Systems Engineering Coordination for Sustaining Engineering in a Matrix Product Management and Development Organization

Combining REACH, environmental and economic performance indicators for strategic sustainable product development

The product reliability program was initiated to verify that the product being rushed into production is ready. That it has been through a process of analysis, testing and documentation aimed at assuring the success of the product meeting company's goals for reliability: that it will perform its functions successfully for a long time with high confidence, at a reasonable cost of ownership, and in an acceptable time to market. What is reliability, and why is it important? It differs from product quality, in that the quality program is aimed at building the best product that meets design, while reliability aims to see that the product quality is met throughout the life of the product (or some period of time). Reliability is defined as the probability that a product will operate for some period of time, under stated conditions and with a given level of confidence. Why is reliability important? If we are lacking in quality or reliability, we will have unacceptable DOAs (Dead On Arrivals) or product returns, which directly impact the bottom line (profits). Time to Market for a new design in a new market is of utmost importance, but if the products don't work, the reputation of the product and the company will suffer; consequences of this may far outweigh other financial or time to market achievements. Market pressures are forcing companies to produce products with higher reliability. How do we implement a reliability program? This will depend upon the company organizational make-up, the level of experience of the employee's in reliability, and the market demands for reliability. It would of course help to have employees experienced in reliability, but if the company lacks such skill sets, outside consultants can be brought in to give some guidance. But these consultants need to be immersed into the company's product development process and tasked with the documentation of the reliability process and training for engineers and managers. Why is there resistance to a reliability program ? The company culture is probably built on a history of product development cycles, possibly from years previous when market demands for reliability were not nearly so demanding. Also, many of the tools in reliability are built on statistics and require some skills in understanding. Reliability tools also involve testing products at stress levels beyond the product specification, and the design engineers may find this difficult to accept. In this paper, we will examine reliability engineering tools and the reliability process, and how to introduce them to a company. We will look at what elements are needed in order to create a corporate culture that supports the reliability program implementation. We will discuss some strategies on how to generate support for this reliability program. We will discuss an example in which the product is highly customized, and sold in low volume. Each product sold is based on specific requirements from the customer, and is designed to fit into the specific application from that customer. A given product would not be sold to other customers.

The following case study evaluates the New Product Development (NPD) techniques utilized by Forest City Technologies, Incorporated (FCT). Through insight gathered via interviews conducted with the company's product development and materials purchasing management teams, and supported by literature, this study attempts to show how Forest City Technologies, Inc. integrates specific components into its product development process to: 1. Meet its NPD goals, and 2. Achieve better supplier and customer relationships. This study focuses on the components of: NPD models employed by FCT, early customer and supplier involvement, NPD-innovation integration techniques, demand change factors during the NPD process, and risk-mitigation strategies implemented by FCT during the NPD process. The study is segmented into three main sections: Introduction to NPD and FCT, the components of FCTs new product development process, and NPD implications on FCTs supplier and customer relationships.

The relationship between system theory and the product design, the process of product development has been described. It compared the merits and demerits of serial and parallel product development processes and, with the guidelines of system theory, put forward and analyzed the planning actions and corresponding necessity existed in the indistinct initial phase in product development process. It also analyzed the optimizing effect of planning actions in product design & development process. Thus, it obtained the model of product design & development process based on system theory so as to clarify the indistinct initial phase, shorten product development time and, improve the effectiveness of enterprise's product development.

A-dec Inc. is a dental equipment manufacturer headquartered in Newberg, Oregon. A-dec implemented an innovative product development process to support the launch of a new product line. The change in process motivated the A-dec Marketing Communications team to address how to align their process with the company's product development direction. The group decided to focus on content. They faced the challenge of how to control and manage content, which started their education in the area of content management and content management systems. This ongoing case study discusses their journey towards implementing a content management system. Located in Vancouver, BC, Intentional Design Inc. is a technical communication consultancy focused on improving the performance of communication products. The strength of the organization lies in the wildbrain approach (see Dale Dauten's The Gifted Boss) to performance improvement and its impact on the solutions provided to clients.

Implications of Service-related Business Models on Product Development Processes

It is not possible to make a clear statement whether the ongoing globalisation in the context of system development holds more opportunities or more risks for companies. However, it is undisputed in this context that the system development projects have become and will continue to gain immense complexity in the context of increasing economic interdependencies. Considering the possibilities of the Internet of Things with the multitude of networked, autonomous systems, it quickly becomes clear that the complexity of system development will take on even greater dimensions in the future. The companies have recognized that they can only rise to this challenge with Systems Engineering and that they only can survive on the market of “Systems-of-Systems” by applying interdisciplinary development methods. For this reason the “SE Quick Check” was developed, a pragmatic instrument with which product development in companies can be analysed and tailored in order to lay the foundation for the introduction or targeted optimization of individually coordinated Systems Engineering. As shown in a variety of applications in companies, the approach can be used to determine an SE maturity level and an individual SE target in the shortest possible time. Based on this, measures can be defined and implemented directly to achieve the SE target image.

The article investigates strategy of company's product design and development considering the whole lifespan of product and the development course of enterprise. It suggests enterprises of different nature, enterprises at different developing stage will adopt different mode strategies. It also announces close causality between development course of company and central technology and product.The result indicated in different developing stages such as company development period, crisis predicament period, lasting steadies period, improving by payback period, issues steadies secondary period, declining go and live period, enterprise should pursue different mode product tactics of research and development such as shrinking strategy, consolidating strategy, innovation keeping forging ahead strategy. Enterprise should break regular management mode so as to introduce different research and development mode to promote enterprise's competitiveness effectively.

PurposeThis paper aims to provide insights into the development and management of a customer community, informing product innovation and engaging customers in co‐creation of a consumption experience.Design/methodology/approachA review of the state of current knowledge about co‐production, co‐creation and customer communities is followed by discussion of the case study methodology. The case history of a leading player in the UK and international “sportkiting” market focuses on product innovation and customer‐community development. Discussion reflects in more detail on the lessons from the case for application of the principles in practice.FindingsThe case company's innovative product development strategy provides the catalyst for co‐creation of a customer experience. Its marketing actions extend beyond product development and innovation to actively co‐creating experiences with customers, fostering a sense of community among users, facilitating communication within that community, acting on the feedback, and continuously developing and maintaining the community relationship.Research limitations/implicationsThe company's marketing strategy can be summed up as “customer community leadership”. This paradigm proposes a new role for businesses in sectors where there is a potential to develop and engage communities. It provides a context for the effective facilitation of customer knowledge management, within which marketing intelligence plays a significant role. The findings offer scope for further research into the nature of this phenomenon and its relevance to co‐creation in other industry sectors, and into numerous aspects of the processes and impacts associated with customer communities.Originality/valueThe case contributes to the literature of co‐creation, demonstrating how it has been achieved through a marketing strategy and marketing mix in a particular customer community.

ABSTRACTEarly Systems Research and Development (ESR&D) is one of the most crucial phases in the product development process. It both blends and blurs the lines between science and engineering, and requires a risk‐based, disciplined, and graded approach to effectively manage scope, cost, and complexity of the final product. Many leaders, program managers, and scientists are unwilling to involve systems engineering because of the perception that systems engineering is heavily process oriented, adds unnecessary costs, and should be applied only to mature technologies. The value of systems engineering as applied to ESR&D is unclear to these key individuals. The unfortunate result is that system engineering is not applied to ESR&D. This results in R&D efforts that may have solved the wrong problem, selected the wrong architecture, require technical rework, have difficulty transitioning later maturity levels, and result in higher R&D costs and extended development timelines. This article discusses the difficulty of introducing systems engineering to the research and early development process and their inclination perspectives of researchers, engineers, and managers. The article shall offer potential means to manage the cultural transformation of early adoption of right‐sized systems engineering in ESR&D and reverse the attitudinal positions.

Background, Aim and Scope Sustainability is a well recognised goal which is difficult to manage due to its complexity. As part of a series of sustainability management tools, a Product Sustainability Index (PSI) is translating the sustainability aspects to the organization of vehicle product development of Ford of Europe, thus allocating ownership and responsibility to that function. PSI is limiting the scope to those key environmental, social and economic characteristics of passenger vehicles that are controllable by the product development organisation. Materials and Methods: The PSI considers environmental, economic and social aspects based on externally reviewed life cycle environmental and cost aspects (Life Cycle Assessment, Cost of ownership / Life Cycle Costing), externally certified aspects (allergy-tested interior) and related aspects as sustainable materials, safety, mobility capability and noise. After the kick-off of their product development in 2002, the new Ford S-MAX and Ford Galaxy are serving as a pilot for this tool. These products are launched in Europe in 2006. The tracking of PSI performance has been done by engineers of the Vehicle Integration department within the product development organization. The method has been translated in an easy spreadsheet tool. Engineers have been trained within one hour trainings. The application of PSI by vehicle integration followed the principle to reduce the need for any incremental time or additional data to a minimum. PSI is adopted to the existing decision-making process. End of 2005, an internal expert conducted a Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) study for verification purposes using commercial software. This study and the PSI have been scrutinized by an external review panel according to ISO14040 and, by taking into consideration the on-going SETAC, work in the field of LCC. Results: The results of the Life Cycle based indicators of PSI as calculated by non-experts are fully in line with those of the more detailed expert study. The difference is below 2%. The new Ford Galaxy and Ford S-MAX shows significantly improved performance regarding the life cycle air quality, use of sustainable materials, restricted substances and safety compared to the previous model Galaxy. The affordability (Life Cycle Cost of Ownership) has also been improved when looking at the same engine types. Looking at gasoline versus diesel options, the detailed study shows under what conditions the diesel options are environmentally preferable and less costly (mileage, fuel prices, etc.). Discussion: The robustness of results has been verified in various ways. Based also on Sensitivity and Monte-Carlo Analysis, case study-specific requirements have been deduced defining criteria for a significant environmental improvement between the various vehicles. Only if the differences of LCIA results between two vehicles are larger than a certain threshold are the above-mentioned results robust. Conclusions: In general terms, an approach has been implemented and externally reviewed that allows non-experts to manage key environmental, social and economic aspects in the product development, also on a vehicle level. This allows mainstream functions to take ownership of sustainability and assigns accountability to those who can really decide on changes affecting the sustainability performance. In the case of Ford S-MAX and Galaxy, indicators from all three dimensions of sustainability (environment, social and economic) have been improved compared to the old Ford Galaxy. Recommendations and Perspectives: Based on this positive experience, it is recommended to make, in large or multinational organizations, the core business functions directly responsible and accountable for managing their own part of environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Staff functions should be limited to starting the process with methodological and training support and making sure that the contributions of the different main functions fit together.

This chapter summarizes findings from research on new product development in a sample of European information-technology (IT) firms, in comparison with firms in the same industry in Japan and the United States. The purpose of this research was to contribute to an understanding of how effectively European providers of information-technology products and systems exploit their technological resources, leveraging existing know-how and succeeding in new research and development (R&D) efforts. The research was prompted by the perception of a relatively poor performance of European companies in the information-echnology industry, and in particular in the newer, faster-moving product areas, such as active components, personal computers, and workstations, in comparison with their American and Japanese competitors. Although the poor performance of European firms could partly be ascribed to market conditions-such as the fragmentation of markets and the role of public policies-internal policies, practices, and organizational processes of firms may also play a role. A number of studies of product development policies, organization, and processes have been performed on Japanese and American IT firms, but there was a relative paucity of comparable empirical research on European firms.

Process planning for collaborative product development with CD-DSM in optoelectronic enterprises

Systems development has often resulted as a hit-or-miss proposition before the advent of standardized analysis and design languages providing blueprints understood by both software and systems engineers. This paved the way for modeling cyber-physical systems using established, yet evolving standardized notation widely accepted by industry. In the past, system analysts would try to assess the needs of their clients, generate a requirements analysis in some notation that the analyst understood (but not always the client), give that analysis to a programmer or team of programmers, and hope that the final product was the system the client wanted (Schmuller, 2003). However, advances in UML and SysML have created new pathways to the design process when combined with Concurrent Object Modeling and Architectural Design Method (COMET) methodology that can assist in the realm of complex embedded system design for next generation cyber-physical systems (Rajhans, 2009). In order for product development to meet a desired need, communicating the vision to the developers is of utmost importance. The UML is a visual modeling language that enables system builders to create blueprints that capture their design intentions in a standardized format for effective communication of engineering detail. The paper reviews some key benefits of using UML and SysML during the product development process with COMET. The UML process steps are briefly described, followed by an introduction to the SysML language which is an extension of the UML. The paper provides a process review of embedded system development using SysML for systems engineering that can be useful for modeling aspects of cyber-physical system development during integrated product development. Realizing the fact that SysML may be considered too generic to address embedded and real-time system design, the paper provides a brief review of COMET, a UML based method for the development of concurrent applications, in particular distributed and real-time applications (Gomaa, 2008). The Artificial Intelligence Design Framework introduced as part of the thesis work supported by NASA (Tanik, 2006) can be adapted to cyber-physical system design. The published book detailing the AIDF called Architecting Automated Design Systems is based on this thesis work (Tanik, 2008) and is being used as a basis for supporting cyber-physical system design using artificial intelligence decision support with many application areas, including complex safety-critical medical and space systems design. This journal paper establishes the link between the conference paper on integrated product development (Tanik, 2010), and the previous work on the PhD thesis completed in 2006 that relates to cyber-physical system design frameworks.

Lean is not minimizing cost, cycle time, or waste. Lean is maximizing value. In product development (PD)—a process where the systems engineering (SE) of products plays a significant role—sometimes getting lean requires doing more, not less. Providing a preferred combination of technical performance, affordability, and lead time requires a flexible and lean PD process. Value is affected not only by the presence of necessary (value‐adding) activities in the PD process but also by the way those activities work together (as a system) to ensure that they use and produce right information. Lean PD requires the right information in the right place at the right time.The kernel of the idea is based on systems thinking. The value of a system is more than the value of its individual components. Similarly, the value of a process is more than the value of its individual activities. How well the components or activities work together (or fail to do so) makes the difference in value. If all the activities add value, how can we ensure that they work together in such a way that the overall process maximizes its potential value? Lean PD requires the systems engineering of processes.