The definition of Concurrent Engineering that we have adopted for the Concurrent Design Facility is: 'Concurrent Engineering (CE) is a systematic approach to integrated product development that emphasises the response to customer expectations. It embodies team values of co-operation, trust and sharing in such a manner that decision making is by consensus, involving all perspectives in parallel, from the beginning of the product life-cycle.'
- About CDF
- What is concurrent engineering?
- Activities
- Multimedia
- Services
Essentially, CE provides a collaborative, co-operative, collective and simultaneous engineering working environment.
The concurrent engineering approach is based on five key elements: Red dead on pc.
- a process
- a multidisciplinary team
- an integrated design model
- a facility
- a software infrastructure
The spacecraft design is based on mathematical models, which make use of custom software and linked spreadsheets. By this means, a consistent set of design parameters can be defined and exchanged throughout the study, and any changes which may have an impact on other disciplines can immediately be identified and collectively assessed. In this way, a number of design iterations can be performed, and different design options can easily be analysed and compared.
CDF activities are conducted in sessions: plenary meetings in which representatives of all space engineering domains participate, from the early phases (requirement analysis) to the end of the design (costing). Even those disciplines that were traditionally involved at a later stage of the process are given the opportunity to participate from the beginning and to identify trends that might later invalidate the design.
Last update: 29 May 2018
Rate this | Views | Share |
---|---|---|
Thank you for rating! You have already rated this page, you can only rate it once! Your rating has been changed, thanks for rating! |
How Toyota’s product design and development process helps find the best solutions and develop successful products.
advertisement
Toyota 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 In
Not a member? Sign Up Today!
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]
- 1Introduction
- 2Elements
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.
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.
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):
Concurrent Engineering Ppt
“ | Concurrent Engineering (CE) is a systematic approach to integrated product development that emphasizes the response to customer expectations. It embodies team values of co-operation, trust and sharing in such a manner that decision making is by consensus, involving all perspectives in parallel, from the beginning of the product life cycle. | ” |
The second one is by Winner, et al., 1988:
“ | Concurrent Engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes, including, manufacturing and support. This approach is intended to cause the developers from the very outset to consider all elements of the product life cycle, from conception to disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements.[12] | ” |
Using C.E.[edit]
Currently, several companies, agencies and universities use CE. Among them can be mentioned:
- European Space AgencyConcurrent Design Facility
- NASATeam X - Jet Propulsion Laboratory
- NASAIntegrated Design Center (IDC), Mission Design Lab (MDL), and Instrument Design Lab (IDL) - Goddard Space Flight Center
- CNES – French Space Agency
- ASI – Italian Space Agency
- Boeing
- EADS Astrium – Satellite Design Office
- The Aerospace Corporation Concept Design Center
See also[edit]
- ESA's Concurrent Design Facility
References[edit]
Define Engineering Model
- ^'The Principles of Integrated Product Development'. NPD Solutions. DRM Associates. 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2017.
- ^Ma, Y., Chen, G. & Thimm, G.; 'Paradigm Shift: Unified and Associative Feature-based Concurrent Engineering and Collaborative Engineering', Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, DOI 10.1007/s10845-008-0128-y
- ^Kusiak, Andrew; Concurrent Engineering: Automation, Tools and Techniques
- ^ abQuan, W. & Jianmin, H., A Study on Collaborative Mechanism for Product Design in Distributed Concurrent Engineering IEEE 2006. DOI: 10.1109/CAIDCD.2006.329445
- ^ abKusiak, Andrew, Concurrent Engineering: Automation, Tools and Techniques
- ^'The standard waterfall model for systems development', NASA Webpage, November 14, 2008
- ^Kock, N. and Nosek, J., 'Expanding the Boundaries of E-Collaboration', IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol 48 No 1, March 2005.
- ^Ma, Y., Chen, G., Thimm, G., 'Paradigm Shift: Unified and Associative Feature-based Concurrent Engineering and Collaborative Engineering', Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, DOI 10.1007/s10845-008-0128-y
- ^Royce, Winston, 'Managing the Development of Large Software Systems', Proceedings of IEEE WESCON 26 (August 1970): 1-9.
- ^Kusiak, Andrew, 'Concurrent Engineering: Automation, Tools and Techniques'
- ^Rosenblatt, A. and Watson, G. (1991). 'Concurrent Engineering', IEEE Spectrum, July, pp 22-37.
- ^Winner, Robert I., Pennell, James P., Bertrand, Harold E., and Slusarczuk, Marko M. G. (1991). 'The Role of Concurrent Engineering in Weapons System Acquisition', Institute for Defense Analyses Report R-338, December 1988, p v.
- Ward A (ed) 1995 Proceedings of the 7 th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. DE-Vol. 83, ASME.Google Scholar
- Birmingham W P, Ward A 1995 Special issue: What is concurrent engineering. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 9:67–68Google Scholar
- Sriram D, Logcher R, Fukuda F (eds) 1991 Computer-Aided Cooperative Product Development Springer-Verlag, Berlin (Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 492)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Kusiak A (ed) 1992 Concurrent Engineering: Automation, Tools, and Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Sohlenius G 1992 Concurrent engineering. Annals CIRP, 41/2:645–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Birmingham W.P, Ward A (eds) 1995 Special Issue on Concurrent Engineering, Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 9(2)Google Scholar
- Dertouzos M L, Solow R M, Lester R K 1989 Made in America. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Tomiyama T 1995 A Japanese view on concurrent engineering. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 9:69–11Google Scholar
- Ward A, Liker J, Sobek D, Cristiano J 1995 Toyota, concurrent engineering, and set-based design. In: Liker, Ettlie, Campbell (eds) Engineering in Japan, Japanese Technology Management Practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
- Ishii K 1992 Modeling of concurrent engineering design. In: Kusiak A (ed) Concurrent Engineering: Automation, Tools, and Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 19–39Google Scholar
- Finger S, Konda S, Subrahmanian E 1995 Concurrent design happens at the interfaces. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 9:89–99Google Scholar
- Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P 1983 Design for Assembly: A Designer’s Handbook. Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc., Wakerfield, RI.Google Scholar
- Yoshikawa H 1981 General design theory and a CAD system. In: Sata T, Warman E A (eds):Man-Machine Communication in CAD CAM. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 35–58Google Scholar
- Hubka V 1987 Principles of Engineering Design, WDK 1. Heurista, ZürichGoogle Scholar
- Finger S, Dixon J R 1989 A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive and computer-based models of design processes. Res in Eng Des 1:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Finger S, Dixon J R 1989 A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part II: Representations, analysis, and design for the life cycle. Res in Eng Des 1:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Newcomb P, Bras B, Rosen D W 1996 Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. In: McCarthy J M (ed) Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering Conference. 96-DETC/DTM-1516. ASMEGoogle Scholar
- Tomiyama T 1994 From general design theory to knowledge-intensive engineering. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 8:319–333Google Scholar
- Tomiyama T, Sakao T, Umeda Y, Baba Y 1995 The post-mass production paradigm, knowledge intensive engineering, and soft machines. In: Krause F-L, Jansen H (eds) Life Cycle Modelling for Innovative Products and Processes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 369–380Google Scholar
- Tomiyama T, Umeda Y, Ishii M, Yoshioka M, Kiriyama T 1996 Knowledge systematization for a knowledge intensive engineering framework. In: Tomiyama T, Mäntylä M, Finger S (eds) Knowledge Intensive CAD, Vol. 1. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 33–52Google Scholar
- Cutkosky M, Engelmore R, Fikes R, Genesereth M, Gruber T, Mark W, Tenen-baum J, Weber J 1993 PACT: An experiment in integrating concurrent engineering systems. IEEE Comp 26:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tomiyama T, Xue D, Umeda Y, Takeda H, Kiriyama T, Yoshikawa H 1992 Systematizing design knowledge for intelligent CAD systems. In: Oiling G J, Kimura F (eds) Human Aspects in Computer Integrated Manufacturing, IFIP Transactions B-3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 237–248Google Scholar