A SEMINAR ON CONCURRENT ENGINEERING

BY JINSE O.S

1) Definition 2) Traditional vs concurrent engineering 3) Importance of concurrent engineering 4) Need for concurrent engineering 5) Basic principles of concurrent engineering 6) Roadblocks to concurrent engineering 7) Disadvantages of concurrent engineering 8) Case study

trust and sharing.” . from the beginning of the product lifecycle.Definition  “Concurrent engineering is a dynamic approach to integrated product development that emphasis on the response to customer expectations. in such a manner that decisions making is by consensus. it embodies team values of cooperation. involving all perspectives in parallel.

Traditional vs concurrent engineering. .

Importance of concurrent engineering  we are engineers.  Leads to successful products. .

 Lead time .Need for concurrent engineering  Increased competition.  New product development methods.

Transfer technology between individuals and departments. Continually review your progress and revise your plan. Establish and cultivate cross-functional integration and collaboration. Analyze your market and know your customers.Basic principles of concurrent engineering              Get a strong commitment from senior management. Suppress individualism and foster a team concept. Develop a detailed plan early in the process. Collectively work on all parts of project. Develop project leaders that have an overall vision of the project and goals. Establish unified project goals and a clear business mission. Set milestones throughout the development process. Complete tasks in parallel. . Reduce costs and time to market.

Road blocks to concurrent engineering  Organizational culture.  Professionals and their working place culture.  The lack of support from top management  Fear of losing creativity  CE engineering team building .

typically requires longer time horizons to reach completion. Numerous examples exist where a new product was too early for the market to absorb it or where product variety has reached limits beyond which the product choice decision becomes too complicated for customers. Therefore. . Third. Despite its efficiency. more revolutionary new product development. concurrent engineering will only prove to be effective when this balance is achieved through the experience and leadership of an organization's senior management." In a high-speed development organization.Disadvantage of concurrent engineering  Although concurrent engineering is an important method for handling the time pressures that occur during new product development. time-compression imperatives may undermine this need. First. Second. rushing products to the market can sometimes be a mistake. which often is based on significant technological advances. the conceptual development of new product ideas requires time or "slack. markets need time to develop. both managers and new product developers need to find a balance between the paradoxical needs for speed and slack in their organizations. Putting too much emphasis on time compression may blind an organization to this basic fact.

.Case study  IBM EMI project & ESA CDF.

IBM EMI project  IBM Rochester. Minnesota  Early Manufacturing Involvement (EMI)  One-Pass Design  EMI Product Focus  EMI Process Focus  Manufacturing Designers .

The site also has development and manufacturing responsibility for low-end direct access storage devices (DASD). and the System/38. . they manufacture midrange computers including the Application System/400. (AS/400). Rochester is responsible for worldwide hardware and software development. (S/38). the System/36.IBM Rochester. Minnesota  IBM in Rochester has been using the concept of Early Manufacturing Involvement (EMI) to integrate design and manufacturing in the product cycle of midrange computer systems. (S/36).

Design changes suggested by manufacturing usually focused on ease of manufacture. cost.Early Manufacturing Involvement (EMI)  An EMI process involves product design personnel and manufacturing personnel working in close partnership throughout the design process to optimize function. there are key reviews and checkpoints that become part of a comprehensive product plan. Prior to EMI. and reducing part and tooling cost . minor modifications could be made. At this late stage in the design. but changes requiring redesign were avoided because of time constraints. completed designs were sent to manufacturing for review before being released as official documents. Throughout the product development cycle of a new computer system. and quality in a one-pass design. manufacturability.

The key EMI goals are to (1) reduce the development/release cycle time.One-Pass Design  At the concept level in a product or part design. After the initial design concept. A cooperative effort is needed and timeliness is critical. The goal is a one-pass design. Reductions in the overall product cycle of up to 50% have been achieved. . changes are usually difficult to incorporate and are often ineffective compromises. many different considerations can be incorporated without major impact to total design time. (2) reduce costs and assure quality. and (3) design for manufacturability .

One of these is assembly of cables into this computer system.EMI Product Focus  The Application System/400 (AS/400) computer system is a good example of many excellent EMI successes. . Another example of EMI product focus is system testing.

packaging/shipping expense. delivery lead time. and recommend design improvements . their recommendations are fed back to product designers. and commonality . As product design information becomes available. evaluate process impacts. various specialty manufacturing engineers review the designs.EMI Process Focus  An EMI process focus includes emphasis on all manufacturing processes. Suppliers are given early views of part designs. Each part is reviewed for manufacturability. . tooling requirements.

This low-cost system was brought from concept to delivery in only 11 months. announced in October 1987 . Model 5363. interactive process. This merger has advanced to the point where manufacturing engineering is doing the mechanical design/development work on low-end computer systems. The development cycle was reduced more than 50% using manufacturing engineering as the mechanical system design team. The IBM System/36.Manufacturing Designers  The development and manufacturing processes have been merged to become one common. This was design-manufacturing integration in its purest form! .

 Joint studies with NASA/JPL/PDC teams.  Six complex payload instrumentation design. . on experimental basis .ESA Concurrent design facility (CDF)  Started in 1998.  Three new launcher conceptual design. Cdf achievements  50+future missions studied and designed internally at conceptual system level.Initially conceived for the assessment and the conceptual design of future space missions.

.

The future plans  Promotion of concurrent design among the European partners  Consolidation of the integrated design model (IDM)  Distribution of the product IDM to European space industry and the partners as Community software  Assessment of expansion of CE technologies over all project phases  Extension of CDF application to other space systems: payload instruments design activity (IDA) .

FACILITY NAME SINCE        NASA/JPL PDC (Project design center) Every NASA site is getting equipped with a CE facility. (US) CDC (conceptual design center) EADS ASTRIUM SDO (Satellite design office ) CNES CIC ASI CES 1996 2000 1998 1999 2005 2006 . NASA/JPL mission system design center Aerospace corp.OTHER CONCURRENT DESIGN CENTERS FOR SPACE IN THE WORLD.

and service no longer exist . manufacturing.Conclusion  The boundaries between design.

Jack. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. and Steven D. 3rd ed. 2000. Roy. Product Design and Development. eds. Parsaei. Usher. New York: John Wiley and Sons. John M. and Hamid R..  Utpal. Simultaneous Engineering: Methodologies and Applications. Karl T. Simultaneous Engineering for New Product Development: Manufacturing Applications. Eppinger.REFERENCES  Ribbens. 2004. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 1999 .  Ulrich.

Thank you .