Concurrent engineering (CE) is a work methodology emphasizing the parallelisation of tasks (i.e. performing tasks concurrently), which is sometimes called simultaneous engineering or integrated product development (IPD) using an integrated product team approach. It refers to an approach used in product development in which functions of design engineering, manufacturing engineering, and other functions are integrated to reduce the time required to bring a new product to market.[1]
Introduction[edit]A 2008 publication described concurrent engineering as a new design management system that has matured in recent years to become a well-defined systems approach to optimizing design and engineering cycles.[2] Concurrent engineering has been implemented in a number of companies, organizations, and universities, most notably in the aerospace industry. Beginning in the early 1990s, CE was also adapted for use in the information and content automation field, providing a basis for organization and management of projects outside the physical product development sector for which it was originally designed. Organizations such as the European Space Agency's Concurrent Design Facility make use of concurrent design to perform feasibility studies for future missions. The basic premise for concurrent engineering revolves around two concepts. The first is the idea that all elements of a product's life-cycle—from functionality, production, assembly, testing, maintenance, environmental impact, and finally disposal and recycling—should be taken into careful consideration in the early design phases.[3] The second concept is that design activities should all be occurring at the same time, i.e., concurrently. The idea is that the concurrent nature of these activities significantly increases productivity and product quality.[4] This way, errors and redesigns can be discovered early in the design process when the project is still flexible. By locating and fixing these issues early, the design team can avoid what often become costly errors as the project moves to more complicated computational models and eventually into the actual manufacturing of hardware.[5] As mentioned above, part of the design process is to ensure that the product's entire life cycle is taken into consideration. This includes establishing user requirements, propagating early conceptual designs, running computational models, creating physical prototypes, and eventually manufacturing the product. Included in this process is taking into full account funding, workforce capability, and time requirements. A 2006 study claimed that a correct implementation of the concurrent design process can save a significant amount of money, and that organizations have been moving to concurrent design for this reason.[4] It is also highly compatible with systems thinking and green engineering. Concurrent engineering replaces the more traditional sequential design flow, or 'Waterfall Model'.[6][7] In Concurrent Engineering an iterative or integrated development method is used instead.[8] The Waterfall method moves in a linear fashion, starting with user requirements and sequentially moving forward to design and implementation, until you have a finished product. In this design system, a design team would not quickly look backward or forward from the step it is on to fix or anticipate problems. In the case that something does go wrong, the design usually must be scrapped or heavily altered. The concurrent or iterative design process encourages prompt changes of tack, so that all aspects of the life cycle of the product are taken into account, allowing for a more evolutionary approach to design.[9] The difference between the two design processes can be seen graphically in Figure 1. Product Design And Engineering Best Practices
Traditional 'Waterfall' or Sequential Development Method vs. Iterative Development Method in concurrent engineering.
A significant part of the concurrent design method is that the individual engineer is given much more say in the overall design process due to the collaborative nature of concurrent engineering. Giving the designer ownership is claimed to improve the productivity of the employee and quality of the product, based on the assumption that people who are given a sense of gratification and ownership over their work tend to work harder and design a more robust product, as opposed to an employee that is assigned a task with little say in the general process.[5] Challenges associated with concurrent design[edit]Concurrent design comes with a series of challenges, such as implementation of early design reviews, dependency on efficient communication between engineers and teams, software compatibility, and opening up the design process.[10] This design process usually requires that computer models (computer aided design, finite element analysis) are exchanged efficiently, something that can be difficult in practice. If such issues are not addressed properly, concurrent design may not work effectively.[11] It is important to note that although the nature of some project activities project imposes a degree of linearity—completion of software code, prototype development and testing, for example—organizing and managing project teams to facilitate concurrent design can still yield significant benefits that come from the improved sharing of information. Service providers exist that specialize in this field, not only training people how to perform concurrent design effectively, but also providing the tools to enhance the communication between the team members. Elements[edit]Cross-functional teams[edit]Cross-functional teams include people from different area of the workplace that are all involved in a particular process, including manufacturing, hardware and software design, marketing, and so forth. Concurrent product realization[edit]Doing several things at once, such as designing various subsystems simultaneously, is critical to reducing design time and is at the heart of concurrent engineering. Incremental information sharing[edit]Incremental information sharing helps minimize the chance that concurrent product realization will lead to surprises. 'Incremental' meaning that as soon as new information becomes available, it is shared and integrated into the design. Cross-functional teams are important to the effective sharing of information in a timely fashion. Download inazuma eleven pc. Integrated project management[edit]Integrated project management ensures that someone is responsible for the entire project, and that responsibility is not abdicated once one aspect of the work is done. Definition[edit]Several definitions of concurrent engineering are in use. The first one is used by the Concurrent Design Facility (ESA):
The second one is by Winner, et al., 1988:
Using C.E.[edit]Currently, several companies, agencies and universities use CE. Among them can be mentioned:
See also[edit]Concurrent Design
References[edit]
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concurrent_engineering&oldid=896971791'
Measuring the Effectiveness of Set Based Concurrent Engineering projects in CAREL
in Best Practices, Blog, Continuous Improvement & Change, Continuous Improvement System
In 2013 CAREL (an Italian HVAC/R company) began exploring Set-Based Concurrent Engineering (SBCE) to increase their innovation yield and ensure this knowledge-intense part of the product development process is effective and has a stable timeframe. After the initial concept introduction, CAREL established a framework tailored to address its specific needs, while respecting the key principles of this approach. Although the newly established framework resulted in positive and prosperous outcomes, the company wanted a more formal, repeatable indication of process’s performance. For that purpose, CAREL developed a set of 7 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure 3 core areas of development. CAREL is one of the world’s leaders in control solutions for air-conditioning, refrigeration, heating, and systems for humidification and evaporative cooling. CAREL prides itself as the company with a mission is to bring energy savings and reduce the impact of machinery and systems on the environment. In 2007-2009, during the global economic crisis many companies were facing the challenge to remain competitive, but CAREL kept growing. This growth meant that leadership was required to find a solution, effective and flexible enough, to support that growth. They found the answer in the Lean Product Development approach. To evaluate the performance of the Set-Based Concurrent Engineering (SBCE) efforts, CAREL identified three core areas of measurement: Risk, Innovation and Learning. KPIs for performance measurement of the SBCE projects One of the key reasons why CAREL monitors only three areas is to allow teams to focus on their daily development tasks, to minimize turbulences in the process flow, and to prevent other unnecessary interruptions. Below is a brief overview of CAREL’s KPIs for each of the measured areas: Risk-based KPIs
“Reduce potential risks of failures across a product’s life cycle” CAREL measures the severity of failure modes before and after SBCE is applied which allows it to understand what the Risk Reduction Index (RRIs) is. RRI reveals how much risk was reduced by and the following formula is used to calculate the RRI of each subsystem’s failure mode. Innovation based KPIs“Improve innovation or creativity in a project” Innovation is measured for each project where SBCE is applied, using a bespoke tool where a novelty score is assigned to specific design factors for each identified design solution. Each design solution is categorized using the following three-level scoring system.
The novelty score, design factors and the number of design factors are then used to calculate the novelty effectiveness. Learning based KPIs
“Improve the quality of learning in a project” CAREL measures the quality of learning through the total amount of Lessons Learned derived from the physical or virtual prototype tests. The lessons learned are divided into three KPIs in order to ensure the effectiveness of the knowledge captured. The fourth KPI is also measured, providing a quantitative overview on the new knowledge generated. These four KPIs are:
Learning quality is a qualitative assessment and therefore requires the involvement of an entire project team. Which KPIs do you use to measure the effectiveness of your innovation processes? And if you implemented set-based design, did you need to modify the existing KPIs or even introduce some new ones? If you are interested in sharing your experience, do not hesitate to contact us on [email protected]. CAREL’s Best Practices are presented and described on more than 25 pages in the Lean Product Development Best Practices book. CAREL’s chapter is only one out of the 10 chapters presenting the real-world application of lean product development in multinational companies. The hard copy of the book with the 10 cases is available for only 74.99 EUR. CAREL’s Lean Product Development case is available digitally free or charge to our members. Interested to become a member? ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)MATIC GOLOB Matic has over 5 years of experience in working with global organizations from various industrial sectors, either leading or supporting the development and introduction of bespoke lean innovation and new product development solutions. Over the past years, Matic has co-developed a framework to enable better, faster and more integrated innovation across the entire value chain, enabling companies to maximize their innovation capability and deliver truly customer-centric products and services, while minimizing the risk of market failure. Matic is a certified Service Design Thinking Facilitator, and the creator of the Set-Based Integrated Innovation Business Game co-developed with a multinational Swiss company. He completed his Master’s degree in Global Product Development and Management at Cranfield University in 2012. Matic is a co-author of the Lean Product Development Best Practices book, and several journal and conference publications. He regularly appears as a speaker and workshop holder at various lean, product development and innovation conferences. ALBERTO ROSSO Alberto Rosso is a Lean Change Agent at CAREL Industries since 2007 after a very useful experience abroad working 3 years in the United States as ERP Manager. He is also a Master trainer in Lean Management and has a vast experience deploying tools and impacting behaviors, working on leadership styles and applying change management approaches cross-functionally. Now his main focus is in New Product Development, Innovation process, Road mapping. MYRNA FLORES Lean Analytics Association Dr. Flores has over 20 years of experience collaborating as internal or external consultant in different manufacturing and services organizations, leading several initiatives related to Lean Thinking, Business Process improvement, Six Sigma, Supply Chain, Change Management, Open Innovation, Digital Transformation and Human Centered Service Design; providing also training and coaching. She is co-founder and president of the Lean Analytics Association (LAA) and visiting scholar at the College of Management of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland. The da vinci code stream. Disclaimer: is absolutly legal and contain only links to other sites such as (, Megashare, Primewire, Solarmovie, Openload, Sockshare, Novamov, Nowvideo, Megavideo, Gorillavid, MovShare, Vidbull, Vidto, Vodlocker, Allmyvideos, Vidzi, vidxden, Putlocker 123movies and many others.), We do not host any films, media files (avi, mov, flv, mpg, mpeg, divx, dvd rip, mp3, mp4, torrent, ipod, psp) on our server, here is not responsible for the accuracy, compliance, copyright, legality, decency.If you have any legal issues please contact the appropriate media file owners or host sites 123movies. She carried out her Post-doc at EPFL collaborating at the Lean Product and Process (LeanPPD) FP7 European project from 2009 to 2013. She completed her PhD in 2006 at the Politecnico di Milano studying Open Innovation Models to enable Industry-University collaboration for innovation. She obtained her Master’s Degree in Manufacturing Systems in 1999 and a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Monterrey Tec (ITESM) in 1996. How Toyota’s product design and development process helps find the best solutions and develop successful products. advertisementToyota Motor Corporation is an industry leader in product development lead time while using fewer engineers than its U.S. competitors. It has also shown remarkable consistency in market share growth and profit per vehicle, which led to cash reserves of $21 billion, exceeding those of the “Big Three” automakers combined.1 The Toyota Production System (TPS), dubbed “lean manufacturing,” has been critical in these accomplishments,2 but we believe that Toyota’s product design and development system is also an important contributor.3 While Taiichi Ohno and others have meticulously described the TPS, the Toyota development system has not been well documented.4 Indeed, Toyota does not use many of the practices often considered critical to successful concurrent engineering and associated with Japanese manufacturers. Its development teams are not colocated. Personnel, with the exception of the chief engineer and his staff, are not dedicated to one vehicle program. Cross-functional job rotation is unusual for the first ten to twenty years of an engineer’s career. Engineering and test functions rarely use quality function deployment (QFD) and Taguchi methods. Toyota excels at value engineering (VE) and value analysis (VA), yet Toyota engineers say they do not use any of the text-book tools and matrices for VE or VA. And there is nothing remarkable about Toyota’s CAD or CAE systems. These practices, then, do not explain Toyota’s effectiveness in developing new vehicles. In a previous article, we called Toyota’s product development system the “second Toyota paradox.”5 TPS was the first; its features seem wasteful but result in a more efficient overall system, such as changing over manufacturing processes more frequently (presumably inefficient) in order to create short manufacturing lead times. The second paradox can be summarized in this way: Toyota considers a broader range of possible designs and delays certain decisions longer than other automotive companies do, yet has what may be the fastest and most efficient vehicle development cycles in the industry. Traditional design practice, whether concurrent or not, tends to quickly converge on a solution, a point in the solution space, and then modify that solution until it meets the design objectives. This seems an effective approach unless one picks the wrong starting point; subsequent iterations to refine that solution can be very time consuming and lead to a suboptimal design. Read the Full Article:Sign in, buy as a PDF or create an account. Already a member? Sign InNot a member? Sign Up Today!On-demand Web SeminarThis webinar demonstrates how concurrent engineering can be used to accelerate and improve the electronic product development process from concept through to manufacturing. Duration: 22:23 DetailsOverviewIncreasing design efficiency is the biggest challenge in the PCB business today. Design teams are pushed to continually add product functionality while reducing design time, cutting product costs, and improving product quality. A recent survey by Aberdeen identifies increased pressure to meet delivery deadlines as the number one driver of improvements in PCB processes. The answer to this challenge is concurrent team work throughout the entire design flow. In this webinar, we look at the new and innovative concurrent engineering solutions available in the latest generation of software technology and how they can help you and your team create and sustain a competitive advantage. Who Should View
What You Will Learn
Related ResourcesMultimediaOther Related ResourcesSorry, but this is going to be a long one! We have used shared work areas almost exclusively for many years (since we first installed Adept in '06). This is a facility where we have legacy drawings that go back as far as 1965 and some are under seemingly constant revision as part of project after project. Shared work areas, to us, have seemed like the most practical way to collaborate on these projects with several team members. It would be different if we were a contractor / consultant firm who only ever generates new drawings and documents. I've attempted to figure out a way to change our project Work Areas into project Libraries, but so far, have had a hard time coming up with a workflow that actually works for us. Here's a summary of our typical flow of work. Designers find the drawings they need to modify as part of their projects, mark them up and we sign them out to a shared work area where they remain signed out until construction is complete and project close-out can occur. At which time, as builts are applied and the drawings are signed back into their respective libraries and approved.
I am keenly interested in hearing what other facilities do as far as work flow goes. ![]() NOW, regarding our concurrent engineering procedure, it started many years ago before any of us were really even aware of the term 'concurrent engineering', so we just called the drawings that fell under this distinction, 'MPD's' or Multi-Project Drawings.
I left out lots of little details, but I do understand that it's not the easiest procedure to grasp. I was recently told by a new hire that at their previous place of employment, they essentially made all of their changes in this way. Download grub4dos installer 1.1. I'm not even remotely interested in doing that if we can avoid it and I'm quite sure that we can avoid it. Anyway, I think that's enough for you to digest for now! Again, if you're in a facility with drawings that are years and years old and you continue to update them, I'm interested to hear how you avoid the use of shared work areas. Thanks! Comments are closed.
|