You are on page 1of 10

Design for Six Sigma and Lean Product Development

- Differences, Similarities and Links Jean-Baptiste Fouquet, MSc da !rem"r, P#$D$ %ssistant Professor At &ualit" Sciences, '#almers (niversit", !)te*org, S+eden ,*$fouquet-gmail$com , ida$grem"r-c#almers$se .e"+ords/ DFSS, Lean, LPD, Product Development, Six Sigma 'ategor"/ Conceptual Paper

This research began with the initiation of a general discussion between customers, suppliers and scholars concerning the way product development (PD) should be carried out to be most efficient and how a supplier can best respond to customers expectations in PD This strategic sector is under increasing pressure for efficiency since many companies have increased their production capability (!i"er # $organ, %&&') Two methodologies have helped manufacturing to reach satisfactory levels of competitiveness( )ix )igma and !ean $anufacturing (*omac", +ones # ,oos, -..%, /arry # )chroeder, %&&&) )ix )igma is an improvement methodology that guides companies toward achieving a six0sigma level of capability and !ean $anufacturing is a philosophy that guides a company toward reducing the wastes in manufacturing and streamlining processes Two sisters initiatives have been created for PD needs( !ean Product Development (!PD) and Design for )ix )igma (D1))) (,einertsen, %&&2, 3remyr, %&&2) This paper explores the two methodologies and tries to give a comparison in order to fill the lac" thereof that seems to exist in the literature and provide insight to academicians and practitioners to perhaps find a 4hybrid5 method

This paper is based on a 6ualitative study of selected literature and empirical data The empirical data collected were provided by semi0structured interviews with practitioners in companies using the methodologies 7ight companies were chosen, four for each methodology 7ach uses one of the methodologies The 6uestionnaire used in the interviews is composed of open0ended 6uestions As the 6uestions in a survey of this "ind influence the results, it is important to "now what "ind of 6uestions are as"ed The twenty 6uestions deal with the opinion of the interviewee about the methodology and its application and the implications of its use in the company *hile the character of the 6uestions enabled a broad range of answers,

the small number of interviews does not permit a generali8ation of the findings, even though they give general view of the methodologies in the companies The respondents were practitioners trained in, or "nowledgeable about the methodologies They received their "nowledge in training sessions or studies they made( some of them taught one of the methodologies They wor" in firms using the methodologies( 3eneral 7lectric (37), 9olvo Aero, 9olvo :ar :orporation (9::) and )iemens, which use D1)) and )cania, ;91, <ahco and Autoliv, which use !PD The literature chosen is mainly intended for managers of companies, who whish to gain "nowledge of D1)) and !PD This literature is primarily positive about the methodology described This positivism re6uired a double chec" of the reading in order to validate the findings reported (<ryman, %&&=)

Lean Product Development

!PD is a methodology that attempts to apply the principles learned in !ean $anufacturing in the PD area These are made to create a flow in PD that will help the PD process to go faster This possibility to reali8e new product faster will enhance the reactivity of a company in the mar"et (,einertsen, %&&2) 9isualization tools, such as process mapping, show the improvement opportunities in the PD process and enable companies to ma"e the PD process more fluent <ased on continuous improvement and visual communication, its goal is to enhance customers values by developing top class 6uality products, increasing the 6uality from the start of a pro>ect (!i"er # $organ, %&&') The use of a common platform appears to be a decisive factor for the reali8ation of the methodology ($ascitelli, %&&=) in term of reducing the price of development and insisting on specific innovations focused on customers satisfaction Concurrent engineering, customers and suppliers involvement, visual management, group wor and cross!functional teams emerge as some of the techni6ues used to reach the purpose of !PD (?arlsson # @lhstrAm, -..') )tandardi8ing the PD process, reducing the si8e of batches transmitted from one stage to another and a strong pro>ect leader who represents the customer and is capable of crystalli8ing his or her team members capacities are all factors that ma"e the stream of the process flow faster (?ristofersson # !indeberg, %&&') !PD is based on continuous improvement, and its implementation ta"es time and re6uires humility and commitment to enable improvement in a company Tools adapted from !ean $anufacturing e g 2), ?ai8en (*omac", +ones # ,oos, -..-), process mapping, 6uality tools etc , can be used as soon as they are made to fit PD (e g 2) would focus more on the elimination of unwanted information that on cleaning the manufacturing environment) ;n addition, tools that help the visualization of a pro>ect and the communication inside the pro>ect team can be used to help the team members to "now their role ;n this way, they will feel more involved in the pro>ect (e g a dedicated room for each pro>ect, list of tas"s that need to be done and prioriti8ed, or a pro>ect chart at the beginning of the pro>ect, !i"er # $organ, %&&', ,einertsen, %&&2) 1inally, !PD does not propose a roadmap for PD but is an initiative that helps to improve and standardize the existing process in a company

Design for Six Sigma

D1)) is a structured methodology for PD that consist of a stage gate model, with delivera"les and norms of ro"ustness that must be approved at the end of each stage, before a pro>ect proceeds forward (Tennant, %&&%) *ith this methodology, a company

is supposed to be able to turn its PD into customer satisfaction measurable factors (Tennant, %&&%) 3remyr (%&&2) defined it as follows( 4Design for )ix )igma is a means of developing, or improving, products that
enables )ix )igma levels of performance in production, while focusing on customer satisfaction and robustness An outcome of Design for )ix )igma is that the product can be produced at predictable levels of costs and ris"s5

According to :ronemyr (%&&'), every company adapts D1)) for its own needs, which ma"e its process different from one company to another Bne roadmap seems to be common to some industries( Define, $easure, Analy8e, Design and 9erify (D#$D%) 7ach step is a memo for the pro>ect team members( a way to split PD into different phases and to "eep in mind the important phases of a development pro>ect These phases enable a team to focus on each separate step of the process, to reduce the ris"s of going too fast during one phase, and to define deadlines for every team member (/arry # )chroeder, %&&&) D1)) proposes a set of tools and techni&ues that is fit to PD and that can be used during the different steps (:ronemyr, %&&') )ome of them are ta"en from )ix )igma, which facilitates the implementation of D1)) in companies already using )ix )igma Cuality and customer re6uirements are the heart of the methodology ;nnovation is controlled and needs to show its ro"ustness for customer satisfaction (Tennant, %&&%) ;t seems to be reduced by administrative tas"s (e g chec"lists to be filled in etc ) and every innovation has a level of robustness that must be attained that is fixed by customers expectations (Tennant, %&&%) D1)) re6uires cross!functional teams (:howdhury, %&&%), where interaction between people can bring innovation D1)) turns the process of PD from deterministic to pro"a"ilistic by giving to the PD team the opportunity to use statistical tools, e g Design of 7xperiment (:reveling, )luts"y # Antis, %&&D) 1inally, D1)) integrates the )ix )igma hierarchy, and its pro>ects are generally assisted by E<lac" <elts educated in D1)) (Tennant, %&&%)

;n this section, D1)) and !PD are compared by themes in the selected literature and practical insight is given derived from the practitioners interviews Enabling DFSS and LPD in a Company Philosophy !PD is founded on developing 6uality products by continuously improving PD and creating a flow of value added activities (,einertsen, %&&2) D1)) seems to be centered more on measurements of customer satisfaction and the robustness of the product (Tennant, %&&%) The methodologies are lin"ed by the fact that they emphasi8e effort at the beginning of pro>ects in order to reduce later rewor" Strategy The !ean and D1)) methodologies have different effects on the strategy of the company D1)) gives a robust output, followed by a complete documentation( the idea is to promote the company as a leader in 6uality (Tennant, %&&%) The strategy behind !PD is a strong reactivity to mar"et demands and positioning the company as a 6uality leader (!i"er # $organ, %&&', ,einertsen, %&&2 etc) 'mplementation D1)) and !PD differ from an implementation point of view *here D1)) seems to be possible to integrate 6uic"ly in some companies (e g two years for 9::, already used wor"ing with )ix )igma methodologies), !PDs implementation never seems to end

(?arlsson # @lhstrAm, -..') /owever, both methodologies implementation ma"es companies centre around the demand for "nowledge (/arry # )chroeder, %&&&, !i"er # $organ, %&&') People need to want change and improvement and to learn by means of the way they do thingsF otherwise, their application will not create value Process and Communication D1)) and !PD emphasi8e group wor" to facilitate communication in PD teams (:howdhury, %&&%, !i"er # $organ, %&&') !PD does not use any standardi8ed process whereas D1)) uses standard roadmaps that guide pro>ect leaders, e g D$AD9 (3remyr, %&&2, *omac" # +ones, -..') According to practitioners (9::, 37, 9olvo Aero), this latter methodology has a slower process and increases administrative tas"s in order to protect the PD process against unwanted variation (Tennant, %&&%) !PD seems to be used to improve the former PD process or to try to standardi8e the way of doing things in the company (*omac" # +ones, -..'), whereas D1)) seems to ta"e the place of the former way of doing things at some of the interviewed company (9::, 37) :ommunication is eased in both methodologies for different reasons( reduction of batch si8es, process mapping etc , in the case of !PD (!i"er # $organ, %&&') and process mapping, stage gate models etc , in the case of D1)) (:reveling, )luts"y # Antis, %&&D) There is also a difference between the si8e of the batches of information in the two methodologies !PD seems to have as a principle to reduce those batches in order to give greater flow to the process (,einertsen, %&&2) while D1)) re6uires for robust and documented deliverables 1inally, practitioners and reports in the literature, such as !i"er # $organ (%&&'), :lausing (-..=), Tennant (%&&%), agree that putting more effort at the beginning of PD will ma"e it faster and more efficient at the end, and both methodologies use this assumption to emphasi8e the first important actions to ta"e( understanding the customers and writing a detailed pro>ect chart Uses of DFSS and LPD #anagement and (eams !PD and D1)) have two management styles 1irst, they are methodologies that help pro>ect leaders to accomplish their tas"s of developing, but offer no training on management s"ills to a pro>ect leader Gevertheless, some tools exist, e g process mapping (:reveling, )luts"y # Antis, %&&D, ,einertsen, %&&2), explicitly to support pro>ect leaders D1)) seems to be there to help leaders to be more secure about the outputs of their pro>ects (9::, 9olvo Aero and 37), whereas !PD is supposed to enable management to see the faults in their PD process and give them the opportunity to improve it )econdly, !PD and D1)) use cross0functional teams, trying to integrate people from different departments in the pro>ects in order to create interaction between them and to give to the pro>ect the insights of their functional organi8ations re6uirements This will increase the efficiency of the later phases of development (!i"er # $organ, %&&', Tennant, %&&%) !PD and D1)) differ in their ways of empowering top management D1)) uses the stage gate model, which gives managers an opportunity to re6uest changes during the pro>ect, while !PD has no model that includes specific stages (?arlsson # @lhstrAm, -..')( it is thus harder for management to get involved )ome managers (<ahco, )cania, and Autoliv) nevertheless said that visual management enabled them to be regularly updated about the advancement of PD pro>ects )rganization ;n a D1)) pro>ect, everyone "nows what to do and what deliverables are expected A parallel hierarchy is also needed with the 4belt hierarchy5 (<ergman, ?roslid # $agnusson, %&&D) !PD concentrates the efforts on continuously improving the PD

organi8ation, on showing the opportunities for modifying the organi8ation and on giving deadlines to pro>ect wor"ers (defined e g during the process mapping, ,einertsen, %&&2) <oth methodologies pro>ects are held by pro>ect owners ;n D1)), the pro>ect leader can be outside the belt hierarchy if a tiers process helps the team to follow the methodology (e g at 9::) or if everyone before has received training in )ix )igma and D1)), as is the case at 37 They are both demanding cross0functional interactions D1)) gives a structure and a clear picture of the wor" approach through its roadmap (e g D$AD9) whereas this vision can be bloc"ed with !PD (ools There are no rules for tools to be used in the two methodologies D1)) uses a stage gate model in which tools "nown from the 6uality and robustness areas fit to PD (:reveling, )luts"y # Antis, %&&D, *ilson, %&&2 etc) /owever, e g 9:: gives the freedom to pro>ect leaders to choose the tools they thin" the team needs !PD does not give a toolbox, even though the same tools are used by most of the interviewed practitioners because they answer to the needs of communication and visuali8ation of the pro>ects, e g process mapping The tools should also correspond to the team demands for continuous improvement (,einertsen, %&&2) 'nnovation and Creativity 7ven though some authors (:howdhury, %&&%, Tennant, %&&% etc ) and some of the practitioners interviewed (e g at 9olvo Aero) argue that innovation tools fit the structure of D1)) and that innovation is only limited by the robustness and 6uality re6uirements, it is possible to assume that innovation will depend on the company and the way it uses D1)) !PD integrates innovation depending on the company( order in PD is good for innovation according to the !PD practitioners interviewed since it will come from the interaction of specialists D1)) has an innovation toolbox, with tools li"e T,;H, brainstorming sessions etc (:reveling, )luts"y # Antis, %&&D), whereas !PD pro>ect innovation does not necessarily come from the methodology itself but from the flexibility it provides (!i"er # $organ, %&&', ,einertsen, %&&2) Dealing with External Factors Customers and Suppliers !PD and D1)) are two methodologies driven by and towards customers satisfaction (:howdhury, %&&%, ?arlsson # @lhstrAm, -..') ;n this area, both methodologies apply the same 6uality tools, e g Cuality 1unction Deployment The team members are as"ed to "eep customers in mind throughout a pro>ect ;n !PD, team leaders usually represent the voice of the customer in the pro>ect team, which thus gives customers a representative throughout the pro>ect (!i"er # $organ, %&&') This has to be ta"en delicately, because it could be restrictive if the pro>ect team relies only on this person !PD and D1)) also give tips to help the teams to understand their customers 9isiting the customers life area is one of them( all the developers should go there in order to understand what "ind of product the customers would as" for and how they would use it (Tennant, %&&%) 1inally, !DP sometimes includes suppliers in the process (?arlsson # @lhstrAm, -..') Practitioners that do this (<ahco, )cania) seem to have positive returns D1)) does not always include them but, to evaluate what capability it is possible to achieve, it is strategic to "now what suppliers capabilities are /ence, according to some practitioners, some wor" needs to be done with them (9::, 9olvo Aero, and 37) *xpected +esults of the #ethodologies D1)) and !PD have two distinctive ways of attaining their goal The first gives a standardi8ed structure (:ronemyr, %&&') The second seems to enable the creation of a standard by ma"ing the problems I and their solutions 0 in PD apparent (,einertsen, %&&2) This ma"es possible an improvement and its standardi8ation ;n practice, both

methodologies also seem to have results that are indirect conse6uences of their application The first one is the commitment of team members Driven by a charismatic leader, by the vision they may have of the pro>ect or by the definition of their role in the team with deliverables and deadlines, all the team members can feel their responsibilities (Tennant, %&&%, !i"er # $organ, %&&') <ahco for example even has employees that are disappointed not to be more involved in some pro>ects according to the definition of their roles The second result is a healthy pressure put on employees, who "now what needs to be done and when A pulse meeting can be held every wee" in !PD pro>ects, and deadlines for D1)) pro>ects put the necessary pressure on the employees, hopefully without being either inhibitory, or overwhelming !astly, both methodologies increase the demand for "nowledge in the groups (!i"er # $organ, %&&', Tennant, %&&%) D1)) helps 9:: teams to "now more about their product, !PD helps )cania, Autoliv and <ahco to "now more about their processes, and both methodologies, as described in the literature ($ascitelli, %&&=, *ilson, %&&2, :ronemyr, %&&' and :reveling # )luts"y # Antis, %&&D), should help the companies to "now more about their customers This last point has nevertheless not been verified in all of the companies Table - summari8es the synergies and the differences (given as an attachment) The synergies are listed in one column and the differences specific to either D1)) or !PD are given in separate columns )ome ma>or factors have been extracted from the table of comparisons and sorted into three different themes, Principles, Practices and Tools (Table %), as described by Dean # <owen (-..=) These factors are named in the literature and mentioned in the interviews ;t is agreed that more factors can be added in further studies, and the list is not exhaustive This table nevertheless gives a summary of some of the findings of the study
!iterature D1)) J J J !iterature !PD J J J J J J J J J J Practitioners D1)) Practitioners !PD J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J




,obustness :ustomer satisfaction )tructured 1low product development Product portfolio )tandardi8ing by improving what exists Cuality )tructure )tage gate model )tatistic oriented ,educing unwanted variation :ontinuous improvement 9isual management Prioriti8ation $a"ing errors appear ,eduction of waste ,obust Design $ethodologies 1$7A C1D Pugh 2) ?ai8en





0a*le 1 Principles, Practices and 0ools

The contents of this table is organi8ed and summari8ed in 1igure - below This picture tries to summari8e the principles, the practices and the tools of both methodologies, placing each in parallel The dar"ness of one area indicates the emphasis of the

methodology, in a PD pro>ect( the >ustification for the importance of the methodology in the area by means of identified factors is given to the side
Robustness Customer satisfaction Structured Quality


Flo# $roduct de%elo$ment Product $ortfolio


Customer satisfaction en!ancement Standardi&e by im$ro%in' #!at e(ist Quality ) Continuous im$ro%ement

Structure Sta'e 'ate model Statistic oriented Reducin' un#anted %ariation



*isual mana'ement Prioriti&ation +a,in' errors a$$ear Reduction of #aste Customers and Su$$liers- in%ol%ement

DFSS Toolbo(0 Robust Desi'n +et!odolo'y F+EA QFD Pu'! )

.S /ai&en

Figure 2 'omparison of t#e principles, t#e practices and t#e tools of DFSS 3 LPD

Discussion and 'onclusions

This paper gives a comparison of D1)) and !PD that attempts to highlight the differences, lin"s between and synergies of the two methodologies ;nput from practitioners and from the literature gives a broad understanding of the methodologies and an insight into the way in which they can be implemented 1inally, the study offers a comparison of the two methodologies, and a table that summari8es the findings The comparison and the descriptions of !PD and D1)) allow some conclusions about their differences, lin"s and synergies The first synergy is the call to put the effort at the front of PD <oth methodologies say that the more a team reflects at the beginning of the pro>ect, the faster it will go at the end 7nhancing 6uality, visiting and understanding customers etc , are all signs of synergies of the methodologies ;n addition, the commitment of the team members to the methodology, the importance of cross0functional teams and of the pro>ect owners and the importance of the definition of customers seem to show strong similarities in the !PD and D1)) methodologies !in"s can be found between D1)) and !PD ;ndeed, the ability of !PD to ma"e PD go faster and the structure of D1)) and the robustness of its output that comes from its probabilistic tools may give a hint to practitioners that they can ta"e parts from one of them in order to improve the other 9isual management of !PD can be lin"ed to the name of D1))s roadmaps because they give everyone in the pro>ect an idea of how much the development has advanced 1inally, the principal differences found between !PD and D1)) have to do with their processes and their philosophies D1)) uses a standardi8ed process in which the philosophy is to measure and attain customer satisfaction, while !PD helps to standardi8e the existing process by continuously improving it, so that its philosophy would be to be open to changes in product development, with always being able to call the process in 6uestion Another difference has to do with the toolboxes *hile both seem to be helped by the use of 6uality tools, D1)) has a toolbox with probabilistic methods, while !PD lets the company use what they "now, or need, to improve their 6uality A final important difference has to do with the batch si8es delivered to the next level in PD( the reduction of batch si8es that !PD aims at can be in contradiction to the detailed deliverables D1)) loo"s for

These findings have come from a limited number of interviews and reports in the literature and can thus not be generali8ed )till, the particular characteristics of one company can sometimes enlighten other companies ;n addition, the conclusions will hopefully give practitioners and scholars ideas about why they should or why they should not find a 4hybrid5 methodology that merges the strengths of D1)) and !PD

<ryman, Alan, %&&=, Social +esearch #ethods, )econd 7dition Bxford <ergman, <o, ?roslid, Dag, $agnusson, ?>ell, %&&D, Six Sigma, (he Pragmatic $pproach, )econd 7dition, )tudentlitteratur, )weden <rown, )hona ! , 7isenhardt $ , -..2, Product Development( Past ,esearch, Present 1indings, And 1uture Directions, (he $cademic #anagement +eview, 9ol %&, Go %, pp D=D0DK2 :lausing, Don, -..=, (otal ,uality Development, $ Step "y Step -uide to .orld!Class Concurrent *ngineering, A)$7 Press/ Gew Lor" :howdhury, )ubir, %&&%, (he Power of Design for Six Sigma, Dearborn Trade, :hicago :reveling, : $ , )luts"y, + ! , Antis, D >r, %&&D, Design for Six Sigma in (echnology and Product Development, .hat to Do 0 .hen to Do 't, Prentice /all PT,, Gew +ersey :ronemyr, Peter, %&&', D#$'C D#$D%, Differences, Similarities and Synergies Dean, +ames * , <owen, David 7 , -..=, $anagement Theory and Total Cuality( ;mproving ,esearch and Practice through Theory Development, (he $cademic +eview, vol -., Go D, )pecial ;ssue( Total Cuality, pp D.%0=-M 3remyr, ; , %&&2, 7xploring Design for )ix )igma 1rom the 9iewpoint of ,obust Design $ethodology, 1ournal of Six Sigma and Competitive $dvantage, 9ol -, Go D, pp %.20D&2 /arry, $i"el, )chroeder, ,ichard, %&&&, )ix Sigma, the 2rea through, #anagement, Strategy, +evolutionizing the .orlds (op Corporation, :urrency, Gew Lor" ?arlsson, :hrister, @lhstrAm, PNr, -..', The Difficult Path to !ean Product Development, 1ournal of Product 'nnovation #anagement, -D, pp %MD0%.2 ?ristofferson, A , !indeberg, : , %&&', !ean Product Development in )wedish ;ndustry, $asters Thesis, )toc"holm )chool of 7conomics $ascitelli, ,on, %&&=, (he Lean Design -uide"oo ! *verything 3our Product Development (eam 4eeds to Slash #anufacturing Costs, Technology Perspectives, Gorthridge $ehri, Darius, %&&2, (he Dar er Side of Lean, an 'nsiders Perspective on the +ealities of the (oyota Production System, :ornell Oniversity Press $organ, +ames $ , !i"er, +effrey ?, (he (oyota Product Development System, 'ntegrating People, Process, and (echnology, Productivity Press %&&K, Gew Lor" Productivity Press Development Team, %&&2, Lean Supply Chain5 Collected Practices 0 Cases, Productivity Press, ,einertsen, Donald, %&&2, !et ;t 1low, 'ndustrial *ngineering, pp=-0=2 ,einertsen, Donald, %&&2, 6ow Lean Product Development Spar ed a +evolution, ;nstitute of ;ndustrial 7ngineers )ethi, ,a>esh, %&&&, Gew Product Cuality and Product Development Teams, 1ournal of #ar eting, , 9ol '=, p% )chein, 7 , -..%, )rganisational Culture and Leadership, +ossey0<ass, )an 1rancisco Tennant, 3 , %&&%, Design For Six Sigma, Launching Products and Services without Failure, 3ower, /ampshire

Orban, 3 ! , /auser, + , ,-..D, Design and #ar eting of 4ew Product, Prentice /all, Gew +ersey *ilson, 3 , %&&2,Six Sigma, and the Product Development Cycle, Bxford, Bxford *omac", + P , +ones, D T , ,oos, D , -..-, (he #achine that Changed the .orld, ,awson Associates, Gew Lor"

synergies Expected results

T op class Q uality U nderstanding of customers C ommitment of project team members ! ealt"y pressure

R obust design R esults ifficult to perceive Q uality # nowledge about product 'ndependent from new tec"nologies ! ave to bring )nowledge + etailed documentation & o "elp to wor) wit" suppliers

F ast flow Q uality V isual management

pportunity to correct errors $tandardi%e product development process

( daptation to needs of product development F or people not instead of people R eduction of batc"es for better integration in t"e project -roject leader represent V oice of C ustomer / or)ing sessions wit" suppliers. part of t"e team

New technologies

& eed to s"ow value added on product R obustness of tec"nology once implemented 'ncrease t"e )nowledge of companies

!ustomers Suppliers

C ustomer focus* analysis* measurement 'ntegration of ne,t people wor)ing in t"e process C ustomer visit. gemba


Q uality tools C ustomer focus tools T ools do not give solutions

$tage gate model $tandardi%ed Q uality and robust tools T ool bo, & eed for communication C lear process for everyone + ead lines +eliverables for everyone T eam leader more secured C ross3functional teams $tage gate model $tage gates model 'ncrease administrative wor) -rocess mapping and responsibilities $tructured + etailed batc"es of information C "ange in culture 4rea)t"roug" ( fter5 $ame time5 before $i, $igma6 'ntroduction of a new "ierarc"y

& o toolbo, ( dapted tools 0$ V isual communication


1 atri, organi%ation wit"in R 2+ -ersonal tas)s* goals and dead lines )nown -roject owner

ne project one room

F low C oncurrent engineering V isual 1 anagement C ross functional teams 9 eader implicated and capable* sometimes mostly

"anagement Teams

& o management tools C ross3functional teams T a)ing care of "armony of t"e project wit" t"e ot"er

departments Process !ommunication

efforts at t"e beginning group wor) and brainstorming -rocess mapping -roject c"art

4ased on t"e previous process -arallel wor). concurrent engineering V isual communication* visual processes & o process defined $mall batc"es of information T a)es time. continuous improvement $tandardi%ing little by little ! umility for everyone. ability to accept mista)es 'nnovation inside product development process + evelopment of -ortfolio t"an)s to 8ust 'n T ime + efinition of targeted customers 'mprovement driven


4ecoming a company promoting )nowledge C ulture of c"ange


T op class 7uality company T "oroug" study of competitors + efinition of targeted customers

'nnovation outside product development process T "oroug" study of competitors + efinition of targeted customers 1 et"odology driven -robabilisty 2 1 easurment


-roduct development learned t"roug" improvment Q uality from t"e start

0a*le 2 'omparison of t#e met#ogologies