after delivery • Rework or sorting • Plant returns • Special transport • Field returns/ warranty

• • While the means to quantify these NCC factors in the development process may

not exist, managers may observe significant rework directly. Warrantee returns may also be a concern.

• Fig 2E shows the estimated amount related to NCC that could be saved is $xx.

• It is estimated that $xx/ $yy, or zz% of the NCC cost could be prevented.

Appendix 2D Discovery Interview information, no further comments here Appendix 2E Interactions with customer concerning specific issues

• The syntheses section indicates that supplier capability to deliver may not always

be well assessed. • Experiences may not always be translated into organization-wide knowledge.



2.7 Prioritization

As the Discovery Appendix 2C contained the most important factors and was the most thoroughly

analyzed, it is carried forward. This is valid as the few CTX's selected, based on the soon to be described

strategic factor, were adequately contained. Future work could more thoroughly analyze the information

not contained in Fig 2E for additional insight.

Fig 2E, Discovery Data Summary

Number of Survey participants 18 Total estimated Financial Benefit

Number of consolidated comments 55 Possible = $xx per year.

Source

# C

om

men

ter

Label

Euro, M,

Each Year

Ranking

0->10

BB

Rank

0 ->10

Mission

Ranking

KanoA+B+C+

D

'0->10

Ranking

Simple

0->10

Ranking

Strategic

10, 6 2 Complexity € 3.2 2.5 4.4 3 1.67 P

16, 17 4 Suppliers € 15.8 4.9 6.3 1.25 3.33 P

3, 8, 4, 13, 14 5 Shareable € 13.0 2.9 5.7 2 2.22 P

8,2, 10, 13, 16 5 RE € 3.2 3.9 6.1 3 5.00 P

4,13, 15, 9, 5, 18 6 Knowledge € 8.3 4.3 6.6 4 4.44 P

2, 6, 4, 13,7, 12 12 NCC € 14.3 5.4 6.9 7 4.44 P

5, 15, 10 3 DFSS € 3.2 5.5 6.3 1.25 1.67 P

1, 15 3 Platform € 21.0 3.8 7.6 3 2.22 S

1, 8, 11 3 Cost € 7.9 6.8 2.6 3.5 3.33 S

9, 4, 14 3 Launch € 4.5 6.2 2.6 8 6.67 S

1, 12 5 DTC € 19.8 6.3 6.3 5 8.33 S

9, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15 6 Innovation € 7.6 4.7 6.7 1.5 4.44 S

• See Appendix 2D for description of valuation or prioritization methods.

• Those selected as highest priority are marked "P".

Relevant Procedures Complexity Knowledge DFSS Suppliers NCC Platform/ Portfolio Shareable Functions Innovation Cost RE DTC Launch

Discovery Appendix

Strategic Criterion

Other Appendices

1 2 3 4 5 6



Recommendation

As some of the above procedures exist and pertain to subjects found to be strategically

significant, they could be considered for future Six Sigma projects.

2.8 Assessment methods

The six assessment methods that head the above table are:

1. Financial gain 2. MBB relevance 3. relevance to the mission 4. Kano / Klein 5. simple method 6. strategic significance

Also shown are the coded indication of the particular survey participants, and

how many comments were aggregated into the various line items. The details of these methods are found in Appendix 2D. While final values for most of the assessment methods are shown in Fig 2E, the step of validation by a financial representative was not done. This is because the strategic significance assessment was used. In summary, the secondary items are viewed as a consequence of the primary few.

Strategic Significance

The strategic significance ranking method number 6 rests on the following argument: • Relationships between the potential CTQ's are more important than the value of

each item unto itself. For example both poor RE and Supplier Management drive NCC. This coupling will be described in the X-Y analysis found in later sections.

• The other valuation criterion are also subjective • It is critical to find the fundamental constraint in operations that lead to loss of

efficiency or efficacy. It is should be agreed among your stakeholders that effectiveness and ability to execute must improve.

The primary drivers are those that affect ability to execute. All other factors may be said to be either consequences of these prime drivers. An organization will simply not have the capacity to execute the others without first addressing the primary drivers. Of course this considers again the concept of transfer functions, coupling, or causality, which is addressed in the Analyze section. The principle however is sound.

Primary drivers Secondary Complexity Platform Suppliers Cost Shareable functions Launch RE Innovation Knowledge NCC



2.9 Correlating the VOC and CTX's

The VOC as defined in this report is labeled in Fig 2F below and was obtained through communications with company strategy advisors combined with the author’s personal experience. The CTx's were extracted as described in the above process, with those meeting the strategic criterion noted in a row with a blue numeral 1.

Fig 2F Key CTx Cost Product QualitySm: Strength of Metric or

allignement to VOC or

Strategy

Bold > Average

Sm =

Wp x Wm x Wa /

50

Linkage

I: Influence of CTx on VOC

Wa: Ability to Measure

Wm: Weight of Metric

Ws: Strategic Weight

Wp: Weighted Product

1 Week

2 Significant

3 Most Strong

5 Absolute Pro

duct

NC

C

Sha

reable

Fun

ctio

ns

Sup

plie

rs

Kno

wle

dge M

an

agem

ent

Pru

duct La

unch

Outs

ourc

ing

Com

ple

xity

Innovatio

n

Pla

tform

Sup

plie

rs

Kno

wle

dge M

an

agem

ent

Re

quirem

ents

Engin

ee

ring

Focus o

n V

OC

Qua

lity

Sup

plie

rs

Kno

wle

dge M

an

agem

ent

Pru

duct La

unch

5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 5

VOC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

GROWTH PROFIT ALIGNMENT I S

On Time Development Milestones 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 5 26Defect free product 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 3 3 30Compatable Development Processes 0 0Innovative Solutions 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 3 2 16Requirements Management 2 2 2 2 5 11Supplier of Choice 1 5 3 2 1 2 2 5 3 2 2 3 30

10% Top Line Growth y-o-y 0 5 3 5 1310% EBIT ;12% Stretch 1 3 2 1 6100% EBIT to Cash 0 2 2 1 5

Effective Global Footprint 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 5 2 3 3 2 31Platform approach 0 3 2 5Customer Relationship 0 2 3 1 6Logistics 0 0Value to the customer 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 5 5 5 34Efficiency/ output percapital cost 1 5 2 3 2 2 3 17#1, #2, #3 Market Position 0 3 3 2 5 3 3 19

Learning/ Growth Employer of Choice 1 3 3 3 9

Internal Ops

Customer

Financial

2.10 VOC to CTX Mapping

The P-Diagram depicts, as does the QFD, the mapping process that converts the generalized

VOC information into CTX's. It also serves to highlight those factors that

Can be controlled and in this case to separate out the secondary factors. These factors are

deemed secondary as they are a consequence of the primary CTX's

Meet Strategic

Criterion



Fig 2G

2.11 Validate Measurement Systems

Appendix 2C presents a process for relating a set of measurement metrics to the VOC. As this project is hypothetical, the process and conclusions are yet to be validated and should be considered as prototype. The VOC is considered to be the company goals.

These VOC dimensions are related to the Metrics dimension through a linkage matrix. According to this analysis, if we were to use "strongest metrics", then the VOC concerns that are best represented are: (Sm) Defect Free product, supplier of choice, top line growth, EBIT, Footprint effectiveness, customer relations, value to the customer, and market position. Those least represented are: On time delivery, compatible process, logistics, and employer of choice. Ws is the strategic weight while Wi is the ability of the strongest metrics to measure the VOC.

MeasurementSection

Prim

ary

CT

X's

Complexity

Suppliers

Shareable FunctionsRE

Knowledge

NCC

ToAnalyzeProcess

Secondary CTX's

Pla

tform

Pro

duct

Cost

Launch

Innovation

Oth

er

*

Other as mentioned in Fig 2D and supported by the corresponding Appendices

Fig 2BInformation

Sources

Signal Response


Tim

ing

Education

Short termverses long term or systemic

Capabili

ty

Solv

ency

SuppliersResources

Innovation

Qualit

y

Tim

e

Price

MeasurementSection

Prim

ary

CT

X's

Complexity

Suppliers

Shareable FunctionsRE

Knowledge

NCC

ToAnalyzeProcess

Secondary CTX's

Pla

tform

Pro

duct

Cost

Launch

Innovation

Oth

er

*

Other as mentioned in Fig 2D and supported by the corresponding Appendices

Fig 2BInformation

Sources

Signal Response


Tim

ing

Education


Capabili

ty

Solv

ency

SuppliersResources

Innovation

Qualit

y

Tim

e

Price

GROWTH PROFIT ALIGNMENT Wi Ws

On Time Development Milestones 2 3

Defect free product 5 5

Compatable Development Processes 1 1

Innovative Solutions 3 4

Requirements Management 3 3

Supplier of Choice 5 3

10% Top Line Growth y-o-y 4 3

10% EBIT ;12% Stretch 4 5

100% EBIT to Cash 3 3

Effective Global Footprint 4 3

Platform approach 3 3

Customer Relationship 4 3

Logistics 1 2

Value to the customer 4 5

Efficiency/ output percapital cost 3 2

#1, #2, #3 Market Position 4 5

Learning/ Growth Employer of Choice 1 2

Internal Ops

Customer

Financial



The metrics found to be the weakest in representing the VOC: EVA Low Cost % % Reuse DFSS Projects % Sales booked Highest Price PU Low Proj

Complexity CMMI Ranking

Headcount NCC Training On Time Delivery Hourly Rate Red Reviews PMO office Stats Employee

Feedback Note that it should not be construed that these metrics are weak or useless rather they are weak with respect to the VOC as described. There is a cautionary note in the measurement section on interpreting weighting schemes.

The metrics found to be the strongest in representing the VOC are: EBIT Y/ Y % Grth Low Cost PU PPM New Products % Market Cust Metrics COPQ Launch Cash Flow If only these strongest metrics are considered and the sum of their Linkage numbers are added up and scaled, we can see how these "strongest metrics" reflect the VOC (see the column directly to the right of the VOC in Appendix 2C).

-VOC most strongly represented (Wi: 4's and 5's): Defect Free Prod 10% Top Line Grth Effective Footprint Value to Customer Supplier of choice EBIT Customer Relations Market Position -VOC least strongly represented (Wi: 1's and 2's) On time Milestones Compatible Process Logistics Employer of choice

3 Analyze

3.1 Introduction

The analyze phase intends to define concepts that suit the functional requirements. In systems engineering language this means to allocate the requirements to design candidates and conduct a trade-off study or concept selection process to determine which of the concepts best suits those requirements. The concepts will need to receive some degree of design in this phase, at least to the architectural level. In an embedded system for example, a requirement might be met either with a requirement being allocated to a piece of discrete hardware, to a smart sensor or actuator, or to software. The more detailed the design is in this phase, the more reliable the concept selection process is likely to be. On the other hand it is not always desirable to do detailed design on all concepts, so some estimation is involved. Balance is required.



3.2 Mission

Recommend opportunities for improving company operations and organization design to gain efficiencies, effectiveness, and superior innovation and customer orientation to enable future market success. The triple constraint stipulates Time, Cost, and scope. Please refer to the Appendix 3A where Time, Function, Quality, and Stability are discussed. "Stability" is a new term in this light, and is used as a central argument in selecting the primary CTX's

3.3 CTX’s and Muda

The Primary Drivers (or critical few CTX's) mentioned in the measurement section are:

Complexity Suppliers Shareable functions

RE Knowledge NCC

Revisiting the rationale mentioned in the measurement section, these CTX's are those related to Muda, repeated here below while omitting the less applicable factors. Muda consumes energy which results in cost and inability to execute. Though, we should release this energy sink as an enabler to additional improvement activities or processes, we do not typically adopt this tactic. Fig 3F illustrates how Muda can feed back into the development process and prevent us from making the product correctly. Please see Appendix 3A for further explanation.

Muda

a. Complexity is the unnecessary or excessive: steps, documentation, permissions, or

interfaces.

b. Labor is inefficient operations or excessive headcount.

c. Space is storage, parts waiting or waiting rework

d. Energy Wasted human energy through redundancy, loss of knowledge

e. Defects is repair, rework, repeated service

f. Idle Materials are idle parts or assets

g. Time spent that adds no value

h. Transportation or movement that adds no value



Fig 3F

The challenge is to determine the next level of detail, or functional requirements that can be designed to. Following, the CTX's are addressed in turn.

3.4 Transfer Functions

Explanation and cautionary notes A fundamental axiom is that the relationship between inputs and outputs can be quantified. Many tools are related through this axiom, some examples are:

• X – Y diagrams • Metric measurement • Ishikawa diagrams • Linear algebraic expressions • Fault-tree diagrams • Differential equations • Tree structures • Polynomial relations • Statistical relations • Nonlinear relations

Rework/ NCC/ Defects

Correctly Make

the wrong thing

Incorrectly Make

the right thing

Requirements

understood

Incorrectly

Correctly

Execute

Faulty

Process

Incorrectly

Execute

The right

Process

Deviations

Not agreed

By Customer

Requirements

Not complete

Those:

Solution dependent

Technology dependent

Insufficient Resources

Those:

Consumed by Muda

Provided too late

Lacking expertise

Muda

Cost Reduction



When systems satisfy the up front assumptions of such frameworks (like statistical independence or linearity), these tools apply powerfully. As the system departs from the assumptions, the methods afford approximations only or become complex. The independence axiom of Axiomatic Design seeks to minimize the coupling between Design parameters and functional Requirements. This it does within the framework of linear algebra, matrix transfer functions, sensitivity matrices, and other analytical techniques. Inherent to the scope of this project is a massive degree of vague coupling. Such coupling makes decision processes difficult at organizational levels. If sophisticated tools are applied to this complex, changing, and uncertain system, they might obscure results. It may not be appropriate to apply highly precise or static methods to such systems. The analyst should always keep in mind the balance between the theory and the application in approaching answers to difficult challenges. Organizations figure this out qualitatively, but unfortunately it may leave the conclusion that there are no helpful methods and ad hoc processes ensue.

Caution should also be used in decision or weighting processes. While there are many frameworks and weighting schemes proposed, they are all approximations or models that may not adequately characterize the subject. The first benefit of these approaches is in assuring that the many dimensions of the problem are considered and the intelligence and concurrence of the stakeholders is developed and deployed. A decision process can rarely be reduced to a simple mathematical expression. Always check to assure that the assumptions required of any tool, or method, are valid before applying it to your case. If the assumptions are not valid, then the analyst may be misled by the results.

Considering the enormous scope of this project, an X-Y diagram or transfer function is used to understand the interrelationships of the identified CTXs and to help prioritize the critical few. The reader will find that the terms in Fig 3A correspond to the problems identified during the "discovery" process when executive management is interviewed. Appendix 2D, fig 2D_A contains the raw data. An Ishikawa diagram or "fish-bone" diagram may also be useful.



Fig 3A, IDND X-Y diagram

In this report, high level operations are addressed. The relationships or transfer functions may be more complex than would be the case if it were a widget under study. The mission of a company is to transform resources into more money or resources. This is also called adding value. The more effectively it can do this the better. Contemporary thinking often focuses on identifying constraints or weaknesses in the processes and then improving them, often by adding more of them. A negative consequence of this approach is increased complexity while performance declines.

Fig 3A2

This figure is a "Financial Driver Tree", illustrating the classical relationships that managers focus on. The key is to understand the benefit of preventing cost rather than extracting it late in the life cycle. It is also important to understand that more innovative products can command a higher price.

Process/ Culture

DTC: TargCst, DTC, ReDTC {rationalize with OEM price downs}

DFMA'd, reduced ReDFM

Complexity

SALE

Right Products

Innovation

COST / UNIT (Life Cycle)

Footprint

* Knowledge

Cost per Skill (LC) Skill Set distribution

Training Product Knowledge

Learning

Lessons Learned

Network Communication

Data Indexing

Project Execution

EBIT

Product

Organization

Managed Supplier

Solvency Capability

Product Design/ Development DFSS/ Systems Engineered

Managed Requirements

Life Cycle

Sales/ BD/ KAM

Customer Focus* Tools

Process High/ Detailed

Level

VOC

Roadmap

Inelasticity

Supplier Material Cost

Domestic NwDom

Shareable Functions

Portfolio Reuse

Platform

Function Quality *Process Effectiveness

NCC /

(2)

(2)

(1)

(1)

Quoting Process

Consistent Face to *Change Control

-Company -Customer

Where should we concentrate our resources,

and why?

Governance

Change Control



3.5 Potential Design Concepts

Complexity

One form of complexity is process complexity. Appendix 3B spells out a series of questions to diagnosing our use of process. The key conclusions are:

• Processes may not be consistently applied due to limits of time or knowledge. The processes may also contain non value added steps or need to be tailored.

• The processes may not be fully available or accessible. This may also be a training or infrastructure issue.

• The process is not usually executed fully, with steps often omitted

• As a solution, more processes tend to be added, which further reduces the ability to execute them.

• Often the detailed method, or "how-to" is insufficient • Measurements indicate inability to consistently execute the given processes

NCC

The following types of NCC are considered. Defects introduced in the manufacturing phase are outside the scope. Defects can be introduced in any phase of development and, of for the most part, the earlier they are extracted the better. • Df: Field problems due to causes injected in the development phase • De: Manufacturing problems due to causes injected in the development phase • Cd: Development rework due to causes injected in the design phase • De: Development rework due to causes injected in the development phase • Bc: Portfolio problems injected in the generic phase Fig3B, Defect Entry point

Requirements

Types of NCC ReworkField Prob

Warantee PPM Delivery Portfoliog f e d c b

Intro\Observed Retirement Deployment Manufacturing Development Design GenericG Retirement

F Maintenance

E ManufacturingD Development [2] [2] [ x] [5] [1] [1,5]

C Design [2] [3]B Generic [2] [3,4]

Outside the scope of IDND Not possible/ no influence

1. Sufficient Processes exist, 2. Processes are followed

[S's], [D's] Source, Description



A PDP should address efficiency and effectiveness and relevant toward these

types of NCC. A PDP should both prevent the defect form being injected and, should extract it as soon as possible when it is detected. Fig 3B indicates the possible points for a defect to be introduced and where it can be finally observed. In addition it indicates if there is sufficient process in place to address the minimization of defect introduction and defect extraction. For example a FMEA can serve both to prevent and to extract defects, while a test simply extracts defects. Also noted is whether the process is being followed or not, this to indicate the case when there is adequate process but it is not being executed for some reason for example. Fig 3C, Description Key # Description Root Cause 1 Not following Prescribed Process Ineffective Resource Utilization 2 Lacking lessons learned capability Division Sub-optimization 3 Insufficient Requirements

Management Focus on platform as the goal rather than the product that it serves.

4 Insufficient Portfolio Management Knowledge + above 5 Suppliers Ineffective Resource Utilization Solution 1 Resource efficacy. Process Complexity 2 3 Deploy Global Requirements Process 4 5 Resource efficacy. Process Complexity

3.6 Functional Requirements or Features

The relationship between the CTX's and functional requirements (FR) are shown in fig 3D. It

should be noted that these functional requirements are all related to reducing waste. Repeating

what has been mentioned earlier, waste reduction is essential as it frees up the energy to pursue

other improvement activities. Therefore they must be addressed first. This approach is far

superior to simply cutting short term costs.

Fig 3D, CTX to Function Mapping

Functional Requirements

Pro

ce

ss

Ta

ilorin

g

Tim

ily

Re

so

urc

es

Co

mm

on

ize

Pro

ce

sse

s

Va

lue

Str

ea

m

Ma

pp

ing

Imp

rove

up

Fro

nt

De

sig

n

Ad

op

t a

pre

ve

nta

tive

cu

ltu

re

Fo

llow

Th

e

Pro

ce

ss

Me

asu

re

org

an

iza

tio

n

co

mp

lexity

Asse

ss

su

pp

lier

ca

pa

bili

ty

Glo

ba

l R

E

Pro

ce

ss

De

plo

y R

E

To

ol

Eff

ective

ly

Sh

are

exp

ert

ise

Eff

ective

ly

Sh

are

Fu

nctio

ns

Imp

rove

kn

ow

led

ge

ma

na

ge

me

nt

1. Complexity + + + +2. Suppliers + +3. Shareable functions + + + + + +4. RE + + + + + + +5. Knowledge + + +6. NCC + + + + + + +

CT

X's



Fig 3E, Analyze P-Diagram

4 Design

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of the Design step is to produce a detailed design(s) following the preceding DMADV steps. What is described in this section may be considered a high level design relative to detailed implementation. Considering the very large scope covered in this report, the steps taken through the DMADV are not as analytical as might be the case for a widget. Figure 4A shows the mapping between Functional requirements and Design specific actions. As shown in Fig 4A, the design actions are enumerated: 0, 1, 2, or 3, corresponding to the extent to which a design is provided. Only those indicated as 2 and 3 are addressed in this report: Addressed • (3) Deploy DFSS • (3) Develop Networks to better

utilize knowledge

• (2) Global Requirements Management

• (2) Manage Organization Complexity

Not addressed • (1) Better assess/ Control Suppliers • (1) Make processes more common

• (1) Tailor Processes • (1)Early Resource deployment

AnalyzeSection

Fu

nctional

ToDesignProcess

Noise Factors

Secon

dary

CT

X's

Ma

teri

al P

rice

Pro

duct P

rice

Signal ResponseP

rim

ary

CT

X's

Complexity

Suppliers

Shareable Functions

RE

Knowledge

NCC


CTX's

Fig 3CT

imin

g

Education


Ca

pab

ility

Solv

ency

SuppliersResources

Innovation

Qualit

y

Tim

e

Price

AnalyzeSection

Fu

nctional

ToDesignProcess

Noise Factors

Secon

dary

CT

X's

Ma

teri

al P

rice

Pro

duct P

rice

Signal ResponseP

rim

ary

CT

X's

Complexity

Suppliers

Shareable Functions

RE

Knowledge

NCC


CTX's

Fig 3CT

imin

g

Education


Ca

pab

ility

Solv

ency

SuppliersResources

Innovation

Qualit

y

Tim

e

Price

From

Fig 2G

Fig 4B


Analytic and Leadership Excellence LLC – ALE, http://www.alefulcrum.com 43

Fig 4 A inputs to Fig 4A come from Fig 3E.

Design Parameters

1 1 1 3 2 1 2 0 3

Imp

rove

Re

so

urc

e

De

plo

ym

en

t R

isk

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Assu

re P

roce

sse

s

are

ta

ilore

d

acco

rdin

g t

o V

alu

e

Ad

d

Co

mm

on

ize

Pro

ce

sse

s

be

twe

en

Div

isio

ns

De

plo

y D

FS

S

Pro

vid

e M

ea

ns t

o

ma

na

ge

org

an

iza

tio

na

l

Co

mp

lexity

Pro

vid

e a

pro

ce

ss

to A

sse

ss S

up

plie

r

Ca

pa

bili

ty

De

sig

n a

pro

ce

ss

to b

ett

er

ma

na

ge

Re

qu

ire

me

rnts

,

glo

ba

lly

De

plo

y R

E T

oo

l

De

plo

y N

etw

ork

s

Process Tailoring +Timely Resources +

Commonize Processes +Value Stream Mapping +

Improve up Front Design +Adopt a preventative culture +

Follow The Process +Measure organization complexity +

Assess supplier capability +Global RE Process +

Deploy RE Tool +Effectively Share expertise +

Effectively Share Functions +Improve knowledge management +

01

2

3

ProposalDesigned

Detailed Design

No action

Fig 4B

For sake of completeness the P-Diagram for this step is also shown, but without further

discussion.

DesignSection D

P Implementation

Noise Factors Response

DP


Tim

ing

Education


Capabili

ty

Solv

ency

SuppliersResources

Innovation

Qualit

y

Tim

e

Price

Fig 3B

Signal

DesignSection D

P Implementation

Noise Factors Response

DP


Tim

ing

Education


Capabili

ty

Solv

ency

SuppliersResources

Innovation

Qualit

y

Tim

e

Price

Fig 3B

Signal

3E



4.2 Deploy DFSS

Not only does DFSS address the FR's of improving up front designs and adopting a preventative culture, but it encompasses many of the potential CTX's found in Fig 2D. 4D illustrates DTC as a subset of DFX.

Fig 4C

Considering DTC as a subset of DFX broadens the focus of the initiative to include manufacturability, quality, serviceability, and the like. DFSS in turn fell out of the X&Y transfer function analysis, Fig 3A. If all factors within DFX are not considered, it is more likely that the savings found within DTC will be offset by costs later incurred by quality problems for example.

Fig 4D

DTCTitle:

*Objectives: Reduce Product Cost

How: Define the problemNetworkDrivers/ MotivatorsMethods

Risk if not done: ModerateAbility to Influ: Moderate

Value Add: High

InnovationTitle:

*Objectives: Innovation & Problem Solving

How: NetworkTRIZKepner TregoeCulture

Risk if not done: ModerateAbility to Influ: High

Value Add: High

VOCTitle:

*Objectives: Interface/ Satisfy

How: OpportunisticallyMeet their Requiremeents

Risk if not done: High, reactionary to CustomerAbility to Influ: Moderate

Value Add: High

DFXTitle:

*Objectives: Optimal Product

How: ExplainTrainExceptExecute


Value Add: High

Design for•Life Cycle Cost•Mfr, Assembly (muda)•Inspection and TEst•Logistics•Recycling/ Disposal•Service•Safety•Profit•all "illities"

Existing Initiative

Identified Priority

Subset of DFSS

Is a subset of

Exclusive focus on cost may

lead to higher cost

Portfolio MTitle:

*Objectives: Right Products

How: Define the ProblemProcessDrivers/ Motivators

Risk if not done: ModerateAbility to Influ: Low

Value Add: Moderate

Requirements MTitle:

*Objectives: Make it once correctly


Risk if not done: HighAbility to Influ: Low

Value Add: High

DTCTitle:




Value Add: High

DTCTitle:




Value Add: High

InnovationTitle:




Value Add: High

InnovationTitle:




Value Add: High

VOCTitle:




Value Add: High

VOCTitle:




Value Add: High

DFXTitle:




Value Add: High

DFXTitle:




Value Add: High

Design for•Life Cycle Cost•Mfr, Assembly (muda)•Inspection and TEst•Logistics•Recycling/ Disposal•Service•Safety•Profit•all "illities"

Existing Initiative

Identified Priority

Subset of DFSS

Is a subset of

Exclusive focus on cost may

lead to higher cost

Portfolio MTitle:




Value Add: Moderate

Portfolio MTitle:




Value Add: Moderate

Portfolio MTitle:




Value Add: Moderate





Value Add: High





Value Add: High





Value Add: High

DTC

DFX

DFSS

X&Y

CostPrevention

CostSavings



In Fig 4D and 4E, the opportunity afforded by DFSS is depicted. Starting earlier in the development process with DFSS also introduces incremental engineering costs earlier. The costs later are likely to be lower however as there will be less need for rework or changes late in the product development cycle. Starting earlier with DFX for example, also benefits us with incremental EBIT through a lower cost and higher quality product at the initial production stage (rather than through later improvements).

The terminology "cost prevention with price support" mentioned in Fig 4E implies cost is prevented rather than designed in and then later extracted. It also implies that a superior design can command a higher price.

Fig 4E

Actual Referen

ce Cost (and Qual)

Final Cost (and Qual)

Commodity

Market Price

Near

Potential Cost (and Qual)

Cost Extracted

Running

EBIT

WIP Savings Big Costs Extracted with "DTC"

WIP

Minimum

Directionally correct, values to be Cost

OPPORTUNITY

Incremental EBIT

Incremental Development Cost



4.3.1 Implementation Tactics

• Long Term: Instructions on how to roll out initiatives is available (Pyzdek, Yang). • Mid Term: As a larger company is composed of independent divisions, there is a

risk that these divisions approach an Improvement framework such as DFSS independently, which would be wasteful and counter to the making of processes more common. To avoid this risk, a common DFSS framework should be constructed, to which all divisions can subscribe. This also presents a single process interface to our customers. Such a framework can be approached through division wide Networks. These are discussed shortly.

• Short term: To build confidence and set the stage for the mid and long term, quick successes should be demonstrated. This is accomplished through the Networks as well

DFSS addresses the Time, Function, Quality issue as described in Appendix 3A by adding stability and sustainability to our organization.

Quantifiable

Referenc

Final Cost (and Qual)

Commodity

Market Price

Near

Potential Cost (and Qual)

Early

Cost Extracted

Running

Max EBIT

WIP

1. Incremental Engineering Started Earlier

2. Produces a lower price unit

3. EBIT enhanced before running change

4. Lower NCC

5. Reduce need for Running Changes

Actual Referen

ce Cost (and Qual)

Minimum

Cost

Price Designed

Cost Designed

DFSS - Portfolio -

VOC - Requirements Management -

TRIZ - DOE -

Robust Optimization - DFX -

AKA Systems Engineering -

DFM -

DFA -

Cost Prevention With Price Support

Incremental Development Cost

Incremental EBIT



4.3.2 Quick-Win Approach

Fig 4G

Fig 4H

HISTORY MONTH 3 MONTH 2 FUTURE

Set of Opportunities Gathered

Pair up Tool with Problem

• Problem is visible • Solution is important • Tool is suitable

Secure Consultant

• Domain expertise

Secure Team

Kick - off • Charter • Goals/ Targets • Team • Approval • Communication Plan

Detailed Plan

Risk Management

Results

Review

Final Report

Training

Begin Framework Activities

Begin Structure Role - Out

Near Term Focal Point , Tools

Method Centric

Structure Centric

HISTORY MONTH 1 FUTURE

Set of Opportunities Gathered

Pair up Tool with Problem

• Problem is visible • Solution is important • Tool is suitable

Secure Consultant

• Domain expertise

Secure Team

Kick - off • Charter • Goals/ Targets • Team • Approval • Communication Plan

Detailed Plan

Risk Management

Results

Review

Final Report

Training

Begin Framework Activities

Begin Structure Role - Out

Near Term Focal Point , Tools

Method Centric

Structure Centric

PROBLEM SPACE

DFSS TOOL KIT

PROJECTION

PROBLEM SPACE

DFSS TOOL KIT

Pilot Programs

PROJECTION



Price Cost Cost Cost Cost CostQuote Projected Target Ideal FinalEstimate

P Cq Cp Ct Ci Cf

Price Cost Cost Cost Cost CostQuote Projected Target Ideal FinalEstimate

P Cq Cp Ct Ci Cf

4.3.3 Improvement to DTC

DTC is viewed in this report as a subset of DFSS through the DFX part of it. Fig 4E describes the benefit of acting to remove cost early through DFSS methods. Also see Fig 3A.

Fig 4I

Key P Price Cq Cost Estimation at Quote Cp Projected Cost Ct Target Cost Ci Ideal Cf Final Cost

In Fig 4J, an OEM customer may represent their target cost to your company,

and through the negotiation process, a price based on requirements and assumptions, is arrived upon. The negotiations consider Cq to estimate profit or EBIT. The projected cost, Cp is that real time estimate carried out throughout the project, and when the Cp is greater than the quoted Cq, there is a high motivation to conduct a cost reduction. If such an imbalance does not exist though, a DTC effort may not be conducted, even if there is excess cost within the product. The reader will notice that this describes a reactive feedback loop tied to the quote cost Cq. This philosophy may leave the company unaware of possible cost reductions when Cp>Cq. . The opportunities to improve this are the following:

1. Improve target costing, Ct, to improve the closeness of Cq to Ci. 2. Understand the ideal cost, Ci and target cost to it rather than Cq. 3. Effectively track Changes of Requirements and Assumptions 4. Charge for any changes above to recover incremental costs

By understanding and pursuing the ideal cost, the process is transformed into a proactive exercise with minimize cost as the target.



Fig 4J

4.3 Deploy Networks (3)

The sharing of expertise, knowledge, and resources for the benefit of eliminating redundancy and increasing effectiveness is a long known and fundamental opportunity. While approaches such as lessons learned databases have been attempted, they do not yet provide satisfactory benefit. Forming core focus groups appears to be a more effective approach. It is essential that the network is drawn to be involved by demonstrating to the participants that the activity adds value to them personally. The proposed networks are shown below and correspond to the problem clusters described in Appendix 2F and recently updated to include the following Domains. Network Proposal

• Plastics: Quality, bonding, injection, suppliers, Intellectual Property • Tools/ CAD: Fragmented tool set • Sensors and actuator: thermal, durability, emissions, contamination • Software: RE, architecture, ability test, synergy/ re-use, CMMI, automation • PCB: Layout, EMC, cost, suppliers, manufacturing issues • Packaging: environmental/ leak requirements, cost, suppliers, etc • Mechanics: environmental/ durability requirements, size, cost, suppliers • DFSS Framework • Cost Management

OEM Process

Acquisition Negotiation

OEM Subsystem Target Cost

OEM Target Price

Price, P Requirements, R

Assumptions, A

Development DTC

Projected Cost Cp

Final Cost Cf

Cost Estimation Process

Cq


Target Costing

Ci

OEM Process

Acquisition Negotiation


OEM Target Price

Price, P Requirements, R

Assumptions, A

Development DTC

Projected Cost Cp

Final Cost Cf

Cost Estimation Process

Cq


Target Costing

Ci



4.4 Tools to Control Complexity (2)

4.4.1 Introduction

Axiomatic principles, common sense, and many system engineering methods and tools indicate that complexity is an undesirable characteristic. Complexity is relevant to consider for the organization, process, and documentation.

4.4.2 Documentation Complexity

There is a tremendous amount of communication/ coupling needed in developing products. This communication can cross both organizational and geographical boundaries, posing significant challenges. Improved communication and understanding can be had by designing a documentation tree along with protocol that governs: ownership, change control, operations, quality assurance, etc. The improvement will come by reducing ad-hoc trial & error and systematizing our documentation. This means we can control the process and approach the target of "do it right the first time". A document tree approach affords the following advantages: - Transparency or visibility of the overall project by all participants - Enables the ability to assign ownership of the documents - Enables Quality Assurance - Enables Change control - Enables improved quality - Enables scrutiny to assure that the document architecture is relevant to: • Customer • Modularity • Reuse

• Platform • Available technology

RE Sys

RE Box

RE

RE Comp

SWHWRE

RECircuitMech

RE REASWIO

RE

Doc1 Docn

Docn

RE Sys

RE Box

RE

RE Comp

SWHWRE

RECircuitMech

RE REASWIO

RE

Doc1 Docn

Docn

4.2.3 Organizational Complexity

Organizational complexity should be used as a metric in making decisions concerning the organization at all levels. Since there are so many possible interfaces that can occur between organizational elements, a network approach is proposed as a means to quantify organizational complexity. The equation for number of interfaces is shown in Fig 4k. This equation was used in the OD paper to quantify company organizations and their complexity by division. See the OD paper for the data. The number of organizational nodes was used as an input Example: Number Type

1 Hardware 2 Software 2 External Customers 5 Nodes 10 Interfaces

Fig 4K

•Unnecessary complexity is undesirable for organizations as it is for products.

•As in products, organizational failures tend to occur at the interfaces.

•Modeling an organization with Nodes, a complexity measure can be calculated.

•In practice, each division identifies Nodes of HW development, SW, etc., producing a totalnumber of Nodes for that division.

•The number of possible interfaces can be calculated I = N x (N -1)/2

CHART DIVISION X EXAMPLE

HWPM

Sys

HW

SW

HWPM

Sys

HW

SW

Interfaces

0

50

100

150

200

1 6 11 16

Nodes

N = 5I = 10



4.2.4 Address skill set distribution and complexity

Skill set and Proximity Driven Organization Specification Process with Complexity and Low Cost Metrics

1. Understand the skill set needs of your business Skill Sets 2. Understand the interface relationships required among the skill sets 3. Specify your skill set distribution by location 4. Those skill sets not specified may be considered automatically for outsourcing* 5. Those skill sets that are specified may still be outsourced if feasible 6. Inspect the organizational complexity and iterate if it is high 7. Inspect the % Low cost and iterate if not acceptable * Risk analysis should also be done

DIVISION #1 A: By Division, Specify your skill sets out of a standardized set. Then specify what percentage of each skill set should be close to each type of organizational type, and why. A theoretical distribution should result, a metric spelling our what percentage of your headcount should reside in each type of organization type.

B: Capture your current footprint, as is. Specify your future footprint according to step A. Those skill sets that are not

Low Cost Specified

Unspecified

DIVISIONS 1 through n

Today Locations

Skill Set

Future

Skill Set

To Whom? Why?

Skill Set

A: Proximity Requirements

Theoretical Distribution

F T F T F T

Today Locations

Skill Set

Future

Skill Set

Today Divisions

Skill Set

Future

Skill Set

% Low Cost Metric

Complexity

Metric

Advanced Application Production Support



4.2.5 Process Complexity

This report specifies the action to conduct value stream mapping on key

processes related to the CTX's identified in this report. An excellent starting point would be those mentioned in Fig 2E.

4.5 Process to better manage requirements globally

4.5.1 Affect of current global approach to product development

Fig 4L illustrates that a global platform development process often generates

solutions that require rework, Muda or waste that can not be afforded by a competitive organization. A requirements Engineering (RE) approach can be used to drive requirements into a global roadmaps, product lines, and platforms (aka core assets). Not only does this apply to products but also to infrastructure and support. This impacts "percent reuse", cost, efficiency, and productivity.

Fig 4L

The needs, wishes, and demands of customers must be considered, globally.

• Solutions specific to their needs. • Speed, perhaps twice that of the past. • Lowest cost solutions, and commoditization.

Balancing commoditization with innovation is a separate topic. • Perfect quality

Appendix 4A estimates that over a period of about five years of, xx% of development

cost was attributed to new/ original work rather than reuse of off the shelf solutions. The appendix sketches a method by which such a metric could be estimated. Such a metric provides direct insight into % not reused, or muda.

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Expected

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Actual

% Rework

(Inefficiency)

Proposed

Examples•Requirements Engineering•HW Chipsets•SW Environment•SW Solutions

GlobalGeneric

Specific

RegionSpecific

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Expected

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Actual

% Rework

(Inefficiency)

Proposed

Examples•Requirements Engineering•HW Chipsets•SW Environment•SW Solutions

GlobalGeneric

Specific

RegionSpecific



Savings Rational for Requirements Engineering

Appendix 4B also describes the savings rational for RE. Using a swing analysis approach, the following key points are illustrated:

• RE can reduce the amount of funding spent on global platform development • These savings can be directed to targeted region specific platforms • RE along with an overall systems engineering approach, both strongly supported

by DFSS, can reduce the amount of development iterations, Muda. • Reduce the cost of testing not only the final product, but the iterations as well. • Net savings: current cost – Theoretical target ( sum of a, b, c, d, e)

a. Reduced global platform costs b. Target region specific tailoring c. Add region specific platforms d. Development of fewer iterations e. Reduced testing or quality assurance due to fewer iterations

4.5.2 Holistic RE Approach

A holistic understanding of how requirements flow from the customer through the organization is required in order to design a solution. Key points described in Fig 4M are: • Suppliers are an integral part of the requirements management process • Product Composition is color coded in Figs 4L and 4M. • Products may be considered to be composed of:

1. Region Specific Generic 2. Global Generic 3. Project Specific components

Needs:

• Effectively manage requirements so that those to be addressed by the three

mentioned areas are clearly defined and understood. • RE should be reflected in company organizations globally, for example with roles,

responsibilities, and establishing accountability (reward system) • Metrics to drive improvement



Fig 4M

4.5.3 Allocation of Global Requirements Engineering Responsibilities

Fig 4N illustrates an example of how responsibilities can be allocated between regional and the global platform (or core) group for embedded product development. The chart should include status as is done hypothetically below.

Fig 4N

NAFTA Core Engineering Scope

• Define the requirements of our market (org and communication)

•Local Project/ Platform Management

• Define and maint Region Roadmaps

• Recommend/ Collaborate targets for global Generic ~vs~ Region Specific

• Staff (HC & LC), train, and deliver Region Specific development.

• Identify & develop strategic skill sets

• Apply global solutions according to roadmap

Global Core Engineering Scope

• Gather requirements fromall regions (org and communication)

• Global Project/ Platform Management

• Define and maint Global Roadmaps with feeds from Regions

• Agree/ Define targets for global Generic ~vs~ Region Specific

• Staff (HC & LC), train, and deliverGlobal Generic according to plan.

• Identify & develop comprehensive skill sets

• Be measured on % attainment of Reuse

•Architecture•Micros•Mech•ASICS•Drivers•Infrastructure•Process•Tools•etc

The R&R should be driven by business and market needsOpportunity also exists in considering "P" egs, P ED & P GS

A collaborative framework between Global and Region is Required

Status KeyNAFTA Core Engineering Scope

• Define the requirements of our market (org and communication)

•Local Project/ Platform Management

• Define and maint Region Roadmaps

• Recommend/ Collaborate targets for global Generic ~vs~ Region Specific

• Staff (HC & LC), train, and deliver Region Specific development.

• Identify & develop strategic skill sets

• Apply global solutions according to roadmap

Global Core Engineering Scope

• Gather requirements fromall regions (org and communication)

• Global Project/ Platform Management

• Define and maint Global Roadmaps with feeds from Regions

• Agree/ Define targets for global Generic ~vs~ Region Specific

• Staff (HC & LC), train, and deliverGlobal Generic according to plan.

• Identify & develop comprehensive skill sets

• Be measured on % attainment of Reuse

•Architecture•Micros•Mech•ASICS•Drivers•Infrastructure•Process•Tools•etc

The R&R should be driven by business and market needsOpportunity also exists in considering "P" egs, P ED & P GS

A collaborative framework between Global and Region is Required

Status Key

Product Requirements / Roadmap Research

NAFTA Customer

External Support

Region Specific Generic

Gap/ White - Spots

Global Generic

NAFTA Product

Development

Project Specific Requirements Global

Innovation /Roadmap

KAM/ BD/ Sales/ Marketing/ Engineering

"Off the Shelf"

Regulations/ Law

Manufactu ring

Distributio n

End User

Suppliers

Product Requirements / Roadmap Research

Region#1 Customer

External Support

Region Specific Generic

Gap/ White - Spots

Global Generic

Region #1 Product Development

Innovation

Project Specific Requirements Global

Innovation /Roadmap

Business Development/ Sales/ Marketing/ Engineering

"Off the Shelf"

Regulations/ Law

Regulations/ Law

ring Manufacturing

Distributio n

Distributio n

End User End User

Suppliers Suppliers



4.5.4 A Collaborative Framework

A collaborative framework or process is required to manage progress. Referring to Fig 4O, the following can be noted:

• Several regions or Markets feed requirements into the Global RE process • Once requirements from the Markets are defined, decisions can be made

concerning which of the three types of development will address each requirement.

• An organization structure can be established where each market or region has a local domain representative, these collaborating with, or even making up, the global RE organization.

• The scope is defined to include important areas such as: Architecture, Microcontrollers, ECU roadmaps, Software Architecture, software drivers, etc.

• The global organization should work to generate the specified generic solutions • It is important to measure the use of these solutions in the actual products.

A method to do this is shown in Appendix 4A. • Tie the reward system of organization leaders tied to this metric to driving up

percent reuse which is directly connecting reward to business profit. • The process should be continually adapted as the organization learns.

Fig 4O

Market 1 Market 2 Market n

Customers Customers Customers

RE RE RE by LDR's

Model what will be-Global Generic-Region Generic-Project Specific

Global REby Global Head& LDR's

Market 1 Market 2 Market n applicationmeasure, reward, & adapt RE

ArchitectureMicroControllerECU RoadmapSW ArchitectureDrivers

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Region

Roadmap and Requirements proposal

Roadmap and Solutions

Market 1 Market 2 Market n

Customers Customers Customers

RE RE RE by LDR's

Model what will be-Global Generic-Region Generic-Project Specific

Global REby Global Head& LDR's

Market 1 Market 2 Market n applicationmeasure, reward, & adapt RE

ArchitectureMicroControllerECU RoadmapSW ArchitectureDrivers

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Region

GlobalGeneric

Specific

Region

Roadmap and Requirements proposal

Roadmap and Solutions



4.5.5 Role out Concept

Referring now to Fig 4P, product development cost is shown to be composed of development that is:

• Project Specific • Reused from prior projects

• Region Specific Generic • Global Generic

These are presented generally in order of decreasing costs piece cost, but decreasing life-cycle cost. Transforming the organization will take years or generations of products as the pipeline of development responds to the new process.

Cost

• Current products have high cost attributed to rework and project specific solutions • The next generation may reuse more from prior projects and funding to Global

Generic activities should be reduced. This should result in lower cost. • The future product should enjoy the lowest cost due to the new RE framework.

See also the Swing analysis of Appendix 4B. Product Cost Specific Reuse Prior Region

Spec Global/ Fees

1 Current High High Low Low Low/ High 2 Next Medium Medium High Low Low/ Low 3 Future Low Low Medium Medium Medium/ Low

Fig 4P

Establish Product Generation Roadmap with Plan of components: Specific, reuse, region generic, or global generic.

RE Sys

RE Box

RE

RE Comp

SWHWREGeneration

Delay

Next Product

Current Products

Engineering

Engineering

EngineeringCustomers

FutureProduct

Project SpecificReuse from Prior ProjectRegion Specific GenericGlobal Generic

Analysis of Customer Platform Needs

Establish Integrated RE and RMOrganization

•Pay for what we specify and intend to use•Repackage frequently used region solutions

$

$

$

•High Generic Fees•Low Return

•Reduce the Fees Paid•Reuse Prior Solutions



4.5.6 Funneling the Requirements in from multiple customers

Still referring to Fig 4P, each customer may have unique requirements that need to be met, these represented with the vertical colored bands emanating from the "customer" box. There may be opportunity however to find similarities or even influence the customer in order to modify their requirements so that common solutions may be found. This is represented by the bands cutting through the before mentioned colored bands. This reduces redundant development, or Muda.

4.5.7 Communications and Document Structure

Along with the discussion in 4.4.2 on document structure, other advantages of designing a document structure include:

• the structure will be visible and subject to continuous improvement • will reduce ad-hoc pr informal communication through email or casual

conversation. These informal means are speedy, but their unreliability increases noise into the process (think P-Diagram) and which results in waste.

Communications are indicated by the red lines in Fig 4Q. The RE in the figure should be interpreted as the couple [Requirements, Design]. As one progresses from the system level through to the lower levels, this [R,D] couple is used to develop requirements to the further needed level of detail. This process is also known as the Zig-Zag approach within DFSS, and System Decomposition and Design within Systems Engineering Circles.

Fig 4Q

RE Sys

RE Box

RE

RE Comp

SWHWRE

RECircuitMech

RE REASWIO

RE

Doc1 Docn

Docn

RE Sys

RE Box

RE

RE Comp

SWHWRE

RECircuitMech

RE REASWIO

RE

Doc1 Docn

Docn

RE Sys

RE Box

RE

RE Comp

SWHWRE

RECircuitMech

RE REASWIO

RE

Doc1 Docn

Docn

Complexity, as discussed in a prior section, also affects communications. Please see the recommendations posed in that section.



Continuous Improvement Process

Though not formulated in the above, Appendix 4C is offered to describes a process by which issues found from various customers can be synthesized into systematic preventative actions.

5 Verify

Summary

The purpose of the Verify section is to manage the project to completion and finally close it. This entails controlling the implementation by executing quality assurance actions such as those posed by FMEA's and risk plans. It also entails standardization and defining and using metrics to measure progress. A transition plan is required which can include a pilot, training and hand-off to the process owner, and making needed adjustments to the design. Project closure should include a report and lessons learned. As mentioned in the introduction, this DFSS project is somewhat hypothetical, and as such will not complete the Verify section. A few final comments will be mad however. Fig 5A describes overall control process in which executive management uses designs such as those described in this report and in the OD paper to drive sustainable progress.

Key elements of this process

A "standing" multidivisional team that continually analyzes influence factors, creates and uses measures, and considers global factors. This team interacts with top management to provide the pulse of the operations and offers recommendations. Fig 5A, Executive support, involvement, and decisions

Continuous

improvement 2006 2007 2008

Metrics :

Sales p. Eng. % R&D of Sales Growth p. Eng.

Strategy Proximity Consolidation/

Influencing Factors

Plan Skill Set

Allocation

Recommendations Options Measurement OD

Standing OD Team

Influencing Factors � SWOT OD & Loc � Business & Products � Targets � Customer Req � Benchmarking

E A E A

Measurement � Customer

Satisfaction � Innovation � Effectiveness � Efficiency

Process, tools,

models Executive Decisions Execution

Other Factors � Global � Mfr OD � Innovation



6 Conclusion

Consolidating information from multiple sources yielded the following Concerns

• Timely resource availability • SV Design Issues • Supplier issues • Requirements Engineering • Missed Milestones • Not (able to) Follow process • Late Kick-off • Poor estimation • Customer changes • Customer late releases

• Safe Launch • Cost • Improve DTC • Knowledge • Complexity • Shareable Functions • Process Execution • Improve Innovation • Insufficient OEM VOC

• Project members are unable to consistently execute all processes prescribed in the

Product Development Process. • The Red, Green, Yellow trends may not improving over months • NAFTA NCC of $xx per sales of $yy or roughly zz% • Warrantee returns may also be significant concern. • A significant amount of rework may occur within the Innovation, Design, and

Development phases. • It is estimated that $xx /$yy, or zz% of NCC cost can be prevented. • Supplier capability to deliver may not always be well understood before sourcing. • Experiences are not always translated into organization-wide knowledge

Eight Clusters of specific problem areas where identified:

• Plastics: with quality, bonding, injection, and Intellectual Property opportunities • CAD: having fragmented tool set • Sensors and actuators having thermal, durability, and emissions concerns • Warrantee/ Quality and Process • Software architecture and ability to effectively test • PCB: Layout, EMC, manufacturing issues • Packaging: Failing to meet environmental/ leak specifications • Cost gaps



The key functional requirements identified are all related to reducing waste.

• Process Tailoring • Timely Resources • More-Common Processes • Value Stream Mapping • Improve up Front Design • Adopt a Preventative Culture • Follow the Process

• Measure organization complexity • Assess supplier capability • Global RE Process" • Deploy RE Tool • Effectively Share expertise • Effectively Share Functions • Improve knowledge management

The design actions proposed in this paper are:

• Deploy DFSS • Deploy Networks

• Global Requirements Management • Manage Organization Complexity

Other areas that are also important but not addressed are:

• Better assess/ Control Suppliers • Make processes more common

• Tailor Processes • Early Resource deployment

organization prototypes for global innovation and design ...€¦ · six sigma master black belt...

Documents