AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Stephen C. Schlegel Jr. for the degree of Master of Science in Mechanical
Engineering presented on May 26, 2000. Title: A Product Development
Process Measurement Methodology Applied to Small Manufacturing
Companies.
Redacted for Privacy
Abstract Approved:
David G. Ullman
The implementation of concurrent engineering into many large
companies has greatly improved their product development processes.
These companies have seen significant gains in quality and customer
satisfaction with reduced product costs, defects, and time-to-market
(Lake, 1992). Many large companies have successfully employed this
relatively new product development philosophy. However, smaller
companies have not yet integrated this philosophy into their product
development systems with the success that larger companies have seen.
With small companies composing 98% of the manufacturing firms in this
country (U.S. Census Bureau, 1995), there has been a recent push for
the development of implementation methods for small companies. This
paper presents a five step approach that small manufacturing companies
can use to implement a concurrent engineering based product
development process. Our definition of a small manufacturing company
is an organization with 50 or fewer employees and net annual sales of 10
million dollars or less. The first step provides a general outline for
companies to use in documenting their current product development
process. The second step involves comparing the company's current
product development process to a concurrent engineering based product
development process model that is general enough for nearly all
manufacturing firms. This step also includes the use of the theory of
constraints and a so-called revised theory of constraints method to
further refine the process understanding and description. Third, a new
methodology for designing and applying process measurements is used
to provide insight into the relationships that exists between the internal
and external resources, requirements and deliverables of the product
development process. It is during this step that the Process
Measurement Matrix (PMM) is developed. Fourth, the PMM is used in
conjunction with the analytical hierarchy process or a simple ranking
technique to develop relative priorities. Finally, the appropriate
measurements are constructed for each subprocess in the product
development process.
©Copyright by Stephen C. Schlegel Jr.
May 26, 2000
All Rights Reserved
A Product Development Process Measurement Methodology Applied to
Small Manufacturing Companies
by
Stephen C. Schlegel Jr.
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented May 26, 2000
Commencement June 2001
Master of Science thesis of Stephen C. Schlegel Jr. presented on May 26,
2000
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Major Professor, representing Mechanical Engineering
Redacted for Privacy
Chair of Department of Mechanical Engineering
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of Graduate
ho
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection
of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes
release of my thesis to any reader upon request.
Redacted for Privacy
Stephen C.Sc
Sc eg Jr., Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. David G. Ullman for guidance and
instruction in this research project. Without his knowledge and
understanding of the mechanical design process this research would not
have been possible. I would also like to thank John Rasberry of Layton
Manufacturing Inc. and Greg Barreto of Barreto Manufacturing Inc. for
allowing me the opportunity to study the product development process in
their companies. Their cooperation has given me greater insight into
the actual processes needed for small manufacturing companies to
become successful.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
Motivation for Work
7
Objectives of the Project
8
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
10
Step 1: Document the Current Process
11
Step 2: Make Necessary Changes to Reflect a Concurrent
Engineering Environment
Process Model
Theory of Constraints
Revised Theory of Constraints
14
15
19
21
Step 3: Develop Executive Level Process Measurement Matrix
(PMM)
26
Step 4: Use PMM in conjunction with the analytical hierarchy
process or a simple ranking technique to develop relative
44
priorities
Step 5: Construct the appropriate measurements for each
subprocess in the product development process
57
DISCUSSION/ RESULTS
59
CONCLUSION
63
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY
65
APPENDICES
67
Appendix A: Documentation of Company A's Old Product
Development Process
Appendix B: Documentation of Company B's Old Product
Development Process
Appendix C: Concurrent Engineering Based Product
Development Process Model
Appendix D: Theory of Constraints Logic Tree
Appendix E: Revised Theory of Constraints
Appendix F: Process Measurement Matrix
68
82
95
123
127
141
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
Page
Schematic representation of the traditional "Over-the-Wall"
approach to product development
1
Visual representation of the concurrent design process with
all of the functional areas involved in the process
5
Representation of a simple flowchart documentation for
Company A's current product development process
11
A process information sheet that was competed for the first
step in the product development process of Company B
13
5.
Model of the mechanical design process proposed by Ullman
16
6.
Flowchart of concurrent engineering based product
development process model
18
A process information sheet for the first step in the
concurrent engineering based product development process
19
A portion of the reality tree for the product development
process at Company B
20
9.
Generic process model
22
10.
Generic process model for the overall product development
process
23
First page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
24
12.
Basic structure of the process measurement matrix
28
13.
Process measurement matrix that has been completed for
the executive level of Company B
31
3.
4.
7.
8.
11.
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Page
14.
Top left section of the process measurement matrix for the
executive level of Company B
32
15.
Bottom left section of the process measurement matrix for
the executive level of Company B
35
16.
Bottom center section of the process measurement matrix
for the executive level of Company B
37
17.
Top center section of the process measurement matrix for
the executive level of Company B
38
18.
Top center section of the process measurement matrix for
the executive level of Company B
40
19.
Distribution of product development subprocess cost over
the entire product development process for Company B
42
20.
Distribution of product development subprocess time over
the entire product development process for Company B
43
21.
Flowchart used to complete the section of the process
measurement matrix the relates Company B's executive
requirements to the subprocesses
44
22.
The matrix developed during the first step of the analytical
hierarchy process
45
23.
The intensity of importance scale used when comparing one
element to another
46
24.
Analytical hierarchy process matrix with judgements made
between elements 1, 2, and 3
47
25.
The analytical hierarchy matrix with all values normalized
47
26.
Average of the rows producing the overall relative priorities
47
27.
Comparison of the analytical hierarchy technique and the simple
51
rank order technique
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Page
Plot of the overall relative priority of the product unit cost
requirement for each subprocess in the product
development process of Company B
52
Plot of the overall relative priority of the customer
requirements realized requirement for each subprocess
in the product development process of Company B
53
Plot of the overall relative priority of the achieved customer
satisfaction requirement for each subprocess in the product
development process of Company B
54
Plot of the overall relative priority of the percent earned
market share requirement for each subprocess in the
product development process of Company B
55
Plot of the overall relative priorities for all of the executive
requirements for each subprocess in the product
development process of Company B
56
A completed process information sheet with the relative
priorities of the executive level requirements and example
measurements
57
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
A. Documentation of Company A's Old Product Development
Process
68
B. Documentation of Company B's Old Product Development
Process
82
C. Concurrent Engineering Based Product Development
Process Model
95
D. Theory of Constraints Logic Tree
123
E. Revised Theory of Constraints
127
F. Process Measurement Matrix
141
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Appendix Figure
Page
A.1. Flowchart of company A's old product development
process
68
B.1. Flowchart of company B's old product development
process
82
C.1. Flowchart of concurrent engineering based product
development process model
95
D.1. First page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
123
D.2. Second page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
124
D.3. Third page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
125
D.4. Fourth page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
126
E.1. First page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
127
E.2. Second page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
128
E.3. Third page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for
Company B
129
E.4. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints
diagram for Company B
130
E.S. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints
diagram for Company B
E.6. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints
diagram for Company B
131
132
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES (Continued)
Appendix Figure
Page
E.7. Section of the first page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
133
E.B. Section of the second page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
134
E.9. Section of the second page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
135
E.10. Section of the second page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
136
E.11. Section of the second page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
137
E.12. Section of the third page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
138
E.13. Section of the third page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
139
E.14. Section of the third page of the revised theory of
constraints diagram for Company B
140
F.1. Process Measurement Matrix completed for Company
B's executive level product development process
141
F.2. Section of Process Measurement Matrix completed for
Company B's executive level product development process
143
F.3. Section of Process Measurement Matrix completed for
Company B's executive level product development process
144
F.4. Section of Process Measurement Matrix completed for
Company B's executive level product development process
145
F.S. Section of Process Measurement Matrix completed for
Company B's executive level product development process
146
Lovingly dedicated to my wife, Jessica. Your love and
support has been the pillar of my strength.
A Product Development Process Measurement Methodology Applied to
Small Manufacturing Companies
INTRODUCTION
With a changing domestic market and ever increasing international
competition, companies large and small are being forced to reduce their
development times while improving the quality of their products, lowering
product costs, and increasing customer satisfaction (Allen, 1997).
Reaching these goals has been a big challenge for many companies. One
reason is the continued use of a traditional "over-the wall" approach to
product development. This process is represented schematically in
Feedback from Customers
Feedback from Production
=
==
=
==
=
1I
OK Marketing
111
=
=1=11
11I=
Engineering
Production
End User
===
=
==
===
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the traditional "Over-theWall" approach to product development.
2
Figure 1. In this traditional or sequential methodology, the need for a
product is seen by marketing who develops the initial concept. This
concept is then thrown "over-the-wall" to engineering. Engineering then
develops the new concept, creating production drawings, bill of materials,
and assembly instructions. The production area then receives the
specifications and tries to manufacture the product. Very seldom is the
product able to be produced because engineering has proposed a product
that either cannot be manufactured with current technologies, or has
huge capital expenditures. Therefore, the specifications move back and
forth between engineering and production until a suitable compromise is
found. Once the product is able to be manufactured, it is produced and
delivered to the customer. The customer then relates their opinion of the
product to marketing through purchasing the product (sales) and
complaints. Servicing also relates their evaluation of the product to
marketing by the actual number of service calls needed (repair) of the
product. The whole process will then start over with marketing
redefining and improving the product, then sending the new concept to
design. This method of product development has direct consequences in
terms of time, cost and quality. The lack of interaction between different
functional departments increases the time for product development while
also increasing the cost of the product due to process. This is a result of
bottle necking and non-value-added time. The quality of the product is
also directly affected by this lack of interaction. Design tools such as
3
Design for Assembly (DFA), Design for Manufacturablility ( DFM), and
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) have been to shown to improve
product quality (Clausing, 1994). Yet these tools cannot be employed
because most of the product development time was spent making subtle
changes to a design that was not effectively completed the first time.
In the early 1980's a product development process was introduced
that proponents claimed would solve the problems brought by the
traditional "over-the-wall" method. There is little agreement in industry
on the nomenclature given to this method. The most widely used name
for the process is concurrent engineering. Other names familiar to the
process are simultaneous engineering or integrated product and process
development (IPPD). There have been many different definitions given to
concurrent engineering. Some of the definitions are:
"A systematic approach to the integrated, simultaneous design of both
products and their related processes, including manufacturing, test, and
support." (Turino, 1992)
"A viable approach in which the simultaneous design of a product and
all its related processes in a manufacturing system are taken into
consideration, ensuring required matching of the product's structural
with functional requirements and the associated manufacturing
implications." (Jo, 1993)
"A systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products
and their related processes, including manufacture and support. This
approach is intended to cause the developers, from the outset, to
4
consider all elements of the product life cycle from conception through
disposal, including quality, cost, schedule and user requirements."
(Institute for Defense Analysis, 1986)
"A systematic approach to integrated product development that
emphasizes response to customer expectations and embodies team
values of cooperation, trust and sharing in such a manner that decision
making proceeds with large intervals of parallel working by all life-cycle
perspectives early in the process, synchronized by comparatively brief
exchanges to produce consensus." (Cleetus, 1992)
These definitions overlap in many areas. From the definitions the
following principles for concurrent engineering can be realized (CarlsonSkalak, 1997):
Focus on customer involvement throughout the product development
process
The use of a multidisciplinary team.
Focus on the life cycle of the product throughout all stages of product
development.
Application of tools early in the product development process such as
Design For Anything (DFX) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
Involvement of suppliers early and throughout the product
development process.
Using modern design tools such as CAD, CAM and CAE.
Continually improving the product development process.
5
Concurrent
Marketing
engineering can be
Sales
\k
Management
17
Product
Engineering
A7P
\
Figure 2.0. This
.111110- Development -4111-!
Process
Manufacturing
t
represented as in
Service and
Support
figure shows how
all of the functional
Customers
Suppliers
areas are involved
in the product
design process.
Figure 2. Visual representation of the
concurrent design process with all of the
functional areas involved in the process.
Some benefits
that concurrent
engineering brings
to a company that has successfully implemented it are:
Consideration of all the people involved with and all phases of the
product life cycle result in a better design process.
Management is able to focus on the quality, cost, and schedule.
The voice of the customer is not only heard, but an emphasis is
placed on it. The customer becomes part of the multidisciplinary design
team.
Alternative processes are investigated and studies are conducted to
find the best design. These studies include competition benchmarking.
By working together in teams, the people in the company become
closer and are able to understand one another better.
6
The same team follows the project from start to end promoting a sense
of ownership of the project. This gives a feeling of responsibility for the
project and enables team members to have a better understanding of the
project details.
Suppliers are brought into the multidisciplinary design team
(Chapman, 1992).
Many large companies have implemented product development
processes based on these principles with very impressive results. Digital
Equipment Corporation saw the assembly time for a project reduced by
65% while material costs were also reduced by 42% (Machlis, 1990).
Companies have also seen a 30% 50% decrease in the time for a
product launch to occur with the end product usually of higher quality,
lower production cost, and good market success. Boeing saw assembly
time on the 777 reduced from the planned 19 weeks to 3 weeks
(Huthwaite, 1993). After Xerox successfully implemented concurrent
engineering, the number of suppliers used dropped from over 3000 to
under 400 (Clausing, 1994). When concurrent engineering is employed
early in the design process, an average of 40% savings in time has been
saved over traditional design methods (Tricamo, 1993). Experts say that
while a 50% cost overrun on development will decrease profits by 3.5%, a
six month delay in bringing the product to market reduces profitability
by 33% (Machlis, 1990). The list of improvements in production goes on
and on, but most of the data has been acquired from large companies.
7
Large companies are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as companies
that employ 500 people or more. There has been very little data reported
by small businesses. This lack of data can be attributed to one main
reason, they have not successfully implemented concurrent engineering.
Motivation for the Work
Small businesses (firms with fewer than 500 employees) employ 53
percent of the private non-farm work force, contribute 47 percent of all
sales in the country, and are responsible for 51 percent of the private
gross domestic product. Small-business-dominated industries produced
an estimated 64 percent of the 2.5 million new jobs created during 1996
(U.S. Small Business Administration, 1997).
The number of small businesses (as measured in business tax
returns) in the United States has increased 57 percent since 1982. As of
1996, there were approximately 23.3 million non-farm businesses, of
which, 99 percent are small by size standards set by the U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA). These include corporations,
partnerships and sole proprietorships. Almost two-thirds of the 23.3
million businesses operate full-time, the rest part-time (IRS Statistics of
Income). Employers with fewer than 500 employees increased from
4,941,821 in 1988 to 5,261,967 in 1994, a 6.5 percent increase (U.S.
Small Business Administration, 1997). This data also shows that 98.5%
8
of manufacturing enterprises in the United States are considered small
businesses (U.S. Census Bureau,1995).
With small business representing such a huge stake in industry, it
would seem natural for them to pursue and implement concurrent
engineering. But small companies have not implemented concurrent
engineering with the success that large companies have had. Many
reasons have been cited for this deficiency. One reason is that larger
companies have more resources they can apply in developing a
concurrent engineering process. Small companies do not have the
resources (e.g. time, people, money) to invest in concurrent engineering.
Smaller companies are usually operated in an unstructured manner,
with little formal communication or developed documentation. Larger
companies tend to have well developed lines of communication and fully
implemented documentation. The one key reason for unsuccessful
implementation seems to be the lack of a plan that small companies can
follow to successfully implement concurrent engineering (CarlsonSkalak, 1997).
Objectives of the Project
There were three main objectives of this research project. The first
objective was to develop a concurrent engineering based product
development process that small manufacturing companies could use.
9
Development of the concurrent engineering based product development
process was accomplished by documenting the product development
process currently used by two small manufacturing firms. These
processes were examined and then reconstructed based on needed
improvements for a concurrent engineering environment to exist.
Second, a new theory of product design process measurement was
tested. This theory is used to identify the attributes which are common
to product development process. The new methodology employed the
Process Measurement Matrix (PMM) which provided a better
understanding of the product development process attributes.
Last, from the attributes provided by the PMM, the measurements
necessary to ensure a successful product development process were
acquired. Measurements could then be made during the product
development process that would provide information in terms of process
performance.
10
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
A five step program was developed that small manufacturing
companies could use to implement a concurrent engineering based
product development process. This program consisted of the following
steps:
Step 1: Document the current process.
Step 2: Make necessary changes to reflect a concurrent engineering
environment using process model, theory of constraints (logic tree)
and revised theory of constraints.
Step 3: Develop the executive level Process Measurement Matrix
(PMM).
Step 4: Use PMM in conjunction with the analytical hierarchy process
or the simple ranking technique to develop relative priorities.
Step 5: Construct the appropriate measurements for each subprocess
in the product development process.
The first step was completed for two small manufacturing companies.
The size of these companies was 50 or fewer employees and annual sales
of 10 million dollars or less. These companies will remain anonymous
and will be designated here as Company A and Company B. Due to
resource constraints, steps two through five were completed only for
Company B.
11
Step 1: Document the Current Process
The first step in the program is to document the current product
development process used by the company. By documenting the current
irb
Identify Market
Opportunity
Final Design Review and
Verification
Develop Product
Specifications
Product Projections
Made
to
0
Generate Concept
Sketches
0
0
Prototype Drawings
Developed
Manufacture
Scheduling
Production
O
Prototype
Built
J
4
Post Production
Review
Modify
Prototype
Prototype
Testing
0
-0
Customer Support &
Service
Detail Drawings
Developed
Modify Product
as needed
o
Continued top of --->
next column
Figure 3. Representation of a simple flowchart documentation for
Company A's current product development process.
12
process a better understanding is gained of the product development
process. This documentation will be needed to compare the current
process with the concurrent engineering based model. The format of the
documentation usually consists of a simple flow chart that shows how
the product proceeds through the product development process. An
example of this document can be seen in Figure 3.
A process information sheet is also completed for all of the
subprocesses involved during the product development process. This
document provides important information in the following categories:
Description
Purpose
Personnel Involved
Documentation Involved
Output
Information Required
Assessment
Notes
The description gives an explanation of what the particular process
achieves. The purpose tells the function the process provided to the
overall product development process. Personnel involved simply lists the
people involved with the process. Documentation shows the forms,
papers, or records involved in the process. The output reports on the
information that comes out of the process. The output could be either
13
tangible or non-tangible. For example, a tangible output would be a
form, drawing, or something you could actually touch. A non-tangible
output would be something that you could not physically touch such as,
the fact that a customer driven product has been ensured by completing
Sheet BCE 1.0
Identify Market Opportunity
Description: The market opportunity for a product is identified by the
owner. The owner is a contractor who sees a need for products from a
first hand point of view. He wants to provide all the equipment needed
for contractors to successfully complete their jobs.
Purpose: To intitialize the product development cycle and start the
design process.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from concepts that the owner and engineer have had.
Output: Written notes and sketches placed in a design notebook or
project file.
Notes:
Assesment: This stage of product development initially worked since the
owner had come from the paving business and saw the need for a
product on a first hand basis. The owner then started a new product
design based on what he thought the market would respond to instead of
researching the market. He no longer had the first hand knowledge that
he had while working as a paving contractor and the market did not
respond to this product as it had with the previous product.
Figure 4. A process information sheet that was competed for the first
step in the product development process of Company B.
the process. The information required explains what information is
necessary during the process for it to be completed. The assessment
14
section allows the person documenting the process to give an evaluation.
This assessment might include things such as what worked and what
didn't work in the process. Any notes that the person documenting the
process feels need to be included on the process information sheet are
placed in the notes section. An example of the process information sheet
can be seen in Figure 4. This documentation step was completed for the
entire product development process in both Company A and Company B.
The entire set of documentation can be seen in Appendices A and B.
Step 2: Make Necessary Changes to Reflect a Concurrent
Engineering Environment
The second step in the program is to make the necessary changes
to reflect a concurrent engineering environment using a process model,
the theory of constraints (logic tree), and the revised theory of
constraints. First, the current product development process is compared
with the concurrent engineering based product development process and
the necessary changes are made. Second, the theory of constraints
reality tree is developed for the process. This increases the
understanding of the process, highlighting the requirements to proceed
from one subprocess to the next. Last, the revised theory of constraints
diagram is created. Information from this step will be directly entered
into the process measurement matrix. The completion of these steps
results in a fully developed revised theory of constraints diagram. These
15
steps happen in parallel to each other as the information evolves between
them.
Process Model
Once the current product development process has been documented,
it is compared with a concurrent engineering based product development
process and the necessary changes are made. The concurrent
engineering based product development process model was based on a
model proposed by Ullman (1997). This model can be seen in Figure 5.
The following principles of concurrent engineering were also used in
the development of the process model.
Focus on the entire product life.
The use of a multidisciplinary team.
Realization that the processes used in product development are as
important as the product being developed.
Application of tools early in the product development process such as
Design For Anything (DFX) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
Involvement of suppliers early and throughout the product
development process.
Promotion of generating and evaluating multiple concepts.
Identify
needs.
Plan for the
design process.
Develop engineering specifications.
Develop product.
Identify who
the customers are.
Market
New
technology
Develop concepts.
-----T
H Develop
tasks.
Schedule
project.
_I
Generate customers
requirements.
What do they want?
Evaluate
performance.
Estimate
cost.
Evaluate
concepts.
Engineering
specifications
Design for
manufacture.
I
--IEvaluate competition.
Decompose
into subsystems.
Now is it done now?
i
Design for
assembly.
Subproblem
Generate engineering
specifications.
How will the requirements
be measured?
Decompose into
subproblems.
Generate
product.
Generate
concepts.
Form design
Leans.
Communicate
product
information.
Communicate
concept information
Decompose
into components
Update
plans.
Set targets
How much is good?
1
Evaluate
product.
Release for
production.
11?
Subproblem
V
Terminate.
Terminate.
Terminate.
5
17
Simultaneous awareness of manufacturing processes as the product
is being developed.
Using modern design tools such as CAD, CAM and CAE.
Continually improving the product development process.
Improvement of communication through all phases of the product
development process.
Using the model proposed by Ullman, the principles listed above, and
the documented product development processes currently used by two
small manufacturing companies, a new process model was created. A
flow chart of this model can be seen in Figure 6. Process information
sheets were also completed for this process. Figure 7 shows the process
information sheet for the first step in the concurrent engineering based
product development process model. The entire set of process
information sheets for the process model can be found in Appendix C.
This model is divided into five basic areas: Marketing, Product
Definition, Detail Design, Production and Post Production. Each one of
these phases is composed of two or more subprocesses. All of the phases
are characterized by a decision making process, except for the Post
Production phase.
Concurrent Engineering Based Product Development Process
'11
Marketing
Product Definition
Post Production
Production
Detail Design
.41--­
CPDP 1.0
Identify
Concept est Idea
3
V
CPDP 1.3
"Fuzzy Front End"
CD
CPDP 1.1
CD
Competitive
Market
Analysis/
Market
/
Engineering
Assessment
CD
Customer
Requirements
Defined
Through Focus
Groups
I
+
CPDP 2.2
Prototype Virtual
Part Modeling
,"; g
.11$
CPDP 2.3
CPDP 1.4
Complete Pre-
Planning Matrix
Prototype
Virtual
pi
CPDP 3.2
Assembly (Fit, 41
Production
Form, Function
Test)
CD
CD
IP
CPDP 1.5
CPDP 1.2
oject Ap
CID
co
Conduct Quality
Function
Deployment Based
On Refined
Customer
Requirements
Prototype
Detail
Production
Model
41.
Performance
Developed
Review
i
ELI
CPDP 1.6
Program
CD
CPDP 3.3
CPDP 2.4
/
0
Schedule
Estimated
CPDP 2.5
CPDP 3.4
III
Production
oval?
Prototype Build
CD
CD
0
1
CPDP 1.7
CD
Product
Specifications
rrt
Developed
0
CD
CPDP 2.6
Prototype
Testing
(Functional)
V
Cn
V
CPDP 1.8
S
Program
Schedule
0
Developed
CD
CPDP 2.7
BiB of Materials
Completed
r
CPDP 1.9
Concepts
Generated
CPDP 2.8
Assembly
Instructions
Completed
i
CPDP 2.0
pts
ConceEvaluate
CPDP 2.9
Technical
Publications
Developed
CPDP?,(1,
cept App
0
Customer
Service and
Support
Manufacturing
Scheduling
Buy vs. Make)
/
C13.
dQ
CPDP 3.5
CPDP 3.1
(Material
Selection,
Musitacturtug
Process Selection,
i
°)
CPDP 3.6
Product
Retirement
19
Sheet CPDP 1.0
Identify Concept or Idea
Phase: Marketing
Description: An idea or concept is identified by the company.
Purpose: To initiate the product development cycle and start the design process
Personnel Involved: Marketing, company owner, product development director.
Documentation Involved: Notes or sketches about the product, idea, or concept.
Output: Product description, idea, or concept.
Assessment:
Information Required:
Market and technological data on the product being considered.
Notes: Research is initiated from two primary sources:
Market pull Occurring as a natural outcome of customer or user aspirations,
when the technology tends to be behind the market;
Technology push The result of new technology, creating new markets, when the
market is behind the technology. (Pugh, 1989)
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Score
3.01
2.05
Example Measures
# of Days Spent in Process
$ Spent on Process
1.16
1.14
1.09
1.03
Figure 7. A process information sheet for the first step in the
concurrent engineering based product development process.
Theory of Constraints
The theory of constraints is a methodology developed by Dr.
Eliyahu M. Goldratt which suggests that all systems are similar to chains
or to networks of chains. Each chain is composed of a variety of links
20
that are different in their strength or capability. The theory implies that
each chain has one and only one weakest link which defines the
maximum performance of the existing chain (Dettmer, 1998). A reality
tree is used to identify the system constraint. The reality tree is nothing
more than a logic tree that reads as IF-THEN statements. By using this
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES:
The product development process
from identifying the need for the
product to post product retirement.
A decision must be made
to proceed with product
development
The decision is made to
proceed with product
development
Competitive market
he market analysis and
market research provides
constructive feedback
THE GOAL:
To produce a product that is
customer driven.
analysis/market research
is conducted
he company involved is
interested in developing
the product
Figure 8. A portion of the reality tree for the product development
process at Company B.
methodology, a better understanding of the process is gained. This also
helps generate a better description of the procedure. Another benefit of
the reality tree is that it highlights the requirements needed to proceed
from one subprocess to the next. A portion of the reality tree developed
for Company B can be seen in Figure 8. The reality tree flow is from the
21
bottom of the tree up. For example, in Figure 8, the IF-THEN statement
would read as follows, "If a need for a product exists AND the need for
the product is identified AND the company involved is interested in
developing the product, THEN competitive market analysis, market
research and an engineering assessment can be completed." By
documenting the product development process in this manner, it
becomes clear what is required of a process before the next process can
begin. This gives the individual performing the exercise a better
understanding of the processes involved and the requirements to proceed
from one process to the next. The system boundaries and the goal of the
process are also placed on the sheet. This allows the individual
completing the reality tree to organize their thoughts so that the
appropriate system is documented. This process was completed for the
entire product development process in Company B. The entire reality
tree can be seen in Appendix D.
Revised Theory of Constraints
The revised theory of constraints is constructed using the theory of
constraints reality tree and the process model. Each process can be
broken up into the generic process model as seen in Figure 9 (Wright,
1999). This diagram shows that every process can be broken down into
the resources and requirements needed and the deliverables produced.
22
Deliverables
Figure 9. Generic process model.
Using this format, a generic process model was completed for the overall
product development process and for each of the subprocesses involved.
The generic process model for the overall product development process
can be seen in Figure 10.
This figure shows the resources that are provided to the product
development process, the requirements that are placed on the process
and the deliverables of the process. The same procedure was completed
for each of the individual subprocesses that make up the overall product
development process. These individual subprocesses are then arranged
in a manner that indicates the process flow. This arrangement is shown
in Figure 11. The process flow occurs from left to right, top to bottom.
23
1) 80 85 Days
2) $239,000 $289,000
3) CO(1), PDD(1), PM(1), MRKT(2),
ENGR(4), SIS (1), MANF(10), EU(2),
VND(5), SM(1)
4) Offices and Facilities
5) Equipment
6) Materials
CPDP 1.0-A Product
Development Process
T) A product that meets
customer's requirements
0­ NT) Customer satisfaction
( 1) Product Unit Cost ($)
2) Product Development Cost ($)
3) Product Development Time
(Days)
4) How many customer
requirements have been achieved
(#) (Product Performance)
5) Achieved customer satisfaction
(% from survey)
6) Percent Earned Market Share
(%)
Figure 10. Generic process model for the overall product
development process.
24
Revised Theory of Constraints for Company B's New Product Development Process
The de r Ielon m made
not
chart is
proc
d
h
developomnt
based on this
generic
process
model
11 4-513ays
1) 4-5 Dap
2) 8 5000 - WOO
21 55000 .$6000
3) IdRIC122. C0111, P0011)
3) lump). Call. ONL,
4) Illsteket and tochnoMgmal
to on the preeluct tem
considered
Re eau roes:
Time is based on chart titled "Project Timeline for
Concurrent Product Development Process'.
Money is calculated as the sum of the number of hours x
the number of employees x the hourly pay for each
reepecitive department - the average amount spent on this
process (rounded up to the nearest $1000).
- Pay rates: Marketing, $20.00/hr; Product Development
Director, $40.00/hr.; Company owner, $50.00/hr.;
Production Manager, $30.00/hr.; Engineering) $25.00/hr.;
Manufacturing, $20.00/hr.; Sales, $20.00/hr. Service
Manger, $30.00/hr.; Avg. - $30.00/hr.
- Personnel Invovled: CO - Company Owner, PDD ­
Product Development Director, PM - Production Manager,
MRKT - Marketing, ENGR - Engineering, SLS - Sales,
MANF - Manufacturing, EU - End User, VND - Vendor,
SM - Service Manger. Followed by the number of people
invovled from the respective area.
Deliverables: T - Tangible (something you can touch), NT
- Non-tangible
4) Displays. charts,
graphs mid nom.
(
market opportunity
C
pet
M
k
Anlysts / Market
liesemrch/
ISH Id
=GenUff
Concept or Ide
nd the NI, to
develop good market
position
It Dmpleys. charts.
amp,. nd note that
shove the required
11 The market anabeis
rid market research
provide constr...
Pemb.
giveconcept or tbs. kw'
product mute
21 The comp, inve/red
me mg. In
,Oevebpng We prodout
11 N -5 Day
2) It WO S60000
4.5 IMP
V 55000 - WOO
5407121. COM, PEM3111
4) Market end tech*
31 WORM C011). Po011)
te on the produat he in
considered
4) DIsphtp. charts.
granite*. notes
market opportunity
pm
k
ntysi / Market
Research/
EV
and Me
hty to
domal
velopp market
CPU? 1 9.1, !dont
position
Concept or Ido
It Displays, charm.
T1 Motes or sketch..
shout Me product.
graphs and notes Mat
show Me requLred
1
11 2.3 Csoe
3) g3.000 .65.000
1) 7.8 Dept
113- Days
31 POW. 11111). 51101811.
a) 55500.4055)
21 53000 - $4000
KAISP(21
31 POD411. toomm
) P1313111. P1111). 11.05121.
41 Completed urn dtytern.
Cameroon, leaned custom*
requirements. comps."
measures. tochnmal et1nbute
engineering specific/atm
'get vein... custom
. compelMon'
KAMM)
Ineno.tatirill Pee".
cepdahtie
41 acIsWintered
edn.
le prouct
elficatIons, manufactu
ens capshilttle
T1 Pint mon, M
WO ...L.
Reflood Cumomer
p000u Is ensured
5)0 completed 1,0
Requitement.
Magram
NT) The echechile
developed program
schedule
NT) Customer dnven
Con
reflect. reahmac time
re,rement and te
apposed In
I) The schedule nneets
TI cemp.uulpyr.m
rohvic nom sume
and ts append*
011.0,11.11
1) Quality Punctson
Depqment le conducted
(1) Management hm
schedule
hotter undo imandirtg of
lamed on refined
rummer requoremente
Me poduct
1) 7-1 Dap
05.000 .19.000
at P013111, 81105(4)
CompletedQFD Msgr.
2.3 oar,
21 g6.030 58.000
.p ficau
hIRICE(21.00(11. PDE1111. Pats
61/0512).1.4512), 514121. 51111
41 Cutemer requiremmits.
Pin prtance rating. tem of
workmen, eale plot. pals
in
ni 4 DeTs
1111.005 0 113
mad benchmark ins
The product
g
1
5 Days
21 115.0040 -116.000
31 PO0(1). oolOol
41 Product spectflcaorm.
Mgxrrn, can. row
nom It/mom...Mot
man u lacunae process cpatelitte. any
Stout POOL Blom
Mom. irbm. mime
T1 A completed pre-
(PDF 1441 ComPlete
PrePlanning Matrus
d ekets hoe kern t
u
planning meon wIth
refined cumorner
requirements
requi
mandemle or code that en tmt
saued. cpuonti Of any) Pm
omrefled
mnulac poduct. any re h rence t
Dud in the designers cone
genernuon
mine" and ketchp
remenCt. Defined
Thr741Pocu
hn
or Me focus group.
TrIlrelnIntelanalr
21 was.. ofi)ad
coo..
agrems. teettml
demnpnons. moble or
renuiroment
coomoo
11 The c overact
emensIfocu group
21 Management Mrecte
efbrIn and muMe which
`se. define or confirm the
371Te7.:X.
Generated
mquired reanufmtunng
promm capthshtse. any
required mender. or
tisfied. comp uon's
customers rants and
Figure 11. First page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
how. how the
required Piction sto
ch1eved through the
11 Product speclficatIon
in terms of banction
anyl design ) molder
product. may reference
25
Notice how some of the processes need the deliverables from more
than one subprocess before the product development process can
continue. For example, in the lower left hand corner of the diagram,
before the CPDP 1.5-B Conduct QFD Based on Refined Customer
Requirements process is started both CPDP 1.3-B Customer
Requirements Defined Through Focus Groups and CPDP 1.4-B Complete
Pre-Planning Matrix need to be completed. The diagram shows all of the
resources, requirements, and deliverables needed in each subprocess as
the product development process proceeds from one subprocess to the
next. The entire revised theory of constraints diagram for the product
development process at Company B is given in Appendix E. This
appendix includes enlargements of each section of the diagrams for
better visibility of the chart details. The revised theory of constraints is
completed for the overall product development process and all of its
subprocesses. The results of this step will be directly entered into the
Product Measurement Matrix (PMM). It should be noted that during this
step (Step 2: Make Necessary Changes to Reflect a Concurrent
Engineering Environment) each of the steps mentioned here (Process
Model, Theory of Constraints and Revised Theory of Constraints) can be
completed together in a simultaneous manner.
While the theory of constraints and the revised theory of
constraints are being developed, more information about the overall
process will be gained. This will lead to further refinement of the process
26
model. This refinement helps to ensure that that all parts of the process
are accurately identified and accounted for in the documentation
process. The result is a well-defined representation of the company's
product development process with all of the resources, requirements,
and deliverables utilized.
Step 3: Develop Executive Level Process Measurement Matrix (PMM)
Now that all of the resources, requirements and deliverables used
during the product development process have been identified, the third
step of the program can be performed. This step involves developing the
executive level process measurement matrix (PMM). The PMM is part of
a new theory of design process measurement developed by Wright (1999).
Some of the key features of this new method include:
The PMM shows all of the resources, requirements, and deliverables of
the product development process and the relationships between them.
Provides alignment between the executive level and the next level of
management.
Gives the appropriate management structure to use during the
process.
Provides the overall relative priority of each subprocess on the
requirements set by the executive level.
27
Helps develop measurements for the subprocesses to ensure that the
executive level requirements are met.
Based on Quality Function Deployment (QFD) structure to support
process measurement.
As stated above, one feature of the PMM is that the structure of the
matrix is based on the "House of Quality" used in Quality Function
Deployment. Figure 12 shows the basic structure of the PMM.
The left side of the PMM presents the process customer and the
measures of the resources, requirements, deliverables, and product. In
this case, the customer would be the customer of the product
development process, namely the company owner. Hence, this is called
the executive level process measurement matrix. The matrix is being
developed at a level between the executive level (i.e. the company owner)
and the next level down in the organization which would be the product
development process level. The manager of the product development
process will be able to visualize the relationship between all of the
resources, requirements, and deliverables that exist between the top level
in the company and the process that the manager is responsible for.
The center of the matrix illustrates many different relationships.
At top-center, the relationship between the internal process
measurements in terms of resources, requirements, and deliverables is
developed. The middle-center region provides the management
structures that are used during the product development process. It also
Measurements of internal
implementation
co
L.)
Process Customers
r&
CD
0
r6"
CD
0
CD
ro
Measures of:
Resources
Requirements
Deliverables
Product
Internal Process Measures
Management
Structure
co
CD
0
Internal Targets
Process Benchmarks
Measures of:
Resources
Requirements
Deliverables
Product
29
gives a relative priority rating of the external requirements for each one of
the subprocesses. This specific region is developed during step number
4 of the program. The bottom-center of the matrix shows the internal
targets that have been set for the process. The right side of the matrix
provides process benchmarks of previous product development projects
and may also include some of the competition's process benchmarks.
A process measurement matrix was completed for the executive
level of the product development process in Company B. This matrix can
be viewed in Figure 13. The key to the matrix is given as follows:
Complex Internal Measurements
NA Not Applicable, No Relationship
Responsibility For Requirements
A - 3300.00 $/day
*
B Market Share Loss of 1%/month
C - Company Owner, 3.5% of team, 22% of time, 4% personnel cost
D Product Development Director, 3.5% of team, 100% of time, 13% of
personnel cost
E - Production Manager, 3.5% of team, 67% of time, 6% of personnel cost
F - Marketing, 7% of team, 22% of time, 3% of personnel cost
G Engineering, 14% of team, 92% of time, 29% of personnel cost
H Sales, 7% of team, 14% of time, 2% of personnel cost
I Manufacturing, 34% of team, 67% of time, 42% of personnel cost
J - End User, 7% of team, 3% of time, NA
K Vendor, 17% of team, 61% of time, NA
L - Service Manager, 3.5% of team, 12% of time, 1% of personnel cost
M Offices and Facilities, 20% of total cost
N Equipment, 30% of cost
O Materials, 15% of total cost
Management Structures
1
Schedule (e.g. Gantt Chart)
2 Budget
3 Product Planning QFD Matrix
4 Subsystem Design QFD Matrix
5 Piece Part QFD Matrix
30
6 Business Plan
NA Not Applicable
Measurements
Experience with this type of design
#2 Experience with this size of production
#1
Complex Internal Measurements
Information Dependency Between Processes
a Lost Profit of $10,000/day Planned Expense of $5000/day
The process measurement matrix that was completed for the
executive level of Company B can be seen in greater detail in appendix F.
This appendix provides the matrix larger views. Figures 14-18 are shown
in the next few pages with explanation given here.
Figure 14 shows the top left section of the process measurement
matrix. The first column indicates all of the external resources,
requirements, and deliverables that are provided to the product
development process. The area to the left of the first column (enclosed
by heavy black lines) shows relationships between the external
resources, requirements, and deliverables. The relationships in this area
allow for complex external measurements to be derived. For example,
the relationship between the resources of 80-85 days of time and the
$239,000 $289,000 dollars that are allocated to the product
development process are related by the letter A. From the process
measurement matrix key, the letter A corresponds to 3300.00 $/day.
This shows that the product development process will use approximately
31
OM.. 10.1.5.
CPOP 11....10.1.55.
Prom
....
1
1
ii
I
83 8S 0.0
SU 1:03 I229 GO3
GO (1)
5000)
101.33M1
11
69521138
MM.
11.11.12, I
50.4
21
1011.91.5
OM
125Z45.
2.1151. 1114
2/05=55
MIST (2)
S.M.
1011arzr
91401 04
6-1.4V4
(1)
616(1)
MAIfMA
NA
Ml able
9/
Ofs. . 2.212.
ow.. 1
it
EpYpmuR
1/1
15a.
1A
Pact
G. (5)
17.1. 0.1.rnent
Cce (I)
Pu. 05.05.1
27.05... 1201 1.
32
Om 1
(MOM 114
9.41W1
1.8
IA
31
Wm M. (9)
Cu
Maton )
Pm. E.. 1.1.5
25. (11)
9.5 .4 BnunSmx.
2/127.40
0561.45
B. 111/54.111
*6
ti
U
MC
I1C
22/
2.11
21
IS"
*2
9111.118.1
0
10
00
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
o
10
TO
tO
10
L0
1.0
t0
10
l0
10
10
10
10
00
10
00
10
to
to
no
00
10
10
to
10
00
10
00
00
00
00
20
20
00
00
00
00
00
00
o.o
00
20
20
40
20
4.0
40
40
3.0
.0
0
30
30
30
30
30
00
00
00
00
10
10
00
00
00
as
20
00
20
0.0
20
20
20
20
0
00
00
Oa
00
00
00
00
00
00
OD
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
00
00
00
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
ea
oa
o.o
oo
ao
oo
9.1
1.1
1 NM
1 251
0.0
00
to
0o
20
20
2.0
20
00
00
00
00
20
20
o0
00
00
20
20
00
00
00
20
w
0.0
00
00
20
00
w
00
0.0
CO
00
.2
00
00
as
ea
41
.
U
11.1
2 awl
U
9511
42
9541715.2
8.1
MD 1 .1
11.1
9.41
1541.1
9611
ma, 2 =4
b. 1
*2
MI
*2
w
U
2.2
.
end 2
8408 *
owl 2
20
I..d.
a. 8.1
*6
30
0.0
*2
*2
5.412
1.0 1
*2
554
11751 2
10
I8
1.9
MD I
*1
ft* 1 8. 1
*2 *2
*2
*2
1
2
18
I.
II12
.2412
1
9.
1W
01512
1W
1W
ii. 6
*
20
4.1
16
30
rs.*
120
01100
9. *2
1.1
1*
11.
I
I*
9.41
sni 2
*2
120
812000
120
112033
160
eau
80
112/3:0
8.0
111210
80
11700
80
30
18002
23.000
P.m So.*
1
25
SI
'I
il tilt.
.
S
7.
SO
30
999
0 0:0
19203
119130
299
10
00
00
10
0
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
to
10
11
10
1
2.0
00
0.0
20
20
2.a
40
30
20
30
4.0
20
1
4.0
18000
110
1.9
1.9
23 86 Da.
21
21
MOOD 1299100
10
10
5.5
11
U
2
55
0.0
00
00
o.o
10
t0
00
00
10
20
ZO
100
1
2.0
20
0.0
20
20
too
20
20
20
20
55
0.0
00
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
00
00
919
791
w
w
In
60
5.0
60
60
50
60
00
00
60
00
60
20
60
00
w
w
6
oa
0.0
0.0
oo
on
au
oa
oo
aa
oa
aa
oo
to
IC
..
8.1
9561
*2
sow
ea.
*2
kw 1
.412
Bo.
.4 2
1 awl
ft* 1
0.41
Ilelh 1
13941
two 1
ow. I
emh
8.1
*2
ft* i
0. 2
*2
.512
2
*2
Cl
14
20
27
2
82
6.2
AA
11
30
15
1.8
12
12
7.2
46
4.
90
4
7
9
.412
.712
.4 2
10. 2
.4 2
2
*2
.112
4
A
96
.4 2
1..
I
1*
as4
27
4
4
42
48
48
0
1.0
10
3
1
two
.8
Imo 1
*2
ft* I
2051
11. 1
*2
s.
*2
gm"
*2
I. I
5041
*2 Ift*
.1
5.
*2 1*
II.
lo.th
*2 941
*2 I*
ID. t
106
2
18
2.
12
10.0
2.
31
104
24
0. 1
are
9.41
0.0'
mol 2
0.6 1
.412
91
ewe
hi
,.
,.
814.70
1a
Pruals.
1.2
I
2.
11
174.
21
L.
160000
11283.000
15
21
U
NA
14
IA
11
DS
8.3
24
I.
U
U
M
SA
IA
82
36
I
10
Il
4
U
U
It:
U
U
55
12
15
82
95
a
19
1.6
09
79
52
2
20
20
82
20
16
56
10
19
6.0
,3
ls....
41
MAN
U
21
C ea. MI..
U
U
U
U
1
58
6.9
11,
3.6
3.1
3.
17
35
66
1.3
1.2
38
69
6.0
A7
3.3
5.4
4.2
31
111
11
11
i
11
1
t
I-I.
III
i
1
.
31
.
!
kit
i:
lj
Y.
ki
32
109
68
54
A9 red. 211 ma
1
55
I
55
55
gi
GO
IO
20
3A
14
00
1.0
0,
11.3.12
.50417..
0.5
0.0
22
115152.10
U
00
0
21
1.82 *4
3a
10
.
.
tllilll 11 il
t
t
21033
to
..
i
30
1.0
01
Linn
960)
La
Si
tll
60
1a
WV...
it it
''
16000
10
Si
11 RI
j
30
22
mem
l
gl
gl
1
i
NOW
02
.
.
.
1600,
1
t
17541.504
I
8.0
e0
118.030
01
0
it
I
MGM
30
18:0
t1:11
9630
I
9600
50
cam
.2:21;
...=..
MN. 15 14
30
illli ill '1
tg
U
95511.24 In 14
0.51
/
i a8
.
3A
h....14.,...,"
EU 0
SM I.
1-=­
ii
/II
50
I
SA
55
SA
55
I
I
,9I
Yd
i
it it it
I
SI
I
:
I
It
11
101
29
AO
31
23
2
2.3
23
20
76
18
66
37
12
17
2
1.
If
11
.
w
iliiillif
U
ff
2
kl
,
li
II
1
,
7.,1
RI
li
R
it
II
%
if
II
I
.
ii
Ri
71
R
7
,1
1
Figure 13. Process measurement matrix that has been completed for the executive level of Company B.
ti
it
21
t
it
i
.
140
00.
7404329
This area shows
the relationship
between the
internal
operations
measurements
and the external
resources,
requirements and
deliverables.
NZ
Operations Measuemects
F
CPDP 1.0-A Product Development
Process
S
S
.4.
I
1.0
80 - 85 Days
S/Day 3300
$239,000- $289,000
CO (1)
PDD (1)
PM (1)
MRKT (2)
ENGR (4)
ce
V
SLS (2)
Available
Immediately, 1
Available
Immediately, 1
Available In 14
Days, 1
Availed*
VDay 3300.0
2.0
6/Day/Person
400.00
6/DayPerson
320.00
S/Day/Person
160.00
Availebie In 14
6/Day/Person
DIM 1
This area shows the
relationship between
external resources,
requirements and
deliverables,
resulting in complex
external
measurements.
Days, 1
bit) In 14
my% 1
this in 14
)4s, 1
ible In 32
)ays, 1
Vie In 14
)sYs, 1
1.0
ag
1
i
10
&al
and 3
c,g.
b
S
I
0.
0
cL?.
g
v,
2,
7,E i ; I
Om 1
o.
00
et
80
5.0
$6000
Both 2
and 3
$6,000
#1
02
1.0
1.0
#1
02
1.0
1.0
#2
0.0
0.0
Ob
1.0
$
NA
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
01
02
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
#1
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
01
#2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
NC
01
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
NC
01
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01
....
0.0
0.0
NA
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
Both 1 and
200.00
160.00
6/Day/Person
160.00
1/Day/Person
240.00
2.0
NA
1.0
2.0
NA
NA
1.0
2.0
NA
NA
Both 1 and 2
2
I
involved.
#1
VDay/Person
i
This area
shows the
relationships
between the
resources and
each one of the
subprocesses
3.0
6/Day/Person
240.00
Immediately, 1
Available In 14
1
I: 1
g
I
li
0.0
0.0
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
Both 1 and
2
2
Figure 14. Top left section of the process measurement matrix for the executive level of
Company B.
33
3300.00 $/day. If a measurement is then taken in terms of the $/day
used in product development, the manager will immediately know how
the process is performing compared to the way the executive level
expects the process to perform. The area to the right of the first column
(highlighted by the yellow rectangle) shows the relationship between the
internal operations measurements and the external resources,
requirements, and deliverables. In this area the appropriate
management structure that should be used to manage the relationship is
given. A management structure is a method that the manager can use to
help them successfully organize the process. For example, the
relationship between the 80-85 days of resource and the development
time operations measurement is related by a 1.0. From the process
measurement matrix key a 1.0 corresponds to a schedule (e.g. Gantt
chart). Therefore, the manger would use a schedule to manage the 80-85
days and the development time operations measurement. Another
example would be the relationships between the resource of the product
development director (PDD) and the development time and cost. The
relationship between the PDD and the development time tells the
manager that for the product development process to function the
product development director must be available immediately. It also
guides the manager to use a schedule to regulate the PDD and
development time. The relationship between the PDD and the
development time indicates how much the PDD is costing the product
34
development process. This provides the manager with valuable insight
into the product development process and illustrates the tradeoffs
between the resources, requirements, and deliverables. The last area
(highlighted in red in Figure 14) provides the relationships between the
external resources and each one of the subprocesses involved in the
overall process. This area shows the manager how the resources are
distributed throughout the overall product development process. It also
indicates what management structure would be used to direct the
resource allocation.
Figure 15 shows the bottom left section of the process
measurement matrix. This figure displays a continuation of the areas
discussed with Figure 14, as well as the addition of two different areas.
The first area (highlighted by the green rectangle) provides the overall
priority rating of each external requirement for all of the subprocesses.
This part of the matrix is developed in step 4 of the program entitled,
"Step 4: Use PMM in Conjunction with the Analytical Hierarchy Process
or a Simple Ranking Technique to Develop Relative Priorities".
Discussion of this area will be done in the next section of the text. The
other new area of interest is highlighted by a light blue rectangle. This
area shows the relationship between the external deliverables of the
process and each subprocess involved. This area provides the manager
with the appropriate management structures to employ during certain
phases of product development.
2.0
Equipment
Product De
Cos
This area shows the
overall priority rating
of each external
requirement for all of
the subprocesses.
1.0
3
Number of customer
requirements that have
been realized (%)
3.0
Both I
NA
and 2
Both 1
and 2
2.0
B oth 2 and 4
3.0
2.0
2 and
4
Both 1 and
2
Both 1 and
2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
2
2
....
Both
3
Both
Nik
2.0
1.4
4.1
3.0
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
8.5
SIDay
3300.00,1
and 2
land
B oth 3 and 6
3.0
B oth 2 and 6
3.0
3 I
1.1
1.9
1.6
6.9
6.0
3.0
3
1.0
2.0
2.0
6.2
5.6
4
1
aN 6
B
a
2
3
cc
Achieved Customer
Satisfaction (%)
Both 1 and 6
Percent Earned Market
Share (%)
Both 1%/month
Average Requirements
Importance Rating
Average Requirements
Quartile
A product that meets
customers requirements
Customer Satisfaction
and 6
NA
NA
NA
4
1.6
2.0
1.6
NA
NA
NA
...k
o
a
c,
4.0
$300,000
3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.0
6.0
3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NI
I
E
g
g 'M
6
U
g
g 8
e
O
u_
0
e
0,
I1
0 ce
105
0_
.
This area shows the
relationship between
the deliverables and
each subprocess.
Figure 15. Bottom left section of the process measurement matrix for the executive level of
Company B.
36
Figure 16 is an extension of these areas viewed towards the center
of the matrix. This area provides the relationship between the external
deliverables and each subprocess. In the subprocess CPDP 1.5-B,
Conduct QFD Based On Refined Customer Requirements, a relationship
between the deliverables is given as 3.0. From the process measurement
matrix key, 3.0 corresponds to a Product Planning QFD Matrix.
Therefore, the manager would use a Product Planning QFD Matrix during
this subprocess.
Figure 17 illustrates the top or "roof' of the process measurement
matrix. This area is highlighted by heavy purple lines. It indicates the
relationship between the operations measurements, as well as the
information dependency that exists between the sub- and lateral
processes. For example, the relationship between two of the operations
measurements, development time and cost, is given as a. The letter a
indicates a relationship of Lost Profit of $10,000/day and Planned
Expense of $3300/day. This shows the manager the relationship
between development cost and time. The relationship between the
subprocesses and the lateral processes is given by the symbol *. This
relationship represents an information dependency between the
subprocesses and is also indicated in the revised theory of constraints
diagram (See Figure 11).
---
--
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both
Both
Both
1 and
1 and
1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Bo-­
an
Both
Both 1
and 2
11
Both 1 and 2
v
2
OK
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
1 and
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Bo
2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
Both 1 and
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both
Both
Both
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Bo
1.2
1.3
1.4
4.8
1.2
5.6
1.0
4.2
1.1
4.3
3.2
5.4
5.3
4.3
3.9
4.2
5.5
1.4
1
2.0
2.0
1.4
4.1
2.4
2.0
1.7
3.1
1.4
2.0
2.7
2.7
6.2
6.2
4.1
15.4
4.1
4.1
4'
3.0
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.8
4.8
1.8
4.8
1.8
3.0
1.8
1.8
7.2
7.2
7.2
9.6
4.8
4.8
4
1.1
1.6
1.2
8.5
1.6
8.2
1.1
9.9
1.0
4.6
4.3
9.4
4.3
3.7
3.9
3.1
4.0
1.0
1
1.1
1.9
1.6
6.9
2.0
7.9
1.2
5.6
1.2
5.7
5.5
10.9
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.1
1
1.0
2.0
2.0
6.2
2.4
7.3
1.1
5.6
1.2
5.6
5.6
11.1
3.5
3.5
3.4
2.7
3.5
1.1
1
1.6
2.0
1.6
5.6
1.9
6.0
1.3
5.5
1.3
4.2
3.8
6.9
5.0
4.7
4.3
6.4
4.2
2.3
2
O
4
0
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
0
a
NA
NA
NA
4.0
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.0
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
-0
a)
ca
i?
E
.s
-0
c'23trg.
O
03
'a 0 E
cc
(j))
8
,1-1
08
0
03 c
,6.ELL
t'S
`,5.
cLa.
<
Cai
g
0 CC
E
82
co
co
4 .g
E
a£
88
co fp
i).(11
0-
an
m
co
LU
,d2
0 0_
ocy,xce
08 ow
0_
ra
CO
CL
0
t
721
0_
LU
co
a?
co
.
513
0 0-
13
1@
2 2
13-
.
c
11.1
g
og. I
an
("%
cL0 §
§
8
088
Ci
0_
0
0- 0.
0 .?
0_ 76
a=
05
-0
.1
co
a=
0_
05
k
co
6
<
0.2
25
8
MI
0.
032
CI. .5
063
Figure 16. Bottom center section of the process measurement matrix for the executive level of
Company B.
C9
cb
c
2_ 'It
0,­
co
8£
uzl
co
0
CD
Er
CD
CD
CD
CD
r-r
1--11
0
,2t­
co
CD
CD
CD
0
1-1
'ZS
CPDP 2.3-B
Prototype Virtual
Assembly
Modeling
CPDP 2.2-B
Prototype Virtual Part
CPDP 2.1-B Concept
Approval?
CPDP 2.0B Evalua
Concepts
Concepts Generated
CPDP 1.9-B
CPDP 1 8-B
Program Schedule
Developed
CPDP 1.7-B Product
Specifications
Developed
CPDP 1.6-B Prograi
Schedule Estimated
Requirements
CPDP 1.5-B Conduct
OFD Based On
Refined Customer
CPDP 1.4-B
Complete PrePlanning Matrix
CPDP 1.3-B
Customer
Requirements Define(
Through Focus
Groups
CPDP 1 2-B Project
Approval?
Analysis/Market
Research/Engineer
Assessment
0
1-11
CPDP 1.1-B
Competitive Marks
CPDP 1.0-B Identify
Concept or Idea
Product Unit Cost
Functionality
Development Cost
O
CD
fi
CD
0
CD
z1.
Development Time
39
Figure 18 represents the last two areas of the PMM. The first of
these areas is highlighted by a dark blue rectangle. This area shows the
relationships between the external resources, requirements, deliverables,
and the lateral processes. Lateral processes occur simultaneously to
product development. As seen in the figure, the management structures
used to manage the lateral processes are indicated. The second area
shows process benchmarks from previous projects or from a competitors
product development process. This data gives the manager insight into
current process performance by comparing it to previous projects or to a
competitors process.
Step three of the program involves developing the executive level
process measurement matrix. From the previous steps enough
information should be available to nearly complete the matrix. The only
area of the matrix which needs to be developed further is the area that
shows the overall priority rating of each external requirement for all of
the subprocesses. For Company B, two rows of the relationships
between these requirements and subprocess were completed during step
2. The product development time and cost were able to be compiled due
to the fact that the product development process had been completed by
the company. This provided values for these relationships. The values
shown in the matrix for these two requirements simply represent the
percent of the total time and cost each subprocess required.
on
sees
Lateral Processes
!
m t;
70
05
a,
03 0
'.4­
a.)
6a-EI 6 a
a. '' E a. ''
2 2011
a a R.0 f5_
a
>,...
5­
10
i
t
co
0
-5
Ca
.&
a -g"'
p
-
Y)
CO I­
CO
6, E.
r
a -­
P_ F
" -1
c) a
4: m
v
2
B
co c
m
0
ccs6i
a
$E
..:1,1
..5
(4 8
E i2 2
*;:i
E
a.
f,
..,,,
o<
This area shows the
relationships between
resources,
requirements and
deliverables and the
lateral processes.
.­
12.0
12.0
16.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
3.0
$18,000
$12,000
$45,000
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
$8,000
$8,000
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.c
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
....
$9, 0(
.13
L,.,(;.
1
a
,,,,,5;
--7.)
1.,
m
...
. . of
oom
Ci -§
tutees Benchmarks
>.'
CO 4
CCI
r§
(,)
77?
77 i
1.0
1.0
80 - 85 Days
777
77
2.0
2.0
$239,000 - $289,000
1.0
i.c
1.0
10
.
1C
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2
4.0
2.0
2.0
NA
NA
4
This area shows
process
benchmarks from
previous projects or
competition.
111
1
1
116_
Figure 18. Top center section of the process measurement matrix for the executive level of
Company B.
41
In Figure 15, the subprocess, CPDP 1.1-B Competitive Market
Analysis/Market Research/Engineering Assessment required 2% and 3%
of the total product development process cost and time, respectively.
Figures 19 and 20 show the distribution of the total product development
process cost and time requirements for each subprocess. The lack of
values for the remaining requirements leads to the next step in the
program, step 4.
.1
`73
0o
O
ri)
CD
S
0
CD
CD
C)
0
CD
CD
co
CD
0
Cn
0
C)
Cn
Cn
co
C)
O
-1
'ZS
Cr
Cn
CD
S
'ZS
0
CD
CD
C)
0
0
0
5.
1,
BCD
co
F))
CA
0
Ft
CPDP 3.4-B
CPDP 3.3-B
CPDP 3.2-B
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP 2.9-B
CPDP 2.8-B
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 2.6-B
CPDP 2.5-B
CPDP 2.4-B
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 2.2-B
CPDP 2.1-B
CPDP 2.0-B
CPDP 1.9-B
CPDP 1.8-B
CPDP 1.7-B
CPDP 1.6-B
CPDP 1.5-B
CPDP 1.4-B
CPDP 1.3-B
CPDP 1.2-B
CPDP 1.1 -B
CPDP 1.0-B
0
o
o
ND
0
(3)
a)
O
N
-7
5
Percent Normalized Cost
',5;
Cr
-F
01-0)
£17
1:1:J
0
a.
1-t
CD
CD
CD
CPDP 3.4-B
CPDP 3.3-B
CPDP 3.2-B
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP 2.9-B
CPDP 2.8-B
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 2.6-B
0
cD
CPDP 2.4-B
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 2.2-B
CPDP 2.1-B
CPDP 2.5-B
CA
O
0
0-1
CPDP 2.0-B
CPDP 1.9-B
CPDP 1.8-B
CPDP 1.7-B
CPDP 1.6-B
CPDP 1.5-B
CPDP 1.4-B
CPDP 1.3-B
CPDP 1.2-B
CPDP 1.1-B
CPDP 1.0-B
CD
CD
O
cn
fr­
CD
O
CD
fD
"°
Poo
O 1-0
0
1-11 0.
C4 0
CD
C)
(7)
0,01­
O
CD
S
CD
-0
CD
SD- I'll
0
0o
1
J
0o
t.)
1,
0o
a,
00
00
co
8
00
Percent Normalized Time
00
t
44
Step 4: Use PMM in Conjunction with the Analytical Hierarchy
Process or a Simple Ranking Technique to Develop Relative
Priorities
The lack of information from the product development process has
lead to the need to develop a method that would generate the needed
values. By using the
Are the required
analytical hierarchy
measurements
present?
process or a simple
YES
NO
ranking technique the
Is a high level of
accuracy needed?
Place in
relationships between
the external
appropriate
location on PMM
remaining
YES
Use analytical
hierarchy
process to
development
measurements
NO
requirements and the
Use Simple
Rank Order
Technique
subprocesses can be
derived. The
flowchart followed in
Use PMM to develop
appropriate
measurements/metrics
for each subprocess in
the product development
process
developing this
section of the process
measurement matrix
Figure 21. Flowchart used to complete the
section of the process measurement matrix the
relates Company B's executive requirements to
the subprocesses.
can be seen in Figure
21. The first part of
this step is to decide if
the required measurements are present. In the case of Company B, the
development cost and time were already known since the process had
45
been completed. This allowed for entry of each subprocess cost and time
as a percentage of the total product development process. There were no
measurements for the four other executive requirements of product unit
cost, customer requirements realized, achieved customer satisfaction or
percent earned market share. This directs us to the right hand side of
the flow chart where another question must be asked, "Is a high level of
accuracy needed?" The answer to this question will direct the individual
to one of two processes: the analytical hierarchy process or the simple
rank order technique.
The analytical hierarchy technique is a method developed by
Thomas L. Saaty to assess the priority of elements in decision making
problems (Saaty, 1982). This method is of a higher mathematical basis
and takes considerably longer than the simple rank order technique.
The first step of the technique is to set up a matrix of the elements being
compared with the criteria in the top left corner. This arrangement can
Criteria Element 1 Element 2 Element 3
1
Element 1
1
Element 2
1
Element 3
Figure 22. The matrix developed
during the first step of the analytical
hierarchy process.
be seen in Figure 22. When the
same elements are compared, a
"1" is entered into the matrix.
Next, the question is asked,
"How much more strongly does
the element in the left column of the matrix affect, contribute to, or
influence the criteria than does the element from the column on the top
of the matrix?" This question is answered using the scale shown in
46
Explanation
The two elements
contribute an equal
amount to the criteria
One element has weak The evaluator's
experience and
importance over the
judgment produce a
other
slight favor of one
element over the other
The evaluator's
An element exhibits
strong importance over experience and
judgment strongly
the other
favor one element over
Intensity of Importance Definition
The elements are
1
equally important
3
5
the other
7
9
2, 4, 6, 8
Reciprocals
One element is
strongly favored and
its dominance is
demonstrated in
practice
There
is definite
An element
demonstrates absolute evidence favoring one
element over the other
importance over the
other
A value is needed
Intermediate values
between two adjacent between two
judgments
judgments
If element i has one of
the preceding numbers
assigned to it when
compared with element
Established
importance of one
element over another
j, then j has the
reciprocal value when
compared with i
Figure 23. The intensity of importance scale used when comparing
one element to another.
Figure 23. The appropriate number is then entered into the matrix
47
based on the answer determined by the individual. This is repeated for
the entire matrix until all of the cells are filled in. It should be
Criteria Element 1 Element 2 Element 3 mentioned that the value for
1/3
1/2
1
Element 1
element 2 compared to element 1
1/3
1
2
Element 2
Element 3
3
3
1
Figure 24. Analytical hierarchy
process matrix with judgements
made between elements 1, 2, and 3.
would simply be the reciprocal of
element 1 compared to element 2.
An example of this matrix can be
seen in Figure 24. This matrix represents all of the judgements made
between elements 1, 2 and 3.
The next step in the process is
Criteria Element 1 Element 2 Element 3
1/7
1/9
1/5
Element 1
1/7
2/9
2/5
Element 2
Element 3
to normalize the matrix by
3/5
2/3
3/7
Figure 25. The analytical hierarchy
matrix with all values normalized.
totaling the values in each
column and dividing each entry
by the total. This will lead to the matrix seen in Figure 25. The final
step of the analytical hierarchy process is to average the rows in the
1/5+1/9+1/7 =0.15
3
2/5+2/9+1/7 =0.25
3
3/5+2/3+3/7
0.6
matrix. The average is computed by adding
the values in each row and dividing by the
total number of elements. This final step is
illustrated in Figure 26. The analytical
3
Figure 26. Average of
the rows producing
the overall relative
priorities.
hierarchy process thus provides the overall
relative priorities for elements 1, 2 and 3 as
15, 33 and 50 percent, respectively. This
process was used to evaluate the four remaining requirements for
48
Company B's process measurement matrix. The criteria for the
analytical hierarchy process are each of the executive requirements. The
subprocess would make up the elements. The overall relative priorities
are then entered into the PMM and the matrix is then complete. This
process took a large amount of time due to the extensive matrix
calculations that were required. Since there were 27 subprocesses, a 27
x 27 element matrix had to be constructed and results in 351
judgements for each requirement. This method results in a total of 1404
judgements that have to be made to complete the matrix. Another less
labor intensive method that could have been used is the simple rank
order technique.
The simple rank order technique takes a fraction of the time and
produces very similar results compared to the analytical hierarchy
process. This technique is conducted as follows:
1. Write all of the elements on individual pieces of paper.
2. Compare two elements at a time and ask the question, "Which
element has a greater affect, contribution to, or influence on the
property?"
3. Place the higher ranking element above the other.
4. Continue this process until all elements are placed in a rank order
where each element increases in rank as you proceed up the list of
elements.
5. Assign numerical values to the ranked elements.
49
This method was used to develop an overall priority rating for the
product unit cost requirement so that a comparison between the two
methods could be investigated. Figure 27 represents this comparison.
Both methods produce the same results in terms of ranking although the
numerical values were different. The top seven ranks had an average
difference of 12.5%. The top half of the ranks (ranks 1 through 13) had
an average difference of 14.5%. The overall average difference for all of
the ranks was 19.5%.
The analytical hierarchy process was used to produce the overall
relative priorities for the four remaining executive requirements for
Company B since a higher degree of accuracy was desired. The results of
this exercise can be seen in Figures 28-31. Figure 31 illustrates the
breakdown of the overall relative priorities for all subprocesses in terms
of the six executive requirements. The overall relative priority (or
importance) of the requirements is known for each one of the
subprocesses. These values are directly entered into the PMM area that
was left blank after step 4 of the program was completed. This area is
highlighted by the green rectangle in Figure 15. The bottom two rows of
this area give the average requirements importance rating and the
average requirements quartile. These values provide the manager with
immediate insight into which of the subprocesses has the greatest effect
on the executive level requirements. This allows the manager to
determine which of the executive level requirements are affected the
50
greatest during each subprocess of the product development process.
Measurements can now be developed that ensure the executive
requirements are achieved through product development.
IS
2.6-B
2.1-B
2.2-B
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
2.5-B
3.1-B
2.4-B
2.0-B
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
1.0-B
1.8-B
3.5-B
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
1.6-B
3.6-B
1.4-B
1.1-B
2.9-B
2.8-B
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 1.2-B
1.7-B
2.3-B
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP 1.3-B
CPDP 3.3-B
CPDP 1.9-B
1.5-B
CPDP
CPDP 3.4-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP 3.2-B
8
8
E
O
Cji 0 Ul
Overall Relative Priority
ZS
cn
O
1.0-B
1.3-B
1.4-B
1.5-B
1.6-B
1.7-B
1.8-B
1.9-B
2.0-B
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
CPDP
2.9-B
3.4-B
CPDP 3.6-B
CPDP 3.5-B
CPDP
CPDP 3.3-B
CPDP 3.2-B
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP
CPDP 2.8-B
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 2.6-B
CPDP 2.5-B
CPDP 2.4-B
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 2.2-B
CPDP 2.1-B
1.2-B
CPDP
t.)
-F.
Bil
MIIIIMMINI
is
11111
CPDP 1.1-B MI
CPDP
0
0)
00
O
.t`)'
6666600
0000000
Percent Overall Relative Priority
CS
C/)
CD
C)
0
CPDP 3.6-B
CPDP 3.5-B
CPDP 3.4-B
CPDP 3.3-B
CPDP 3.2-B
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP 2.9-B
CPDP 2.8-B
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 2.6-B
CPDP 2.5-B
CPDP 2.4-B
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 2.2-B
CPDP 2.1-B
CPDP 2.0-B
CPDP 1.9-B
CPDP 1.8-B
CPDP 1.7-B
CPDP 1.6-B
CPDP 1.5-B
CPDP 1.4-B
CPDP 1.3-B
CPDP 1.2-B
CPDP 1.1-B
CPDP 1.0-B
111
0
oo
^)::­
%I.Pitt`
riPd6tt,
oo
tD
0
0
41
0
P
0
0
0
CO
8
00
00
1)'
Percent Overall Relative Priority
17S
171
CD
Crl
0
o-t
CD
o
("D
0
O
-cj
0
p.,
CD
CPDP 3.6-B
CPDP 3.5-B
CPDP 3.4-B
0-t
CD
CPDP 3.3-B
CPDP 3.2-B
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP 2.9-B
CPDP 2.8-B
rr
CD
CD
rD
1--)
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 2.6-B
-t
CD
CPDP 2.4-B
CPDP 2.5-B
C/)
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 2.2-B
CPDP 2.1-B
CPDP 2.0-B
0
cn
P
co 0
0
CD
CPDP 1.8-B
0
CPDP 1.9-B
CPDP 1.7-B
CPDP 1.6-B
CPDP 1.5-B
CPDP 1.4-B
CPDP 1.3-B
CPDP 1.2-B
CPDP 1.1-B
CPDP 1.0-B
n
Ell
0
0o
00
ND
00
0
P
0
00
00
00
00
Percent Overall Relative Priority
(
CD
cn 0
0
co
,tr*
15- pi)
co
CD
(')
O
1
(/)
CD
O CA)
0
1-1
C4
SS
0
0
01
ij
.
co
cr)
C CD
co
-t
CCD
5-F
s
CPDP 3.4-B
CD
CPDP
CPDP 3.5-B
CPDP 3.3-B
0
1-1
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.0-B
CPDP 2.9-B
CPDP 2.8-B
CPDP 2.7-B
CPDP 2.6-B
CPDP 2.5-B
CPDP 2.4-B
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 2.2-B
CPDP 3.2-B
CD
117)
CPDP 2.1-B
CPDP 2.0-B
CPDP 1.9-B
CPDP 1.8-B
CPDP 1.7-B
CPDP 1.6-B
CPDP 1.5-B
CPDP 1.4-B
CPDP 1.3-B
CPDP 1.2-B
CPDP 1.1-B
CPDP 1.0-B
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
O
0
8
O
O
Percent Overall Relative Priority
CD
CD
1-t
CD
01
CD-t
0-t
CD
ry
CD
CD
21)
O I'd
1-1-1
O
(/)
w
C)
0
°CI 0
+
CD
CD
,tr+
O po
rD
co
ra.
O
<
0- 0
O
'CS
CD
lb
O
O
01
oxj
Process Priorities of All Executive Requirements
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00­
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
I
I
0?
I
I
CO
CC1
O
I
I
CO
CO
co
CC
L).
a.
n.
U
0.
a.
U
U
a.
a.
a.
0.
U
0.
0.
Ca
Ca
U
U
0.
U
Process
Product Development Cost
E Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Development Time
Achieved Customer Satisfaction 0 Earned Market Share
Figure 32. Plot of the overall relative priorities for all of the executive requirements for each subprocess in
the product development process of Company B.
57
Step 5: Construct the Appropriate Measurements for Each
Subprocess in the Product Development Process
Now that the relative priorities of each subprocess have been
identified, suitable measurements can be developed. The development of
Sheet CPDP 1.0-B
Identify Concept or Idea
Phase: Marketing
Description: An idea or concept is identified by the company.
Purpose: To initiate the product development cycle and start the design process
Personnel Involved: Marketing, company owner, product development director.
Documentation Involved: Notes or sketches about the product, idea, or concept.
Output: Product description, idea, or concept.
Assessment:
Information Required: Market and technological data on the product being considered.
Notes: Research is initiated from two primary sources:
Market pull Occurring as a natural outcome of customer or user aspirations,
when the technology tends to be behind the market;
Technology push The result of new technology, creating new markets, when the
market is behind the technology. (Pugh, 1989)
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Score
3.01
2.05
Example Measures
# of Days Spent in Process
$ Spent on Process
1.16
1.14
1.09
1.03
Figure 33. A completed process information sheet with the relative
priorities of the executive level requirements and example
measurements.
58
the appropriate measurements is based on the relative priorities for the
requirements of each subprocess. The relative priorities are sorted from
the highest to lowest and entered into the corresponding process
information sheet. For example, the ratings of the requirements for
CPDP 1.0-B Identify Concept or Idea are shown in Figure 33. The
requirements are listed from the one with the highest priority down to
the one with the lowest priority. From these values it appears that two of
the executive requirements are affected more than the other four. The
product development time and cost are the requirements with the
highest scores. This suggests that two important quantities that should
be measured are the time spent in the process and the amount of capital
used during the process. This procedure is repeated for each one of the
subprocesses. By measuring quantities that correlate to the
requirements with the highest priority rankings, the manager is ensuring
that the executive level requirements will be met during the product
development process.
59
DISCUSSION /RESULTS
The program presented has generated a detailed product
development process model. This model could be the basis of the
product development process in any small manufacturing company. The
concurrent engineering model was completed based on three main
resources. First, the mechanical design process proposed by Ullman
(1997). Second, a knowledge of the key principles involved in a
concurrent engineering based process. And third, the documentation of
the product development process in two small manufacturing companies.
The combination of these three components has allowed for the
development of a concurrent engineering based product development
process model. This model can be used by small manufacturing
companies for comparison and contrast of their current process once it
has been successfully documented.
The use of the theory of constraints and the revised theory of
constraints helps to further define the understanding and description of
the product development process. The theory of constraints promotes a
better understanding of the information flow between the processes. It
also highlights the requirements needed before the next step in the
process can be started. The revised theory of constraints defines all of
the resources, requirements, and deliverables that are employed in the
60
product development process. This information is used in the process
measurement matrix.
This study represents the first attempt at using the process
measurement matrix (PMM). The PMM required a tremendous effort to
complete but resulted in information the product development process
manager would find very useful. This structure allows the manager to
visualize the resources, requirements, and deliverables that are allocated
by upper management. It also informs them of the internal processes he
or she is directly responsible for. This promotes alignment of the
external and internal process elements. The correct use of management
structures is also encouraged. One of the greatest attributes of the PMM
is developed in step four of the program. By using one of the ranking
techniques, the manager is able to see how the executive requirements
are affected by each subprocess. When a manager is involved in a
certain phase of the product development process, they would know
which of the executive requirements are being affected the most during
the phase. Most importantly the manager would have an indication of
what key measurements should be taken during the phase to ensure the
executive requirements are met.
Company B had no measurements in place except for the executive
level requirements on the product development process. Now that the
product development manager knows which subprocesses have the
greatest influence on the executive level requirements, measurements
61
can be designed that ensure these requirements are fulfilled. From
Figure 28 it is clear that the processes that have the greatest effect on
product unit cost occur close to production. The Design Approval,
Production and Production Approval processes should have
measurements in place that will ensure that this executive level
requirement is satisfied. The customer requirements realized chart
shown in Figure 29 indicates that the Product Specifications Developed,
Concept Approval and Design Approval processes are the most critical.
Measurements are needed during these processes to make sure that the
customer requirements are realized in the product. The achieved
customer satisfaction chart shown in Figure 30 points to Concept
Approval, Design Approval and Production Approval as the most
important processes during product development. These processes
should have measurements designed to guarantee that this requirement
is met. Figure 31 illustrates that the percent earned market share
requirement is greatly influenced by the Concept Approval, Design
Approval and Production Approval processes. These processes will need
to be adequately measured to make certain this requirement is fulfilled.
From Figure 19 the greatest cost during product development occurs
when the Prototype Build, Production and Production Approval processes
are completed. A measurement of cost during these processes will help
ensure that this executive level requirement is obtained. Figure 20
shows that the most time spent during product development occurs
62
during the detail design phase. During this phase, the time used during
each process should be measured to make certain that this executive
level requirement is satisfied.
63
CONCLUSION
This research represents one of the first attempts at developing a
concurrent engineering based product development process for small
manufacturing firms that employs process measurement techniques.
With this program, a small company could effectively set up a concurrent
engineering based product development process and develop a group of
suitable measurements to ensure that the process is successful.
Through this research, the following objectives were achieved:
This project developed a concurrent engineering based product
development process that small manufacturing companies could use.
A new theory of product design process measurement was used to
identify the process attributes which are common to the process.
From these attributes the measurements necessary to ensure a
successful product development process were identified.
There are three main areas that future work on this project could
include. The first area is the process measurement matrix (PMM). To a
product development manager, especially in a small manufacturing
company, the matrix is overwhelming. Future research should involve
examining the PMM and determining what key information it provides.
Then a smaller version of the PMM could be developed for use in this
program. The completion of the matrix takes a tremendous amount of
64
time and effort. Small manufacturing companies simply cannot afford to
spend their resources trying to complete this matrix.
Second, the ranking techniques could be investigated further. These
techniques could be used to show the most important subprocesses and
then provide the measurements for them. This would shorten the
program considerably. From Figure 27 there appears to be three, maybe
four, different tiers of priority ratings generated by the analytical
hierarchy process. If the manager took only the top tiers and developed
measurements for only those subprocesses, the number of
measurements would be reduced. This program is not meant to produce
a large number of measurements for the product development manger to
make. It is designed to identify what subprocesses are most significant
in satisfying the executive level requirements and then allow the manager
to design measurements that will ensure those requirements are met.
The last area for future work could involve developing this program
into a computer software package. If all of the steps used in this
research were integrated into a single computer package, the entire five
step process could be done in much less time. This research required
the use of several different software packages. All of these software
packages could be integrated into one program that incorporates all the
needed functions with straightforward data entry and a graphical user
interface. This would make the five step program much easier to
complete and more likely to be embraced by industry.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, K., Carlson-Skalak, S.E. 8v Villadsen, 0. (1997). Adopting
Concurrent Engineering at Comdial. submitted to Interfaces.
Carlson-Skalak, S. 86 Kemser, H. (1997). Concurrent Engineering Applied
to Product Development in Small Companies. submitted to Research
in Engineering Design.
Chapman, W.L., Bahill, A.T., 86 Wymore, A.W. (1992). 7.6 Concurrent
Engineering., Engineering Modeling and Design (1 ed., pp. 325-328).
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Clausing, D. (1994). Total Quality Development: A Step-By-Step Guide to
World-Class Concurrent Engineering. New York: ASME Press.
Cleetus, K.J. (1992). Definition of Concurrent Engineering. CERC
Technical Report Series Research Note, CERC-TR-RN-92-003.
Dettmer, W.H. (1998). Breaking the Constraints to World Class
Performance. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press
Huthwaite, B. (1993). How to Capitalize on Concurrent Engineering: Do's
and Don'ts of Concurrent Engineering. Design News, 49(13), 71-74.
Institute for Defense Analysis (1986). The Role of CE in Weapons System
Acquisition . Report R-338.
Jo, H.H., Parsaei, H.R., & Sullivan, W.G. (1993). Principles of Concurrent
Engineering. In Parsaei, H.R. 86 Sullivan, W.G. (Eds.), Concurrent
Engineering: Contemporary Issues and Modern Design Tools (1st ed.,
pp. 3-23). London: Chapman 136 Hall.
Lake, J. (1992). Implementation of Multi-Disciplinary Teaming.
Engineering Management Journal, 4(2), 9-13.
Machlis, S. (1990). Management Changes Key to Concurrent
Engineering. Design News. 46(16), 32-37.
Saaty, T.L. (1982). Decision Making for Leaders. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Inc.
66
Tricamo, S.J. (1993). How to Capitalize on Concurrent Engineering: The
CE Learning Factory. Design News, 49(13), 80-83.
Turino, J.L. (1992). Managing Concurrent Engineering: Buying Time to
Market (1st ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ullman, D.G. (1997). The Mechanical Design Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
U.S. Census Bureau (1995). United States The Number of Firms,
Establishments, Employment. Annual Payroll, and Estimated
Receipts by Industrial Division and Enterprise Employment Size for
1995. [on line]. Available:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ssel_tabs/view/tab3_99b.html
U.S. Small Business Administration (1997). The Facts About Small
Business. 1997. [on line]. Available:
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/stats/factl.html
Wright, A.L. A Theory of Product Design Process Measurement. Ph.D.
Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, September 1999.
67
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Documentation of Company As Old Product Development Process
C
.cn
Identify Market Opportunity
See Sheet BCE 1.0
C
C
co
0
0
ffi
Product Projections Made
See Sheet BCE 1.8
Develop Product Specifications
See Sheet BCE 1.1
O
Generate Concept Sketches
See Sheet BCE 1.2
Prototype Drawings Developed
See Sheet BCE 1.3
Prototype Built
See Sheet BCE 1.4
4
Prototype Testing
See Sheet BCE 1.5
8
Manufacture Scheduling
See Sheet BCE 1.9
Production
See Sheet BCE 2.0
Modify
Prototype
CD
Final Design Review and Verification
See Sheet BCE 1.7
Detail Drawings Developed
See Sheet BCE 1.6
Post Production Review
See Sheet BCE 2.1
Customer Support & Service
See Sheet BCE 2.2
Modify Product as
needed
Continued top of next column -+
Figure A.1. Flowchart of company A's old product development process.
69
Sheet BCE 1.0
Identify Market Opportunity
Description: The market opportunity for a product is identified from
three primary sources:
Customers who use a product and offer suggestions.
Dealers who sell the products and offer suggestions.
From ideas in "idea file" that the owner has had at one
time.
Purpose: To intitialize the product development cycle and start the
design process.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from customer and dealer suggestions as well as ideas that the
owner has had.
Output: Written notes and sketches.
Notes:
70
Sheet BCE 1.1
Develop Product Specifications
Description: Product specifications are generated based on ideas from
customers, dealers, and company owner.
Purpose: To produce detailed product specifications allowing for concept
generation.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from customer and dealer suggestions as well as ideas that the
owner has had.
Output: Written product specifications.
Notes:
71
Sheet BCE 1.2
Generate Concept Sketches
Description: Concept sketches are generated based on the product
specifications.
Purpose: To produce concept sketches that allow for the selection of a
prototype.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from customer and dealer suggestions as well as ideas that the
owner has had. Written product specifications.
Output: Concept sketches.
Notes:
72
Sheet BCE 1.3
Prototype Drawings Developed
Description: A concept is selected for further development as a
prototype. The selcted prototype then has layout drawings developed to
the extent that the prototype can be manufactured.
Purpose: To provide drawings that give enough detail to allow for
prototype manufacture.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, purchasing agent,
vendors.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from customer and dealer suggestions as well as ideas that the
owner has had. Written product specifications. Concept sketches. A Bill
of Materials (BOM) is generated for the prototype. Part numbers are
generated or assigned (if using an existing part). Approved vendor list
and purchase orders are used.
Output: Layout drawings for the selected prototype.
Notes:
73
Sheet BCE 1.4
Prototype Built
Description: The selected prototype is built as shown on the layout
drawings.
Purpose: To develop the selected prototype into a workable product.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, and some
manufacturing personnel.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications and prototype
layout drawings.
Output: Workable prototype that meets product specifications.
Notes:
74
Sheet BCE 1.5
Prototype Testing
Description: The selected prototype has been built and needs to be
tested for performance in controlled and uncontrolled environments.
Purpose: To allow for refinement of pre-production prototype by in-shop,
dealer, and customer testing.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, selected dealers and
customers.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, prototype
layout drawings, bill of materials.
Output: Refined pre-production prototype that is ready for production.
Notes: Engineering Change Order (ECO) is done verbally.
75
Sheet BCE 1.6
Detail Drawings Developed
Description: The selected prototype has been tested and the necessary
engineering change orders completed. Detail drawings are developed for
the production model.
Purpose: To develop detail drawings that reflect recent changes in the
prototype due to testing results and to provide manufacturing detail
drawings for production purposes.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, prototype
layout drawings, bill of materials. Notes taken by the owner or engineer
that indicate any changes that were made to the prototype.
Output: Production ready detail drawings.
Notes:
76
Sheet BCE 1.7
Final Design Review and Verification
Description: The selected prototype has been tested and the necessary
engineering change orders completed. Detail drawings have been
developed for the production model. The owner and engineer do a final
review of the product to ensure that the required changes found by
testing have been implemented.
Purpose: To do a final check of the product before full scale production
begins.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, prototype
layout drawings, bill of materials, detail drawings. Engineering Change
Order (ECO) is done verbally. Any notes taken by the owner or engineer
that indicate any changes that were made to the prototype.
Output: Production ready detail drawings.
Notes:
77
Sheet BCE 1.8
Product Projections Made
Description: The final design review and verification has been
completed to ensure that the product is ready for production.
Projections are made for the number of units to be manufactured.
Purpose: To project the number of units that will be sold and allocate
the needed resources to ensure that the projected number is produced in
the required time frame.
Personnel Involved: Company owner.
Documentation Involved: Past years sales volume documents.
Output: Projection sheet showing actual number of units to be built.
Notes: Largely based on "gut feel" of the market for the product
involved.
78
Sheet BCE 1.9
Manufacture Scheduling
Description: Projections have been made for the number of units to be
manufactured. The manufacture of the product is scheduled to ensure
that the product is ready on the required ship date.
Purpose: To allocate the needed resources to ensure that the projected
number is produced in the required time frame.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, manufacturing
personnel, assembly personnel, purchasing agent, vendors.
Documentation Involved: Bill of materials, detail drawings, purchase
orders, weekly demand sheet.
Output: Schedule for production.
Notes: Scheduling of manufacture is done verbally through weekly
meetings that involve the personnel mentioned above.
79
Sheet BCE 2.0
Production
Description: Projections have been made for the number of units to be
manufactured. The manufacture of the product has been scheduled to
ensure that the product is ready on the required ship date. Production is
now ready to begin.
Purpose: To manufacture the projected number of units.
Personnel Involved: Manufacturing personnel, assembly personnel,
purchasing agent, vendors.
Documentation Involved: Bill of materials, detail drawings, purchase
orders, weekly demand sheet, factory worksheet, material transfer forms,
assembly worksheet, invoice for sale.
Output: Manufacture of product.
Notes:
80
Sheet BCE 2.1
Post Production Review
Description: Production of the product is in progress and the first units
are coming off of the assembly line. These products are checked to
ensure that they have been made to specification and that the product
functions as expected. Post production review also includes any design
changes made after the initial products have been shipped.
Purpose: To ensure that the product is being manufactured as expected
and that the production models behave the same as the prototype. To
make improvements in the existing design of the product.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, manufacturing
personnel, assembly personnel, purchasing agent, vendors, dealers, and
customers.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, bill of
materials, detail drawings, purchase orders, weekly demand sheet,
factory worksheet, material transfer forms, assembly worksheet, invoice
for sale.
Output: Shipping of product to dealers and customers, changes in the
detail drawings for production if a change is design occurs.
Notes:
81
Sheet BCE 2.2
Customer Support & Service
Description: The product has been shipped to customers and is in
service. The company provides support of it's products and service of all
serviceable parts.
Purpose: To provide customer support and service on products.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, purchasing agent,
customer service representative, vendors, dealers, and customers.
Documentation Involved: Purchase orders, customer file, detail
drawings, bill of materials, vendor list.
Output: Service and support of products.
Notes:
Appendix B: Documentation of Company B's Old Product Development Process
cr)
t2
a8
Identify Market Opportunity
See Sheet BCE 1.0
a
Develop Product Specifications
See Sheet BCE 1.1
0
-per
Prototype Drawing Layout
See Sheet BCE 1.3
4
Modify
Prototype
0
a
Customer Support & Service
See Sheet BCE 2.1
0
Prototype Testing
See Sheet BCE 1.5
Final Drawings Developed
See Sheet BCE 1.6
Manufacture Scheduling
See Sheet BCE 1.9
Production
See Sheet BCE 2.0
Modify
Prototype
Drawings
0)
Final Product Specifications Developed
See Sheet BCE 1.7
Pilot Production Run
See Sheet BCE 1.8
Generate Concept Sketches
See Sheet BCE 1.2
Prototype Built
See Sheet BCE 1.4
r Vt
Modify Product as
needed
141
Continued top of next column
Figure B.1. Flowchart of company B's old product development process.
83
Sheet BCE 1.0
Identify Market Opportunity
Description: The market opportunity for a product is identified by the
owner. The owner is a contractor who sees a need for products from a
first hand point of view. He wants to provide all the equipment needed
for contractors to successfully complete their jobs.
Purpose: To intitialize the product development cycle and start the
design process.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from concepts that the owner and engineer have had.
Output: Written notes and sketches placed in a design notebook or
project file.
Notes:
Assesment: This stage of product development initially worked since the
owner had come from the paving business and saw the need for a
product on a first hand basis. The owner then started a new product
design based on what he thought the market would respond to instead of
researching the market. He no longer had the first hand knowledge that
he had while working as a paving contractor and the market did not
respond to this product as it had with the previous product.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
84
Sheet BCE 1.1
Develop Product Specifications
Description: Product specifications are generated based on ideas from
contractors, engineer, and company owner.
Purpose: To produce detailed product specifications allowing for concept
generation.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from concepts that the owner and engineer have had.
Output: Written product specifications placed in product file.
Notes:
Assesment: The product specifications were developed by the owner
with little involvement from the engineering department. Most of these
specifications were communicated verbally by the owner to the
engineering department with little written documentation. No other
areas were represented in the defining of product specifications besides
those given by the owner and engineering department. This stage
worked except for the fact that important specifications could be lost due
to lack of documented specificatons.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
85
Sheet BCE 1.2
Generate Concept Sketches
Description: Concept sketches are generated based on the product
specifications.
Purpose: To produce concept sketches that allow for the selection of a
prototype.
Personnel Involved: Company owner and engineer.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from concepts that the owner and engineer have had. Written
product specifications.
Output: Concept sketches.
Notes:
Assesment: When product specifications were written down, they were
used to help generate concept sketches. Most often, the owner already
had a design in mind and this design was passed on to the engineering
department. Concept sketches then represented a design that the owner
had created with engineering refining the design to make it
manufacturable. This stage worked in the sense that the owner was able
to pick the concept he liked from the start but the design space was very
limited.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
86
Sheet BCE 1.3
Prototype Drawings Layout
Description: A concept is selected for further development as a
prototype. The selcted prototype then has layout drawings developed to
the extent that the prototype can be manufactured. This step included
laying out the major components of the product.
Purpose: To provide drawings that give enough detail to allow for
prototype manufacture.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, manufacturing
personnel, some vendors.
Documentation Involved: Notes and sketches for ideas that have been
started from concepts that the owner and engineer have had. Written
product specifications. Concept sketches. A Bill of Materials (BOM) is
generated for the prototype. Part numbers are generated or assigned (if
using an existing part).
Output: Layout drawings for the selected prototype.
Notes:
Assesment: The concept the owner had generated was refined by the
engineering department to produce production quality drawings. These
production quality drawings were hand sketches a lot of the time.
Sometimes the parts were produced before the drawings were produced.
There was a more "hands on" atmosphere than one that promoted proper
documentation of the prototype layout. The thinking here was that some
drawings could be produced after the prototype had been produced. This
didn't work because many changes made to the prototype from the
original design went undocumented and therefore the reasons for the
changes undocumented.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
87
Sheet BCE 1.4
Prototype Built
Description: The selected prototype is built as shown on the layout
drawings.
Purpose: To develop the selected prototype into a workable product.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, and some
manufacturing personnel.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications and prototype
layout drawings.
Output: Workable prototype that meets product specifications.
Notes:
Assesment: This stage worked but as mentioned previously, there was
little formal documentation for prototype construction and what
documentation existed was poorly controlled. Most of the information
was communicated verbally and the prototype was constructed using
some hand drawn sketches.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
88
Sheet BCE 1.5
Prototype Testing
Description: The selected prototype has been built and needs to be
tested for performance in controlled and uncontrolled environments.
Purpose: To allow for refinement of pre-production prototype by in-shop
and customer testing.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, and selected
customers.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, prototype
layout drawings, bill of materials.
Output: Refined pre-production prototype that is ready for pilot
production run.
Notes: Company B built testing equipment to test components being
used in the products. This way they did their own reliability testing.
Once the prototype had been successfully tested by a customer, the
prototype would be broken down and the individual components sent
back to the vendors for inspection. The vendors would then let Company
B Mfg. know how the product was wearing and if any problems were
found. Once a suitable component was found, they stuck with it.
Assesment: Prototype testing did work as part of the product
development process when it was used. On the first product produced at
Company B, prototype testing was very successful and contributed
important information about the design. In the second product produced
at Company B, little to no in shop prototype testing was done before the
customers starting receiving units. This happen because the owner had
made promises to customers in terms of product delivery and there was
no time to fully test the equipment before it was released.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
89
Sheet BCE 1.6
Detail Drawings Developed
Description: The selected prototype has been tested and the necessary
changes completed. Detail drawings are developed for the production
model.
Purpose: To develop detail drawings that reflect recent changes in the
prototype due to testing results and to provide manufacturing detail
drawings for production purposes.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, prototype
layout drawings, bill of materials. Notes taken by the owner or engineer
that indicate any changes that were made to the prototype.
Output: Production ready detail drawings.
Notes: Assembly drawings were sketched by hand.
Assesment: This stage worked when it was successfully completed. To
date, some parts do not have detail drawings and are literally in the
minds of the people who manufacture them. This led to no formal
documentation of part drawings and no way for engineering to
communicate changes to manufacturing except verbally and through
hand drawn sketches.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
90
Sheet BCE 1.7
Final Product Specifications Developed
Description: The selected prototype has been tested and the necessary
changes have been made. Detail drawings have been developed for the
production model. The owner and engineer produce final product
specifications to ensure that the required changes found by testing have
been implemented.
Purpose: To produce final product specifications before full scale
production begins.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer.
Documentation Involved: Written product specifications, prototype
layout drawings, bill of materials, detail drawings, purchase orders.
Notes taken by the owner or engineer that indicate any changes that
were made to the prototype.
Output: Production ready detail drawings and final product
specifications.
Notes:
Assesment: This stage worked but was actually done throughout the
entire design process and well into the product life cycle. Formal
methods to communicate changes such as an engineering change orders
(ECO's) or engineering chage notice (ECN's) were used at one time but
were quickly discarded due to lack of discipline and time constraints.
This left changes in the initial product specifications to the produce final
product specifications to verbal communication with the owner and the
engineering department.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
91
Sheet BCE 1.8
Pilot Production Run
Description: The final detail drawings and product specifications have
been completed to ensure that the product is ready for production. A
pilot production run is completed to proof the drawings and tolerances.
Any fixtures and jigs that will be required for manufacture are developed
and designed.
Purpose: To ensure that the projected number of products are produced
in the required time frame and that the shop is capable of producing the
products as specified.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, purchasing and
manufacturing personnel.
Documentation Involved: Production ready detail drawings, final
product specifications, structured bill of materials change and purchase
orders.
Output: Working prototype.
Notes: All components that are purchased out of shop are designated by
the engineer and a list of required components along with the
appropriate vendors is delivered to the purchasing department. The
structured bill of materials change worked like an engineering change
order.
Assesment: This stage worked and was used as a tool to find any
problems in manufacturing that have been overlooked and most likely
undocumented in the product development process. This stage could
have been skipped if the earlier stages of the product development
process would have been completed successfully and properly
documented. In the long run, this stage probably cost the company more
time, money and other resources than having followed and completed
earlier steps in product development.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
92
Sheet BCE 1.9
Manufacture Scheduling
Description: Projections are made for the number of units to be
manufactured. The manufacture of the product is scheduled to ensure
that the product is ready on the required ship date.
Purpose: To allocate the needed resources and ensure that the projected
number is produced in the required time frame.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, manufacturing
personnel, assembly personnel, purchasing agent, vendors.
Documentation Involved: Bill of materials, detail drawings, purchase
orders.
Output: Schedule for production.
Notes:
Assesment: This stage worked to ensure that the products were
available on the required ship date. The only problem was that
uncompleted steps early in the product development process lead to a
number of problems with these units. This was not so much a problem
with Company B's first product as it was with their second product. This
was due to unrealistic delivery times determined by the company owner.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
93
Sheet BCE 2.0
Production
Description: Projections have been made for the number of units to be
manufactured. The manufacture of the product has been scheduled to
ensure that the product is ready on the required ship date. Production is
now ready to begin.
Purpose: To manufacture the projected number of units.
Personnel Involved: Manufacturing personnel, assembly personnel,
purchasing agent, vendors.
Documentation Involved: Bill of materials, detail drawings, structured
bill of material change and purchase orders.
Output: Manufacture of product.
Notes:
Assesment: This stage seemed to work fine until problems began to
appear due to lack of proper documentation in the earlier stages of
product development. Missing drawings, product specifications, and
assembly problems, to name a few, contributed to a loss of company
resources.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
94
Sheet BCE 2.1
Customer Support & Service
Description: The product has been shipped to customers and is in
service. The company provides support of it's products and service of all
serviceable parts.
Purpose: To provide customer support and service on products.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, engineer, purchasing agent,
vendors, and customers.
Documentation Involved: Purchase orders, detail drawings, bill of
materials, vendor list, customer files, service sheet and owner's manuals.
Output: Service and support of products.
Notes: Company B provides a 12 month warranty on parts and labor for
its products.
Assesment: This stage of product development is the most refined since
the company spent most of it's time involved with this stage, especially
with the second product. All of the shortcuts taken earlier on in the
product development process are now costing the company time and
money. The company does gain respect though as they stand by their
product and do whatever it takes to satisfy the customer. This state of
mind is still present today as parts are specially made for the few
customers who are using the product that failed. The owner felt that he
had a moral obligation to provide the needed service to all of his
customers, no matter what the cost.
Process Measurement
Resources:
Requirements:
Deliverables:
Concurrent Product Development Process at Company B, Level B
Marketing
Product Definition
Detail Design
CPDP 1.3-B
Customer
Requirements
Defined Through
Focus Groups
CPDP 2.2.8
Prototype Virtual
Part Modeling
(Material Selection,
Manufacturing
Process Selection,
Buy vs. Make)
Production
Post Production
CPDP 3.1-B
CPDP 3.5-B
Customer
CPDP 1.0-B
Identify Concept
or Idea
1')
a
Fu
Front End"
Manufacturing
Scheduling
CPDP 1.1-B
7-9
Competitive
Market Analysis/
Market Research/
Engineering
Assessment
.j,' g
/
a R ,.
,r,
',..t,
ffi
CPDP 2.3-B
CPDP 1.4 -B
Prototype Virtual
Assembly (Fit,
Form, Function
Test)
Complete PrePlanning Matrix
-<
CPDP 3.2-B
Production
m
/
DP 1.2-8
t Approv
'
,r,
-,1
K
:11
CPDP 1.15-8
CPDP 3.3-B
Conduct Quality
Function
Deployment Based
On Refined
Customer
Requirements
Production
Model
Performance
Review
CPDP 2.4-B
Prototype Detail
Developed
o
--g° g
. i ,,,
/
CPDP 1.6-B
Program
Schedule
Estimated
CPDP 3.44
Production
royal?
CPDP 2.5-B
Prototype Build
-C
i3
rn
11
'1'
fc/
4'
CPDP 1.7-B
Product
Specifications
Developed
CPDP 2.6-8
Prototype
Testing
(Functional)
ZO
1
CPDP 1.8-B
Program
Schedule
Developed
I
CPDP 1.9-B
Concepts
Generated
Z
O
CPDP 2.0-B
Evaluate
Concepts
CPDP 2.7-B
Bill of Materials
Completed
i
CPDP 2.8-B
Assembly
Instructions
Completed
CPDP 2.9-B
Technical
Publications
Developed
CPDP 2.1-B
Concept Approval?
C1.13.031
Design Appr
O
Service and
Support
\/
ZO
CPDP 3.6-8
Product
Retirement
96
Sheet CPDP 1.0-B
Identify Concept or Idea
Phase: Marketing
Description: An idea or concept is identified by the company.
Purpose: To initiate the product development cycle and start the design process
Personnel Involved: Marketing, company owner, product development director.
Documentation Involved: Notes or sketches about the product, idea, or concept.
Output: Product description, idea, or concept.
Assessment:
Information Required: Market and technological data on the product being considered.
Notes: Research is initiated from two primary sources:
Market pull Occurring as a natural outcome of customer or user aspirations,
when the technology tends to be behind the market;
Technology push The result of new technology, creating new markets, when the market
is behind the technology. (Pugh, 1989)
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Score
3.01
2.05
1.16
1.14
1.09
1.03
Example Measures
# of Days Spent in Process
$ Spent on Process
97
Sheet CPDP 1.1-B
Competitive Market Analysis/Market Research/Engineering Assessment
Phase: Marketing
Description: Competitive market analysis/market research/engineering assessment is performed
on the previously identified idea or concept or the competitive market analysis/market research
leads to an idea or concept for a new product.
Purpose: To gain insight into the market opportunity and determine the best way to develop a
good market position.
Personnel Involved: Marketing, company owner, product development director.
Documentation Involved: Notes, sketches and graphs that show the required marketing
information, engineering assessment or to find a market that a new product could be developed in.
Output: Displays, charts, graphs and notes that give useful comparisons and contrasts the market
that the new product will be in.
Assessment:
Information Required: Market segment (e.g., manufacturing industries, can be segmented based
on SIC codes), market sub-segment (e.g., electronics), target customer (the customers who are
expected to either pay for or use the product, e.g., V.P. of Engineering), the person (by name) and
the company (by name), the geographical region (sorted for distribution channels). (Salomone,
estimate of material
1995) Company price points, market cycles, competitors. Project objective,
and labor costs, estimate of development time, development risks, development options, design
criteria.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Score
3.01
2.05
1.95
1.86
1.64
1.25
98
Sheet CPDP 1.2-B
Project Approval?
Phase: Marketing
Description: A decision must be made to continue or discontinue development of the current
product.
Purpose: To decide if it is in the company's best interest to develop the product and initiate the
product definition phase of the product development process.
Personnel Involved: Marketing, company owner, product development director.
Documentation Involved: All of the displays, charts, graphs, notes and any other forms of market
information that could influence the decision.
Output: The decision to proceed or to stop development of the current product.
Assessment:
Information Required: Marketing Information
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Earned Market Share
Product Development Time
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Score
2.05
1.81
1.57
1.41
1.37
1.18
99
Sheet CPDP 1.3-B
Customer Requirements Defined Through Focus Groups
Phase: Project Definition
Description: The customer requirements for the new product are defined through a series of
internal and external focus group meetings. First, a focus group is done with internal customers
such as marketing, engineering, manufacturing and sales. Then a focus group is done with
external customers such as the end user. Finally, a focus group is done with the internal
customers discussing the results of the focus group done with external customers and starting the
pre-planning matrix.
Purpose: To develop the customer requirements and ensure a customer driven product.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, product development director, production manager,
marketing, engineering, manufacturing, sales, service manager, and the end user.
Documentation Involved: Notes, ideas, surveys and sketches from the focus groups.
Output: Refined customer requirements.
Assessment:
Information Required: Target customers , customer requirements.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Customer Requirements Realized
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
8.47
6.88
6.22
4.75
4.11
3.01
100
Sheet CPDP 1.4-B
Complete Pre-Planning Matrix
Phase: Project Definition
Description: A pre-planning matrix is completed that captures the customer's requirements and
allows the product development team to evaluate them.
Purpose: To ensure that product management will direct efforts and studies which define or
confirm the customer requirements and produce a customer driven product.
Personnel Involved: Marketing, sales, product development director, engineering, production
manager, manufacturing, service manager, company owner.
Documentation Involved: Notes from marketing and focus group studies.
Output: A completed pre-planning matrix with refined customer requirements.
Assessment:
Information Required: Customer requirements, importance rating, rate of improvement, sales
point, priority index and benchmarking rating.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Product Development Time
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Score
2.40
2.36
2.01
1.81
1.61
1.22
101
Sheet CPDP 1.5-B
Conduct Quality Function Deployment Based On Refined Customer Requirements
Phase: Product Definition
Description: Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is completed using the refined customer
requirements derived through the internal and external focus groups.
Purpose: QFD translates customer requirements into measurable design objectives while
relating and prioritizing the requirements. This will ensure that a truly customer driven product is
developed.
Personnel Involved: Engineering, product development director.
Documentation Involved: Notes on customer requirements, pre-planning matrix, the QFD
diagram.
Output: A completed QFD diagram.
Assessment:
Information Required: Customers, refined customer requirements, company measures, technical
attributes > engineering specifications, target values, customer ratings, competition's values.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Customer Requirements Realized
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Score
8.18
7.92
7.31
5.57
4.82
2.05
102
Sheet CPDP 1.6-B
Program Schedule Estimated
Phase: Product Definition
Description: The program schedule is estimated to provide an overview of the program timing,
highlighting important events in the schedule.
Purpose: The estimation of the program schedule allows the product development team to gain a
better understanding of the product development process in terms of the time involved.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, engineering, manufacturing.
Documentation Involved: Estimated program schedule, completed QFD diagram.
Output: First attempt at a developed program schedule.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product information in terms of customer requirements and the completed
QFD which will allow for the team to estimate the time needed to develop the product. Experience
in past product development processes is necessary to gain an accurate estimation, manufacturing
process capabilities.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Score
1.81
1.71
1.18
1.12
1.06
1.00
103
Sheet CPDP 1.7-B
Product Specifications Developed
Phase: Product Definition
Description: The product specifications are developed based on the technical attributes and
engineering specifications that have been defined using QFD.
Purpose: The product specifications represent the top-level definitions of the technical attributes
These specifications will serve as
and engineering specifications for the product being developed.
the principle information source for technical guidance. The product specifications contain all
pertinent technical, performance, operational, and support information for the product.
Personnel Involved: Engineering, product development director.
Documentation Involved:
Completed QFD diagram
Output: Product Specifications
Assessment:
Information Required: Customer requirements in the form of technical attributes and engineering
specifications, any required codes or standards that are used in the product's area (e.g. ASME
codes for pressure vessels).
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Customer Requirements Realized
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Product Development Time
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Cost
Score
9.90
5.61
5.59
4.82
4.24
3.08
104
Sheet CPDP 1.8-B
Program Schedule Developed
Phase: Product Definition
Description: The program schedule has been estimated. Now that the product specifications
have been developed and a better understanding of the product requirements exists, the program
schedule can be fully developed.
The program schedule provides the product development team with a timeline to follow
during product development and promotes advancement through the process.
Purpose:
Personnel Involved: Manufacturing, engineering, production manager, product development
director.
Documentation Involved: Estimated program schedule, product specifications.
Output: Fully developed program schedule.
Assessment:
Information Required: Estimated program schedule, product specifications, manufacturing
process capabilities.
Notes: The program schedule could be normalized so that it could be used for any type of
mechanical design project based on an estimated part count and available resources. This way
the product development team could enter the estimated number of parts and the available
resources (i.e. man hours available) and a program schedule would be calculated.
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Score
1.81
1.37
1.21
1.19
1.14
0.97
105
Sheet CPDP 1.9-B
Concepts Generated
Phase: Product Definition
Description: With the product specifications completed, concepts of the product are generated for
consideration in production.
Purpose: To generate concepts for consideration as the new product which provides the required
functions defined by the product specifications and ultimately the customers.
Personnel Involved: Engineering, product development director, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Product specifications, purchase orders, vendor list.
Output: Sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows
how the required functions are achieved through the concept.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product specifications in terms of function required, manufacturing
process capabilities, any required standards or codes that must be satisfied, competition's (if any)
design of similar product, any references that will aid in the designers concept generation (e.g.
by Nicholas P. Chironis).
Mechanisms and Mechanical Devices Sourcebook
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Score
5.65
5.55
4.55
4.35
3.01
2.05
106
Sheet CPDP 2.0-B
Evaluate Concepts
Phase: Product Definition
Multiple concepts have been generated and a concept needs to be chosen for
further development as a product. This requires the evaluation of the concepts based on some sort
of decision making process and the eventual selection of a single concept.
Description:
Purpose: To define the product from one of the concepts that have been generated and continue
the product development process.
Personnel Involved: Marketing, engineering, manufacturing, sales, product development director,
company owner, service manager.
Documentation Involved: Product specifications, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual
descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, purchase orders, vendor list.
Output: A concept that has been selected for production.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product specifications in terms of function required, manufacturing
process capabilities, any required standards or codes that must be satisfied, competition's (if any)
design of similar product, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any
other method that shows how the required functions are achieved through the concept, approved
vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
5.55
5.46
4.35
3.21
2.74
1.81
107
Sheet CPDP 2.1-B
Concept Approval?
Phase: Product Definition
Description: A concept has been selected by the product development team and now requires
management approval to proceed to the detail design phase.
Purpose: To receive management approval of the selected concept and ensure that everyone
involved in the process has had a chance to have their voice heard before continuing the product
development process.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, product development director, marketing, engineering,
manufacturing, production manager, sales, service manager, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Pre-planning matrix, program schedule, completed QFD diagram,
product specifications, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other
means of showing how the required functions are achieved through the concept, purchase orders,
vendor list.
Output: The decision to do one of the following:
1) Proceed into detail design phase with the chosen concept
2) Generate more concepts (CPDP 1.9)
3) Identify the need for another product or conduct competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering assessment (CPDP 1.0 & 1.1). Start a new product
development process.
Assessment:
Information Required: Target customers, refined customer requirements, importance rating, rate
of improvement, sales point, priority index and benchmarking rating, company measures,
engineering specifications, target values, customer ratings, competition's values, manufacturing
process capabilities, any required codes or standards that are used in the product's area, concept
sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the
required functions are achieved through the concept, approved vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
11.05
10.88
9.43
5.38
2.74
1.81
108
Sheet CPDP 2.2-B
Prototype Virtual * Part Modeling
Phase: Detail Design
Description: A concept has been selected for detail design and approved by management. The
selected design needs to have detail drawings constructed so that the prototype parts can be
manufactured. The material and manufacturing process is selected for the part being designed.
The decision is made to either build the part in house or have the part manufactured by a vendor.
This decision is based on the part details (i.e. part form, material, manufacturing process
capabilities).
Purpose: To initiate the detail design phase and provide virtual part models with enough detail
(i.e. part form, material, and manufacturing process) to allow for a buy vs. make decision to be
made and lead to prototype part manufacture.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering,
manufacturing, selected vendors.
Product specifications, manufacturing process capabilities, any
required standards or codes that must be satisfied, competition's (if any) product literature, concept
sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the
required functions are achieved through the concept, program schedule, purchase orders, vendors
Documentation Involved:
list.
Output: Virtual models of the prototype parts with material and manufacturing process selected.
The decision to either manufacture the part in house or have the part manufactured by a vendor.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product specifications in terms of function required, manufacturing
process capabilities, material properties, any required standards or codes that must be satisfied,
competition's (if any) design of similar product, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual
descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, approved vendors.
Notes: *The term virtual refers to something that has been defined in a computer but does not
exist in actual form.
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Score
7.23
6.16
5.29
4.31
3.46
3.34
109
Sheet CPDP 2.3-B
Prototype Virtual Assembly
Phase: Detail Design
Description: Detail design of the prototype parts has been started. The parts are now assembled
in a virtual environment and tested for fit*, form** and function***.
Purpose: To ensure that the parts being designed meet the design requirements as an assembly
in terms of fit*, form"` and function***.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering,
manufacturing, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Product specifications, manufacturing process capabilities, any
required standards or codes that must be satisfied, competition's (if any) product literature, concept
sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the
required functions are achieved through the concept, program schedule, purchase orders, vendor
list.
Output: Virtual models of the prototype assemblies.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product specifications in terms of function required, manufacturing
process capabilities, material properties, any required standards or codesthat must be satisfied,
competition's (if any) design of similar product, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual
descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, prototype virtual parts, approved vendors.
Notes: It - Does the part fit as expected and meet required clearances?
**form - Does the shape of the part meet design requirements?
***function - Does the part perform the required functions?
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Score
7.23
6.16
4.29
3.72
3.46
3.43
110
Sheet CPDP 2.4-B
Prototype Detail Developed
Phase: Detail Design
Description: The prototype virtual part and assembly modeling has been completed. Detail
drawings are needed for prototype part manufacture. The initial bill of materials and assembly
instructions are also initiated in this step.
Purpose: To develop detail drawings of the prototype parts so that the parts can be manufactured.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, engineering, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Initial part and assembly bill of materials*, initial assembly instructions,
product specifications, manufacturing process capabilities, any required standards or codes that
must be satisfied, program schedule, purchase orders, vendor list.
Output: Initial detail drawings of the prototype parts, initial BOMs and initial assembly instructions.
Assessment:
Information Required: Prototype virtual part and assembly models, material information,
manufacturing process, approved vendors.
Notes: *Part and assembly BOMs contain the following information:
Part/Assembly name and number designation
Part/Assembly material specifications
Part/Assembly manufacturing specifications
Any other information that the engineer wants to associate
with the part /assembly
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Score
7.23
4.11
3.92
3.87
3.38
3.29
111
Sheet CPDP 2.5-B
Prototype Build
Phase: Detail Design
Description: The initial detail drawings of the prototype parts and assemblies have been
completed. The initial BOMs and initial assembly instructions are also being developed. The
prototype parts can now be manufactured and the prototype assembled.
Purpose: To build a prototype of the chosen design and allow for functional testing of the
selected design before production is started.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering,
manufacturing.
Documentation Involved: Detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, initial part/assembly
bill of materials, initial assembly instructions, program schedule, purchase orders, vendor list.
Output: A fully assembled prototype of the chosen concept.
Assessment:
Information Required: Initial detail drawings of prototype parts/assemblies, part/assembly
material, manufacturing and assembly information, approved vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Product Unit Cost
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Earned Market Share
Score
15.41
9.64
4.15
3.29
3.08
2.66
112
Sheet CPDP 2.6-B
Prototype Testing (Functional)
Phase: Detail Design
Description: The prototype has been assembled and functional testing needs to be conducted to verify
that required specifications are satisfied. Functional testing will highlight areas where the prototype is
deficient and allow for engineering to make necessary changes needed for the prototype to meet required
specifications. Initial prototype virtual part models, virtual assembly models and part/assembly detail
drawings are modified as needed to reflect any changes required to meet the engineering specifications.
The initial BOMs and assembly instructions are also modified as needed for any changes in design.
Purpose: To ensure that the prototype meets the required engineering specifications derived from
customer requirements.
Personnel Involved:
Product development director, production manager, engineering, manufacturing.
Product specifications in terms of function required, manufacturing process
Documentation Involved:
capabilities, any required standards or codes that must be satisfied, concept sketches, block diagrams,
textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, initial
part/assembly bill of materials, initial assembly instructions, program schedule,
vendor list, purchase orders.
Output: Assessment of prototype functional performance. Any deficiencies in the prototype that must be
corrected in order for the design to meet engineering specifications.
Assessment:
Product specifications in terms of function required, manufacturing process
Information Required:
capabilities, any required standards or codes that must be satisfied, concept sketches, block diagrams,
textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, initial part/assembly bill of materials,
initial assembly instructions, Initial detail drawings of prototype parts/assemblies, part/assembly material,
manufacturing and assembly information, vendors, purchasing information, approved vendors.
Notes: Any changes in the prototype design results in changes in the prototype part/assembly models, the
detail drawings, the initial BOMs and the initial assembly instructions.
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Score
5.48
4.82
4.11
3.97
3.47
3.29
113
Sheet CPDP 2.7-B
Bill of Materials Completed
Phase: Detail Design
Description: The initial bill of materials that was started earlier (see CPDP 2.4) can now be
completed. The prototype has been tested and the necessary changes made to the design so that
engineering requirements are meet.
Purpose: To complete the bill of materials for the prototype and produce a production ready
version bill of materials.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering,
manufacturing.
Documentation Involved: Engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/
assemblies, initial part/assembly bill of materials, initial assembly instructions, program schedule,
vendor list, purchase orders.
Output: A production ready version of the bill of materials.
Assessment:
Information Required: Manufacturing process capabilities, any required standards or codes that
must be satisfied, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies,
initial part/assembly bill of materials, initial assembly instructions, approved vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Score
4.82
4.11
1.41
1.11
1.06
1.01
114
Sheet CPDP 2.8-B
Assembly Instructions Completed
Phase: Detail Design
Description: The initial assembly instructions were started (see CPDP 2.4) can now be
completed. The prototype has been tested and the necessary changes made to the design so that
engineering requirements are meet.
Purpose: To complete the assembly instructions and generate production ready assembly
instructions.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering,
manufacturing.
Documentation Involved: Engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/
assemblies, production ready version of part/assembly bill of materials, initial assembly
instructions, program schedule.
Output: Production ready assembly instructions.
Assessment:
Information Required: Engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/
assemblies, production ready version of part/assembly bill of materials, initial assembly
instructions.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Score
4.82
4.11
1.33
1.17
1.06
1.01
115
Sheet CPDP 2.9-B
Technical Publications Developed
Phase: Detail Design
Description: The detail information of the prototype (e.g. detail drawings, BOMs, assembly
instructions) has been completed and the owner's manual and parts list can now be developed.
Purpose: To produce an owner's manual and parts list for customers.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, engineering.
Product specifications in terms of function required, any required
standards or codes that must be satisfied, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions,
models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved through the
concept, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production
version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions, program
schedule.
Documentation Involved:
Output: A completed owner's manual with parts list.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product specifications in terms of function required, any required
standards or codes that must be satisfied, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions,
models or any other method that shows how the required functions are achieved through the
concept, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production
version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Score
4.82
2.74
1.33
1.12
1.06
1.01
116
Sheet CPDP 3.0-B
Design Approval?
Phase: Detail Design
Description: All stages of detail design have been completed and the prototype is now ready for production.
Management approval is now required for production of the selected prototype to begin.
Purpose: To receive management approval of the selected concept and have one final assessment of the prototype
with the concurrent design team before production of the prototype begins. To ensure that everyone involved in the
process has had a chance to have their voice heard before continuing the product development process.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, product development director, marketing, engineering, manufacturing,
production manager, service manager, sales.
Documentation Involved: All of the displays, charts, graphs, notes and any other forms of market information that
could influence the decision, pre-planning matrix, program schedule, completed QFD diagram, product specifications,
concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other means of showing how the required
functions are achieved through the concept, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/
vendor list,
assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions,
purchase orders.
Output: The decision to do one of the following:
1) Proceed into the production phase with the prototype
2) Generate more concepts (CPDP 1.9)
3) Identify the need for another product or conduct competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering assessment (CPDP 1.0 & 1.1). Start a new product
development process.
Assessment:
Information Required: Market segment (e.g., manufacturing industries, can be segmented based on SIC codes),
market sub-segment (e.g., electronics), target customer (the customers who are expected to either pay for or use the
product, e.g., V.P. of Engineering), the person (by name) and the company (by name), the geographical region (sorted
for distribution channels). (Salomon, 1995) Company price points, market cycles, competitors. Project objective,
estimate of material and labor costs, estimate of development time, development risks, development options, design
criteria, target customers, refined customer requirements, importance rating, rate of improvement, sales point, priority
index and benchmarking rating, company measures, engineering specifications, target values, customer ratings,
competition's values, manufacturing process capabilities, any required codes or standards that are used in the
products area, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other method that shows how the
required functions are achieved through the concept, program schedule, product specifications, concept sketches,
block diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other means of showing how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version
of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions, approved vendors.
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Product Unit Cost
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
10.43
10.42
10.11
10.02
2.74
1.81
117
Sheet CPDP 3.1-B
Manufacturing Scheduling
Phase: Production
Description: The decision has been made to proceed with production of the prototype. Marketing
data is used to project the number of units to be manufactured. The manufacture of the product is
scheduled to ensure that the product is ready on the required ship date.
Purpose: To allocate the needed resources and make sure that the projected number of units is
produced in the required time frame.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, marketing, product development director, production
manager, engineering, manufacturing, sales.
Documentation Involved: Manufacturing process capabilities, vendor list, purchase orders, detail
drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of materials,
production version assembly instructions, program schedule.
Output: A completed manufacturing schedule.
Assessment:
Information Required: Manufacturing process capabilities, detail drawings of the prototype parts/
assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly
instructions, program schedule, approved vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Unit Cost
Earned Market Share
Product Development Cost
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Product Development Time
Customer Requirements Realized
Score
4.09
2.75
2.74
2.42
2.41
2.07
118
Sheet CPDP 3.2-B
Production
Phase: Production
Description: All detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/
assembly bill of materials and production version assembly instructions have been completed and
delivered to manufacturing. The manufacture of the product has been scheduled to ensure that
the product is ready on the required ship date. Production is now ready to begin.
Purpose: To manufacture the projected number of units.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering,
manufacturing, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Manufacture schedule, manufacturing process capabilities, vendor list,
purchase orders, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/
assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions, program schedule.
Output: Production models of the selected design.
Assessment:
Information Required: Manufacturing schedule, manufacturing process capabilities, detail
drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of materials,
production version assembly instructions, program schedule, approved vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Development Cost
Product Unit Cost
Product Development Time
Earned Market Share
Customer Requirements Realized
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Score
10.62
10.00
7.23
4.01
3.84
3.82
119
Sheet CPDP 3.3-B
Production Model Performance Review
Phase: Production
Description: Production of the product is in progress and the first units are coming off of the assembly
line. These products are checked to ensure that they have been made to specification and that the product
functions as expected. Information gathered in the post production review will influence decisions made in
CPDP 3.4, Production Approval. The first production models are being shipped to the customer.
Purpose: To ensure that the product is being manufactured as expected and that the production models
meet or exceed all the required specifications as the prototype did.
Personnel Involved: Product development director, production manager, engineering, manufacturing,
selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Product specifications, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions,
models or any other means of showing how the required functions are achieved through the concept,
engineering specifications, manufacturing schedule, manufacturing process capabilities, detail drawings of
the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version
assembly instructions, program schedule, vendor list, purchase orders.
Output: Recommendations for any changes in the production model or manufacture of the production
model that will decrease time to market, reduce costs and increase overall competitiveness.
Assessment:
Information Required: Product specifications, concept sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions,
models or any other means of showing how the required functions are achieved through the concept,
engineering specifications, manufacturing schedule targets and actual manufacturing time, manufacturing
process capabilities, approved vendors, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production
version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions, program schedule.
Notes: This step in the process can be thought of as a pilot production run review that will help identify any
problems between engineering and manufacturing of the product that were not caught in prototype
production.
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Product Development Time
Product Development Cost
Score
4.39
3.84
3.73
3.71
3.61
3.08
120
Sheet CPDP 3.4-B
Production Approval?
Phase: Production
Description: The first production units have been produced and are being shipped to the customers. This
step gives the concurrent design team a chance to review the current production model and see the
customers response to the new product. Management also has a chance to hear any concerns that were
raised during CPDP 3.3, Production Model Performance Review done by engineering and manufacturing.
The concurrent design team can decide if any changes need to be made to the production model.
Purpose: To allow the concurrent design team to assess the production model, discuss differences (if
any) between the prototype and production model and see the customers response to the new product.
Personnel Involved: Company owner, product development director, marketing, engineering,
manufacturing, production manager, sales, service manager, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Any sales information, product specifications, concept sketches, block
diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other means of showing how the required functions are
achieved through the concept, engineering specifications, manufacturing schedule, manufacturing process
capabilities, vendor list, purchase orders, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production
version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions, program schedule.
Output: The decision to do one of the following:
1) Continue with production of the current design
2) Modify the design and approve the changes (CPDP 3.0)
3) Generate more concepts (CPDP 1.9)
4) Identify the need for another product or conduct competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering assessment (CPDP 1.0 & 1.1). Start a new product
development process.
Assessment:
Information Required: Any sales information, product specifications, concept sketches, block diagrams,
textual descriptions, models or any other means of showing how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, engineering specifications, manufacturing schedule, manufacturing process
capabilities, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of
materials, production version assembly instructions, program schedule, purchase orders, approved
vendors.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Product Unit Cost
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
10.91
8.31
8.26
7.70
6.16
1.81
121
Sheet CPDP 3.5-B
Customer Service and Support
Phase: Post Production
Description: The product has been shipped to customers and is in service. Layton Mfg. Inc.
provides a 12 month warranty on parts and labor for its products. The company also provides
support of it's products and service of all serviceable parts.
Purpose: To provide customer support and service on products and build customer satisfaction.
Personnel Involved: Service manager, company owner, product development director, marketing,
engineering, manufacturing, production manager, sales, selected vendors.
Owner's manual and parts list, any sales information, product
specifications, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies,
production version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions,
program schedule, purchase orders, vendor list, customer files, service sheet.
Documentation Involved:
Output: Service and support of products.
Assessment:
Information Required: Owner's manual and parts list, any sales information, product
specifications, engineering specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies,
production version of part/assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions,
program schedule, purchase orders, approved vendors, customer files, service sheet.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Earned Market Share
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
2.43
2.29
1.10
0.96
NA
NA
122
Sheet CPDP 3.6-B
Product Retirement
Phase: Post Production
Description: The product has reached the end of its life cycle and can now be recycled and/or
refurbished and reused as possible.
Purpose: To recycle and/or refurbish and reuse the product as possible.
Personnel Involved: Service manager, company owner, product development director, marketing,
engineering, manufacturing, production manager, sales, selected vendors.
Documentation Involved: Any sales information, product specifications, engineering
specifications, detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/
assembly bill of materials, production version assembly instructions, program schedule, purchase
orders, vendor list, customer files, service sheet.
Output: Recycled and/or refurbished and reused products.
Assessment:
Information Required: Any sales information, product specifications, engineering specifications,
detail drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, production version of part/assembly bill of
materials, production version assembly instructions, program schedule, purchase orders, approved
vendors, customer files, service sheet.
Notes:
Process Measurement Matix
Relative Priorities of the Exectutive Level Requirements
Requirements
Earned Market Share
Achieved Customer Satisfaction
Product Unit Cost
Customer Requirements Realized
Product Development Cost
Product Development Time
Score
2.04
1.42
1.10
0.96
NA
NA
123
Appendix D: Theory of Constraints Logic Tree
p. 2
understanding of the product
development time frame then
before the product specification
were develo
Product specifications can
developed
The product specification
successfully reflect the refin
customer requirements
e program schedule can
estimated
e schedule reflects realis
time estimates and is
approved by managemen
(Customer driven product
development is ensured
nagement will direct effo s
and studies which define or
confirm the cust. reqs.
Customer Requirements ar
defined through focus group
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES:
The product development process from
identifying the need for the product to post
product retirement.
decision must be made
proceed with product
development
uality Function Deployme t
is conducted based on refin
customer requirements
The completed custome
requirements correctly identi
the customer's wants and
needs
e customer requiremen
are refined through internal
and external focus groups
The decision is made to
proceed with product
development
THE GOAL:
To produce a product that is customer
driven.
THE MEASURES.
Not yet identified.
Red text indicates a milestone decision that
must be made in the product development
process.
A need for a product exists
Competitive market analysi
market research is conduct
CThe need for the product is
identified
The market analysis an
market research provides
constructive feedback
The company involved is
interested in developing the
product
Figure D.1. First page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B.
124
P . 3 -4(
The prototype can be built
f
c
(
Prototype drawings ar'e.
Prototype drawings are
developed
modified as necessary to
reflect manufacturing and/or
assembly changes
Feedback
Loop
(Prototype virtual modeling is
initiated
E
Pro oye
virtual assembly
initiated
Detail design can be started
A concept is selected
Concepts can be evaluated
The concept is approved
management
by
t
Concepts can be generated
t
anagemen as a
understanding of the product
development time frame then
before the product specifications
were developed
eprogram schedule can
developed
(Product specifications are
completed
Concepts are generated
(The program schedule
developed
The product specifications
successfully reflect the refine
customer requirements
Figure D.2. Second page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B.
125
p4
The production model
undergoes a performance
review
cI
(Production of product is
he first production models of
the product are completed
started
The schedule reflects
appropriate time based on
process capability
The technical publications
provide the necessary
technical data
The assembly instructions
give appropriate detail needed
for assembly
The bill of materials is ful
C
tt
evolved
he prototype is modified as
needed to complete functional
testing
Feedback
Loop
A production schedule can be
developed
echnical publications can be
developed
(-Technical publications are
Assembly instructions can be
(-Assembly instructions are
C
1
completed
developed
completed
The bill of materials can be
developed
The bill of materials reflects
the complete pre-production
prototype
4rototype functional testing
can be done
C
Prototype functional testing is
completed
The prototype can be built
Sub-systems of the prototype
begin to be assembled
V
p. 2
The prototype is approved by
management for production
Figure D.3. Third page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B.
126
The product is retired from
service
f
The product eventually
reaches the end of its life
cycle
Customers use the product
Customers purchase the
product
(Customers require service
(Customers
receive the
product
Production is continued with
required changes completed
and support
)
Production models are ready
for shipment
N
ecessary changes are mad
to ensure that production
targets are met
The production moder
undergoes a performance
review
he production model meets
and/or exceeds key
erformance measurements
Figure D.4. Fourth page of the theory of constraints diagram for
Company B.
127
Appendix E: Revised Theory of Constraints
Revised Theory of Constraints for Compai y B's New Product Development Process
1. emesien le Inede
Chart is based
on this generic
process model
00 0119.1.
00..
no)
-----------±-.1
(.000.1
I) 4.6 9.02/
2) 66000 .30099
I,I90 9.
600 11010
2)
10197121. CC.). 01313911
,,W;
Ile
10,21.90111.91311 I
4) C09.1. 0eeeee
.1) el.M.1.10.01
e
00 0 11.0.0.01.3
. V.
conlere0
..
Resources'
Time is based on chart Stied "Project Timeline for Concurrent
Product Development Process".
- Money is calculated ea the cum of the number of hours et the
number of employees o the hourly pay for each respecitive
department the average amount spent on this process
(rounded up to the nearest $1000).
- Pay rates: Marketing, S20.000hr; Product Development
Director, $40.00Mr.; Company owner, $50.00/hr.; Production
Manager, $30.00/hr.: Engineering, $25.000,r.; Manufachaing,
$20.00/h0; Sales, $20.00/hr. Service Manger, 830.00/Tr.: Aug .
$30.00/1v.
- Personnel Mvovled: CO = Company Owner, POD
Product
Development Director, PM Production Manager, MRKT =
Marketing, ENGR Engineering, SLS Sales, MANF
Maradactlaing, EU = End User, VNID Vendor, SM Service
Manger. Followed by the number of people invovied front the
respective area.
- Deliverables: T = Tangible (something you can touch), NT
Non-engible
/1 0.1. 0.plon
1
e.
) Me
1,
1.11on
110101.21, 0..
3,10 00 rl.e .1
11.111.0)00
..
0.09/1
marmi,mym end
mer01 re.. 9.0
.4 le .0
D.
1...0.1.
.1 .0011.1.1
0.0..
00
Io 000 .0 0.1.
'
Win .00.6 01
mew.
,
I) 2.3 120 N
n yam 4000
2 .M.00(11,00(,)
4, 010....14
....
......
..
.10.1..)0001
an The 1111.onle
0,.
1) 11.5 10
2, MOO . ISM
n 10.37121. can, P0001
2)
11 AS olln.....
aml......1....../
101.1009. 0111.1.11
*MI sl. *ma.*
00901 «0w. .
II.
eii) 10.1. me
14.1
1002
. Com 011
01.911001
2.1.0
0000.
.1.1.
)30.00. 0111
00.
01.. am
r.d.
00 10.0 a
.0 1.00. he.
Figure E.5
90.111.0.
90. cc cane.
Cg:g7::'
In 1110
0.01.0.000
7, 0.. doeuiplon,
to 9.39 39......1
7101000 Me.
00. ana Tie. .1
11101.11.001
1) TO Mew rn00.00
41 110.0 0.001.
3$ On. 0.000
0.0.01
0.00
.......0
6090 360000
3) 10,21. 9011/ .901
. 00.0. 00,600
)
al me. m elem.
l.. .2.10.
aenes0
1) Ace.. 01..s .10
pr.. 0111.
03110
es....10901
* 3/ T.
.1.1.11e
X.. In 9.10103 Pm
Figure E.4
_
...n.
mma
or,. for 1.
A
1
9.90.
0011) /1.1.1
ar41.---:::
.
.
11..9.900,
10a, 0 700)
If!'"'
3
al se....e.000
3) nom e.f.1
.)....................tom..
npuren...........1/.......
l
1.
1) 24 Oily
21 33000 . 600
)110001.213110 219).,
3) PON, .14,.....M.
...mem..
41 nernate9 0.1.0......
marra...........
pchr101 )011.0-. enet
001.01........
1.0.0121
0.0010.0.one
men..03 proem
tomer nenoceon101
ape..
090
7) 3.10001.
0010 1 74 C0001
OM 000 al ..
.f.
Cuele. /1/010011
leD1eXet;
, ,,,,,,,,),,,,,, ere.
me....)
ilAelen01.0 IWO
.."
Quo, lineal
"Verdj?"'" '--.
====.
1) I/0 006.)1.0.
'-'1_,... mill.m.
*small.. sng
.0009 ...O..
......nantn b..
concYaeo
1000 0 rele....
,,,.
)0.0.0.
7­
=100
..........,, ono
00.90.11.31.
0.
Hi) ille 01010
)1110 2001e I.
Figure E.7
91.....1 .11
pres..abymnageot-­
71 Complma Mg...
10.0
0.3.0
00.1. were
()_;),.*
1 000111 91101101
1 Comp1.2.990 diasre
) 2.3 Ofy.
2) 311,000 KM
MIMI Cl211).10911 /. 001)
E.311121. IA40121, .1.812/...1,
A) Cuelelneer.111.0,
.,
lIggLI7r12".r0109
I
...num.. no. erimprown
.am peo....tentor.....
.....r
"00.1nereen.
::= .... ras. er
90/91.01/10)10,
t. ty
01,000)30.
/
.,.12,001..D.1,
.111..0711Z, %WM.
0101,100.00
rl Awm 91.2 pl.
00. hen .
rf,D.7=1,'
0.2911 .
GELLEi.a........
int a
) 4-6 9.
1.090m.
.
0314 39122 WI)
1)
T'Z'etre:::'
..
11.00.0041
00.
0,,,n Fp. Orcupl.
I
n 1401.., kis., .......
..............11.
190 00.
0 013 relne
cullerneerrern.l.
ma..
P.n.s
mined conema
)01.0.011.
-
I) 000112 010.1
e)..10.101.....0.11
P.011 apasol....,..........arat
0.0 .01.1.0 .... 01.010001
.00) pros. any
cons....
11.01900
0ene. etet..1.0 .1
110
rake.12i........
Oomnwa
) 91.3...0
--* 900
ce eon.
0000.0..te
II 010.13.10.111
030 end 02101.0
altoellen rm..
illmu300190 .00
3) in um.. deterner
001010. nyt10.
.9.6 Dr ce0.01
rpArern.7031
1.411..... vr
rem.
e
Figure E.6
Figure E.1. First page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
0....
.... 09
il
.0.. ere re.0
30...
end 60.
000 .0.
.. A
we
...YI 0.1or, of was.
7....
PI
1.......nyrelmcol..
......011.1
.0
oar.
20101o. , med. or
91
how rt.
91
,
rotund
. ere 010.
3.0
...I
.0
128
Chart la based
on the generic
process model
Revised Theory of Constraints for Company B's New Product Development Process
...4 l'4,--­
\
40,
523E_Lit6 00.1.
1'
1) .12 Orts
2) V.. MOO
A 371300 -M.
0101111.0)..01..2019,
A M.- $13.030
ilaWilt
.Z:Wi.2%)1407.1Z
1.900, 2.912). 81.901, WO)
9 9mplormgroom .9.1.10 1.,
Pare1.10eD ..0. po.
.........
lem
.31. Pk. ems.. 1.1011
etwe*1*
.....
...elm, raasis orI as
Resoureaa :
ltem.mn ned lo pre. nmeumMs
a......,
1...
so:mem icawairy4.
.111. slacnplem. mcd. sr'
- Time is based on chart titled " Protect Timeline for Concurrent
Product DeveloPMent Process at Layton Manufacturing Inc "
,
,,...ata.ai
ene
-
Q
a/
1) A Pereepl hs M..
Ice p.m.
0
10
up..
Peson.
11.1.... 03
(CPOP I 0)
11.1. a a a
ares b
Me *ter yam P. Mil
, camp Owo pact
.....coms
.1.1.1
De 1.71
. as
..../
........ins
a*.
, mt.* In ste
a..........aser
M.. MI .........o.
0 P..0 sea... a
11.1.11.m....
MO 9 p. bem
c au
cmactcomse. mt.
........
M. emspnws,
H.S./.
m1.0
mcm1 a. on. Me
aoreier ...a .......
am dam. adrip
d
Lelln..01 00..1
'`,...__________..../
I
1) 11... de.
19) Mene nu. 9 .
.......3
wow wo ma a.r,,,­
9.1. WM WM Me
m. Ps Mmen can.
pa o a aPPPPI
121.132$ P.a.!3
one.n. perum
.4am...a iiie.Ind
essem. Pr Pod* .1
teutereamosamer
leo seal ar.n.
Me Misle. 9.1...
erel.... I..
1.3.......
9........
.......
..MI*
7' ,'
...I olerri mu.i. cm.
1) 1012 Mys
2) 310. SACCO
Mocacml
MMoney IS calctieted as the sum of the number of hours x the
number of employees a the hourly pay for each respecitive
department = the average amount spent on this process
(rounded up to the nearest $1000).
- Pay rates. Marketing, $20.00/hr; Product Development
Director, $40.00/hr.; Company owner, $50.00/hr.; Production
Manager, $30.00/hr.; Engineering, $25.00/hr.; Manufacturing,
$20.00/hr.; Sales, $20.00/M. Service Manger, $30.00/hr.; Avg. s
$30.00/hr.
- Personnel !movie& CO
Company Owner, PDD Product
Development Director, PM Production Manager, MRKT
Marketing, ENGR Engineering, SLS Sales, MAW
Manufachring, EU End User, WO Vendor, SM
Service
Manager. Followed by the number of people invovied from the
respective area.
- Deliverables: T
Tangible (something you can touch), NT =
Non-tangible
,
0 2.3 dm \
1) 2-31.
tlack dep.ml..
0011.1.101.1.
V.111.1.011m
...
pse In lam
a I. 11* me mr .1.0
1)
7.......
ei me..
Sr 09.
9 term af19.7. .
19) WPM neden of .
mwannaeeea
1) Va.. mu..
ex... M. me tem
me.......0
.a
m. rn. M.10. So
en..1.1.1.1.
..,
ewaasae, msualliny
Figure E.8
es awed thmkg, es
Figure E.9
1238_1.40 9.11I
Ve.
\
/\
Ma. Pnletyps1...-­
,7 \
nia-iso,
alma aailia
Z PM MOO - 645.0:o
alma.,
w. 01......... m..
a . UM rmene... Myths ........
,
Me. am so..... mot...
owe. eres .10...... Mel pev '''
OK 01 e... MIlle nemros
0.0 dem.. p....1
MD
1) .120.
9 h... 0.1. of peedvm mr.
.1.9112....0
a.. alas I*.
9003111 EM2100), V.
,),..... 4a. 0.1 a Pray ma.
rne. S.M. rm... p.a.
/\
n 7 -114,4
Z 'In SIM 81.03
.a
G.. or.* re. Le mek9. comel
3) PCq1). 2.213)..0)...00).
A .0203- $12.
/\
0 7 41 O.
17.9 1.
01120, 0.02 0.0), .921
9Ms.
.....13
.......1
... or oulesem.t.
2) $11.. - SO.
9.
4 2..0 .1.1kra. O. ea.
939.en
..21mpres.....1.
re.
dm..., PM dm*.
31 1.01 10990). 11.0)..9902
191.29...10 sp... O.
9319.91.1.....rteen
Mle pe... til dr..s.
me ...ay Men....
..ns. mmo.
mulm, puro.102 Mar*
7) alma me*
point.* el Ms Mown
71 ...12 O.. Mho
M.. PIM
11 111.1aces (I.CPCP 2,1)
Omelmed
4)
111.1cOttypo
211. tert
...Is nven. Me
4) 111. a 0.d*­
Ir..Pamp.m.
M.. In the
.-...
lototatyPO
CEGP.21.111 21..
M.S. Corn..
a.. In 01.4.
2.......
tab Om '
WM,. =mob.
...-11.' CACIP 29 Ms boon
'11
....
ms n1.10
1111
.ruMars Mel.
W..
SZI18.2.0A ...
Intle.e CoM.
1) M.. neOr
mently 1.011.
m­
913. .19.1.1. '
m. etrem
...0 .....
MOW =I Ito
9
*rums me nest
7) 1.1. assmes
....---­
1) A paMtIon maly ..
MIIMIlde...
, 0....
Wend
..... \
ru uu
'1) Ito pot*.
tow moguls&
0 1.1reel 0211. (Me
0. 0.1.1.1
1.11.1* reel Le
Metelo me .11.10,
d a plata as la
21 .2.11111ftly Wats/Jona
'
nu.­
roma,
*T. as me
./
ss,,,e, 010.9
1) 2 -2 0.
A 2390393.0
3) 1.11). IMMO)
Lanoria Play al
My P..] am.. co codut
rat. to
ad 03.1......
rd. ae....s..... awes ,,
*I. matt. ttol Was tav to totufte
.......en
t... .....
manemnora, 0011...
Figure E.10
.........
'an.
0000
Figure E.11
/
tl trOthaamotty 011 cir
maattly
3,
M..
Cm..
71 9 sameeml are.
mai Pa pat la
0
3 0.
tr. Maon d med.
.
2) 23. 10:0)
1) .12 bys
.111)
..........11)7...922"",15":::;...7...
of
''"-'
..l.m m.1.. mm.
M,
,0000.
.
11
........
....12
r1100.,2, 09 l'.,Mpn
...........a...
).......
12 .. In
nvotb to
1) P.M Mm m.
...
9... m
1.110.
Se pa. n em may
fp M sm..
2) Memen. mum..
rem *PM smace.
d a stftt,tel PC61,00 to
1) Sms rm..
pm.
.....
...pm ...
We .03type
1)1....... *el
22 ....11 mut com.
eralIt restect.rtmortot
.m. CCPOP 1 0 1.
mently Menuere.
esl.e........
1 A 071.11.
mond .
producticm Me tYth
SY**.
Prollition.
'1/
saes of Pai Paa
him0/OW
mad and
*
atttoll Os/. of.
001.011.21
.01........
pm... ne Mr*.
tott.eirrety tit al
rnite.t. tecotntion *on awn.*
.49
Mlum...9
3) 126.000 331..
MGM 2.1205, K.01. V.4.00.
wo
9 .............2
....
alp a aktypo paaalap
per*. OM.
Parr M. wean.
to 110.1.
)
r
0
C001. 193100)..0 . 21.19. .90). \
la... tenn ,
P.dald
(..) 21.
CIO
91.1.10 ms. dee
1) Ms Ma *
.....001
.....s.
z alesiewesedes
.......
........
maeaee'""."'"'".'"nawadra.
neently tit of rr.tbls
1..... nedaM.e.
arMor cmcept a ,,e or
hred..........
coMel acme. e. lottly*
Figure E.2. Second page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
.. sr.
- oa.1.1 an]
annh
4:11
M111.121.....
129
Revised Theory of Constraints for Company B's New Product Development Process
Chart is based
on this generic
process model
,
....,,..
.. vv
OM
.... (
.
iv(
I
kb
6
- MAO 111 based
i ... "
.
PCP., MO). EN.K.
A 1PT 11777
(il
...Cr12)...A11). MA. WC
ad. ms.... Om 1.m.1.......
von**
a.. d,..
pr...srrib.. *Ian
.........
.....dr...
pro..
.......
MITI» .....
IA
1.
as .........."W"C4[4.1..' Wsr::.
........ al
.0.1.........a..
.1* P`...............
.................
ow sr..
...........
or...........
p.m
ar./........
rr.)
...ft..
of
....... al.1.....
..........e........2
. CC111. POC(1)...12).
A
eare....... M. al.... h..
...... rt.. 0... M. an.. d
xvviiviv., n......... s...... ma
Product Develotimare Process it Layton MartirachrIna Inc ".
Money le calculated as the sum of the number of hours x the
number of employees x the hourly pay for each respecitive
department the average amotrit spent on the process
(rounded up to the nearest $1000).
Pay rates: Marketing, $20.00/ r: Product Development
Director, $40.00/1v.; Company owner, $50.00/1v.; Production
Manager, $30.00/tr.; Engineering, $25.00/ r.; ManufacttrIng,
520.00Ihr.; Sales, $20.00/1, Service Manger, $30.00; Avg.
11 7720..
2) VOA MOO
4 0.4
A 1.11V)..111.....14.
st......
.........
............ on.. cr or.
on dart titled' protect Time** for Conarrent
..n ..................
.... ..4
............
a.m... *co
me.
/......
rm..
cc.....
row..n d Ow apurt
dill mmEmm
®
$30.00frir..
0.....
1.1. ~An
nada al Vs pod. .
Pereomel invot4ed: CO Company Owner, POD Product
Production Manager, MRKT
Development Dkector, PM
Marketing, ENGR Engineering, SLS Sales, MAW
Manufacturing, EU End User, VND Vendor, SM Service
Manager. Followed by the number of people invovied from the
"ii
A
liwom.......
...1.11.....
mald or n..... 005
....
.I.111..1
........1.....
am cc. =I Immo
ea. pankollklmillin
..
MELEE P,PP,
1/4......,
iv,
__..
SIN. I.
tria Man poarcl
/1) 1....1. Won
MI. culaw at
we
lv-
........
rKsgs,
in*
At
v
:
v (v. v
vvov
(avv((v *rn
((vvv,
,,,......,,....,:,..,,,,,,
Tangibki (cometing you can touch), NT v
1--­
Ntin-tangsble
I , o.
Figure E.12
'F.J.7P , 4& ,,./
akkocal
. kir
US tka :he,. ,T17r, 1,
Figure E.13
I
I
,
1
1
_ _.
I) , ," owe
E) MM. Pm
cam PC," EMMA PM,
WI MEM etata Elk
Em mm imaymm pada
vlavvv...nrvvtiviivakiev.
demitvotivarvvvoitivi mi.(
...hew ..........1.1/
dm... pod..
...lo
p.m
MI
0.1. ..... mn.s,
....
Nr)
,.
, A To. ;mar. La.
.....0
v.v.. to .
conplIIIDI
a..
.
respective area.
Derierables: T
-­
' ...
. 24..
1)
A NAM N.C.)
in.. d W.. beta .....).... No
&MEM:
''
....
....1.1nusi
0..2.
fil T.... I. NW. '
....1,11. . 4.16
Figure E.14
Figure E.3. Third page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
[,
130
Revised Theory of Constraints for Company B's
The decision is made
not to proceed with product
development
Chart is based
on this generic
process model
1) 4-5 Days
2) $5000 $6000
1) 4-5 Days
2) $ 5000 - $6000
3) MRKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1)
4) Market and technological ,­
data on the product being/
considered
Resources:
Time is based on chart titled "Project Timeline for Concurrent
Product Development Process".
Money is calculated as the sum of the number of hours x the
number of employees x the hourly pay for each respecitive
department = the average amount spent on this process
(rounded up to the nearest $1000).
Pay rates: Marketing, $20.00/hr; Product Development
Director, $40.00/hr.; Company owner, $50.00/hr.; Production
Manager, $30.00/hr.; Engineering, $25.00/hr.; Manufacturing,
$20.00/hr.; Sales, $20.00/hr. Service Manger, $30.00/hr.; Avg. =
$30.00/hr.
Personnel Invovled: CO = Company Owner, PDD = Product
Development Director, PM = Production Manager, MRKT =
Marketing, ENGR = Engineering, SLS = Sales, MANF =
Manufacturing, EU = End User, VND = Vendor, SM = Service
Manger. Followed by the number of people invovled from the
respective area.
Deliverables: T = Tangible (something you can touch), NT =
Non-tangible
3) MRKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1)
4) Displays, charts, graphs,'
and notes
PDP 1 1-BCompetiti
Market Analysis / Market
Research/Engineering
Assessment
NT) Product desciiptior
CPCDopigrdednetaify
110.1
idea, or concept
T) Notes or sketches
about the product, idea,
concept
,--
1) A concept or idea for th
1) The market analysis anc
NT) Insight into market
opportunity and the abili
to develop good marker\
position
T) Displays, charts,
graphs and notes that
show the required
information
market resea ch provide
constructive feedback
product exists.
2) The company involved
interested in developing the
product.
1) 4-5 Days
2) $ 5000 - $60000
3) MRKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1)
4) Market and technological
1) 4-5 Days
2) $5000 $6000
3) MRKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1)
4) Displays, charts, graphs/
and notes
data on the product being-­
considered
PDP
petItives,
Market Aulysis / Market
ResearcMEngineering
Assessment
1) The market analysis anc
market resea ch provide
constructive feedback
NT) Insight into market
opportunity and the ability
to develop good market
position
T) Displays, charts,
graphs and notes that
show the required
information
CPDP 1 0-Bdentify
Concept or Idea
1) A concept or idea for th
product exists.
2) The company involved i
interested in developing the
product.
Figure E.4. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
NT) Product description,
Idea, or concept
T) Notes or sketches
about the product, idea, or
concept
131
)mpany B's New Product Development Process
nada
prod
PDP 1.1-ECompetiti
larket Analysis / Market
Research/Engineering
Assessment
NT) Insight into marke
opportunity and the ability
to develop good marke.
position
T) Displays, charts,
graphs and notes that
show the required
information
1) 2-3 Days
2) $3000 $4000
3) MRKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1)
4) Displays, charts, graphs
and notes
CPDP 1.2-EProject
Approval?
1) To all
'DP 1.0-adentify
concept or Idea
NT) Product description
idea, or concept
T) Notes or sketches
about the product, idea, or
concept
management t
evaluate the selected idea
concept and ensure that
everyone involved in the
process has had a chance
have their voice heard befo
continuing the product
development process.
NT) The decision to
proceed or not to proceed
Inith product development
T) All of the displays,
charts, graphs, notes an
any other forms of market
information that could
influence the decision
Figure E.S. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
132
1) 2-3 Days
2) $3,000 - $5,000
3) PDD(1), PM (1), ENGR(2),
/
1) 7-8 Days
..//' 2) $5,000 - $6,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(2)
4) Customers, refined customer
requirements, company measures,
engineering
technical attributes
specifications, target values, ­
ctiVomer ratings, competition's
MANF(2)
4) Completed QFD diagram,
manufacturing process
capabilities
values
<
CPDP 1.6-B Program
Schedule Estimated
CPDP 1.5-B Conduct
QFD Based on Refined
Customer Requirements
.
(1)
1---1101
---
---­
NT) Customer driven
product is ensured
T) A completed QFD
diagram
T) First attempt at a
developed program
schedule
1) The schedule reflects
realistic time estimates and
Is approved by management
Quality Function
Deployment is conducted
based on refined customer
requirements
1) 7-8 Days
2) $8,000 - $9,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(4)
\4) Completed QFD diagram /
1) 2-3 Days
2) $8,000 $8,000
K
3) NRKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1), PM(1)
ENGR(2), MANF(2), SLS(2), SM(1)
4) Customer requirements,
importance rating, rate of improveme
1) The product
specifications accurately
reflect the refined customer
Jequirements.
\ sales point, priority index and,
benchmarking rating
,
1) 4-5 Days \
2) $11,000 - $13,000'
A/IFKT(2), CO(1), PDD(1),
PM(1), ENGR(2), MANF(2),
SLS(2), EU(2), SM(1)
2
) Notes, ideas, surveys an
etches from the
groups.
CPDP 1.4-8 Complete
Pre-Planning Matrix
1) A completed preplanning matrix with
refined customer
requirements.
I
CPDP 1.3-8 Customer
Requirements Defined
Through Focus Groups
1) Notes, Ideas, surveys
and sketches from the
focus groups.
T) VVritten refined
customer requirements.
1) The customer
requirements are refined
through internal and external
foss groups
2) Management directs
efforts and studies which
define or confirm the
customer requirements
3) The completed customer
requirements correctly
identify the customers wants
and needs
Figure E.6. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
133
1) 2-3 Days
2) $3000 - $4000
3) PDD(1), PM(1), ENGR(2),
MANF(2)
4) Estimated program schedule,
product specifications,
manufacturing process
capabilities
CPDP 1.8 -B Program
Schedule Developed
11)
Management has a better
understanding of the product
development time frame than
before the product
specifications were
`developed.
1) 7-8 Days
2) $8,000 - $9,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(4)
4) Completed QFD diagram
CPDP 1.7-B Product
Specifications Developed
1) The product
specifications accurately
reflect the refined customer
\requirements.
NT) The schedule
reflects realistic time
requirements and is
approved by management.
T) Completed program
schedule
T) Completed product
specifications
1) 4-5 Days
2) $5,000 - $6,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(4)
4) Product specifications, manufacturing
process capabilities, any required standards
or codes that must be satisfied, competition'
\ (if any) design of similar product, any
7ences that will aid in the desig
s
concept generation
CPDP 1.9 -B Concepts
Generated
11)
Product specifications in
terms of func ion required,
manufacturing process
capabilities, any required
standards or codes that mus
be satisfied, competition's (if
any) design of similar
product, any references that
will aid in the designers
concept generation
Figure E.7. Section of the first page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
1) Sketches, block
diagrams, textual
descriptions, models or
any other method that
shows how the required
functions are achieved
through the concept.
134
Revised Theory of Constraints for Company B's N
Chart is based
on this generic
process model
/
Resources :
Time is based on chart titled " Project Timeline for Concurrent
Product Development Process at Layton Manufacturing Inc. ".
Money is calculated as the sum of the number of hours x the
number of employees x the hourly pay for each respecitive
department = the average amount spent on this process
(rounded up to the nearest $1000).
- Pay rates: Marketing, $20.00/hr; Product Development
Director, $40.00/hr.; Company owner, $50.00/hr.; Production
Manager, $30.00/hr.; Engineering, $25.00/hr.; Manufacturing,
$20.00/hr.; Sales, $20.00/hr. Service Manger, $30.00/hr.; Avg. =
$30.00/hr.
- Personnel Invovled: CO = Company Owner, PDD = Product
Development Director, PM = Production Manager, MRKT =
Marketing, ENGR = Engineering, SLS = Sales, MANF =
Manufacturing, EU = End User. VND = Vendor, SM = Service
Manager. Followed by the number of people invovled from the
respective area.
Deliverables: T = Tangible (something you can touch), NT =
Non-tangible
/1)
2-3 Days
2) $7000- $8000
CO(1), POD(1), PM(1), ENG i ­
MANF(2), MRKT(2), SLS(1), SM(1)
1) 2-3 Days
2) $7000 - $9000
CO(1), PDD(1), PM(1), ENGR(4 ,
MANF(2), MRKT(2), SLS(1), SM(1)
4) Product specifications, concept
sketches, block diagrams, textual
desaiptiais. models or any other
method that shows how the required
functions are achieved through e
concept.
/ 4) Pro-planning matrbc, program schedulo-\\
completed OFD diagram, product
specifications, concept sketches, block
diagrams, textual descriptions, models
any other means of showing how
ugh
required functions are achieved
the concept.
Evaluate
CPDP2.1-B Concept
Approval,
T) A concept is selected
for production
(1) To allow managements
evaluation of the selected
concept and ensure that
everyone involved in the
process has had a chance to
(1) The evaluation of the
concepts based on some
sort of decision making
process and the eventual
selection of a single concept.
2) Product specifications in
terms of function required,
manufacturing process
The declaim Is n
T) The decision to do one of
the following:
1) Proceed Into detail design
phase with the chosen
concept
2) Generate more concepts
(CPDP 1.9)
3) indentify another concept
or idea or
conduct competitive market
analysis
/market research/engineering
assessment (CPDP 1.0)
have their voice heard before
continuing the product
development process.
The dear
anoth
standards or codes that must
be satisfied, competiticn's (if
any) design of similar
product, concept sketches,
block diagrams, textual
descriptions, models a- any
other method that shows
how the required functions
are achieved through the
conduct a
/market resea
s, concept.
Modify Prototype Assembly
Modify Prototype Detal
1) 14 16 Days
2) $39,000 $45,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(10),
VND
1) 10-12 Days
2) $10,000 $12,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(3), VND
4) Prototype virtual part and assembly models,
material information, manufacturing process,
approved vendors.
4) Initial detail drawings of prototype parts/
assemblies, part/assembly material,
manufacturing and assembly information,
approved vendors,
Figure E.8. Section of the second page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
1) 7 -8 Days
2) $11,000 - $12,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(2), VND
4) Product specifications in terms of function required,
Manufacturing process capabilities, any requir
standards or codes that must be satisfied, concept
sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models
or any other method that shows how the required
functions are achieved through the concept, detail
drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, initial pan/ /
assembly bill of materials, initial assembly instructions,
Initial detail drawings of prototype parts/assemblies,
part/assembly material, manufacturing and assembly
135
any B's New Product Development Process
Modify Prototype Parte
CPDP 1 9-EConcepts
Generated
/
1) 10-12 Days
2) $15,000 $18,00
3) P (1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MA
(2), VND
roduct specifications in terms o function
uired, manufacturing process capab"ties,
material properties, any required standar or
codes that must be satisfied, competition's
any) design of similar product, concept
sketches, block diagrams, textual descripti s
odels or any other method that shows how
uired functions are achieved through the
the
co -pt, prototype virtual parts, approved
4)
The decision is made to generate more concepts
1) 10-12 Days
2) $15,000 - $18,000'
3) P D(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANP(2), VND
4 Product specifications in terms of function
/required, manufacturing process capabilities,
./ any required standards or codes that must be
satisfied, competition's (if any) design of
similar product, concept sketches, block
diagrams, textual descriptions, models o any
ired
other method that shows how the r
functions are achieved through the concept,
T) The decision to do one ci
the following:
1) Proceed into detail design
phase with the chosen
concept
2) Generate more concepts
(CPDP 1.9)
3) Indentify another concept
or Idea or
conduct competitive market
analysis
/market reseruchrengineering
assessment (CPDP 1.0)
vendors.
approved vendors.
CPDP 2.3- prototype
Virtual Assembly
The desicion is made to
proceed into detail des
with the chosen concept
CPDP2.2-prototype
Virtual Part Modeling
The decision is made to indentify
another concept or idea or
conduct competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering assessme
1) The concept is approve
by management
NT) Virtual models of the
prototype parts with the
material and manufacturing
process selected.
NT) The decision to either
manufacture the part in house
or have the part manufactured
by a vendor.
Virtual part models with
enough detai (i.e. part for
material, and manufacturin
pr,,.e.e)1illtrilow for a buy
vs. make decision to be
made and lead to prototyp
art manufacture.
A
1)
CPDP 1 0-Eldentify
Concept or Idea
), VND
orb required,
rewired
J, concept
ons.
,.//
1)7
8 Days
2) $11,000 $12,000
\
3) PDD(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(2); yND
41 Manilfarliirinn nrr-u-pce ranahilitipe atIv
Figure E.9. Section of the second page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
1) 7 8 Days
2) $11,000 $12,000
NT) The parts being
designed meet the design
requirements as an asseml ly
in terms of fit*, form** and
NT) Virtual models of the
prototype assemblies.
136
Modify Prototype Assembly
Modify Prototype
1) 7 -8 Days
2) $11,000 - $12,000
D
1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(2),
specifications in terms of function
4)
actuirg process capabilities, any requi
standards or codes that must be satisfied, corcept
sketches, block diagrams, textual descriptions, models
or any other method that shows rm./ the required
factions are achieved through the corcept, detail
3)
1) 14 - 16 Days
2) $39,000 - $45,000
3) PD0(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(10),
VND
4) Initial detail drawings of prototype parts/
1) 10-12 Days
2) $10,000 - $12,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(3), VND
<
assemblies, part/assembly material,
manufactaing and assembly information,
approved vendors
4) Prototype virtual part and assembly models,
material information, manufacturing process,
approved vendors.
,
\ drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, inter part/
essembly bill of materials, initial assembly instructio
tribal detail drawings of prototype partslassembli
part/assembly material, manufactuing and asserlibly
irformation vendors, pachasing informatio Approved
vendors.
CPDP 2.4-B Prototype
Detail Developed
CPDP 2 6-B Prototype
Testing (Fractional)
T) Initial detail drawings of the
prototype parts
T) Initial BOMs (See CPDP 2.4)
T) Initial assembly instnxtions
1) The iritial detail drawirgs
/­ 1) The prototype parts have
of the prototype parts have
been completed.
T) The initial BOMs (See
CPDP 2.4) have been
completed.
T) The initial assembly
instructions have been
11) The prototype virtual part
and assembly modeling has
been completed.
been manufachred and the
prototype assembled.
q%ProPleted
Modify Prototype
1) 7-8 Days
2) $7,000 - $8,000
3) P00(1), ENGR(3)
4) roduct specifications in terms of fu
on
pacired, any reckired standards or codes thbl
must be satisfied, concept sketches, block
diagrams, textual descriptions. models or any
other method that shows how the requred
factions are achieved through the concept,
engireenng specifications, detail drawings OY
n
the prototype parts/assemblies, prod
als,
version of part/assembly bill of ma
production version assembly inst ons.
CPDP 2.9-B Technical
ilolications Developed
The decision is made to generate more concepts
1) 2-3 Days
2) $7000 - $9000
3) CO(1), PD0(1), PM(1), ENGR(4). MANF(2).
MRKT(2), SLS(1), SM(1)
"Irdormation Requrecr
4) See CPDP
T) A completed owner's
The dedslon to do ore of the
manual with parts list,
fotiowing:
1) Proceed into the
1) The prototype has been
tested and the necessary
Barges made to the design
so that engineenng
requirements are meet
CPDP 3.0-@
Donn
Approve'
production phase with the
prototype
2) Generate more concepts
(CPDP 1.9)
3) Identify the need for
another proclet or ca-dxt
1) AA stapes of detail design
have been completed and
the prototype is now ready
for crocLetion
2) Managemert approval is
now rectiAred for prodtetton
of the selected prototype to
Figure E.10. Section of the second page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
competitive market analysis/
market researdVerctineetirg
assessmert (CPDP 1.0 8
1.11. Start a new mode
developmert process.
The decision is made to indentify
another corcept or idea or
conduct competitive market analysis
/market researcNengireering assessment
­
137
/
1) 7-8 Days
2) $11,000 - $12,000
3) yt3D(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(2),
4) Pr duct specifications in terms of faction
/finanufactuirg process capabilities, any reqU
/ standards or codes that must be satisfied, concept
/ sketches, block diagrams, textual desciptions, models
or any other method that shows how the reqiired
factions are achieved through the concept, detail
drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies, initial part/
assembly bill of materials, initial assembly instructio
lretral detail drawings of prototype parts/assembli
part/assembly material, manufactuing and = = bly
irtormation vendors, pirchasing idormation/rIpproved
1 ) 7 - 8 Days
2) $11,000 - $12,000
PC0(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(2), VND
4) Marufactuing process capabilities, any
reqiired standards or codes that must be
satisfied, engineerirg specifications, detail
drawings of the prototype parts/assemblies,
initial part/assembly bill of materials,
assembly instructions, approved vendori.
1 ) 7 - 8 Days
2) $11,000 - $12,000
3) PDD(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MANF(2), VND
4) Engineering specifications, detail drawings
of the prototype parts/assemblies, production
ready version of part/assembly bill of materials
iritial assembly instructions.
vendors.
-----_,..,
110.-----CPDP 2.6-8 Prototype
Testing (Functional)
1) The prototype parts have
been manufactured and the
prototype assembled.
NT) Assessment of prototype
factional perforrnarce.
NT) Any def icierxies in the
prototype that must be
corrected in order for the
design to meet engineering
specificationS.
Tr Design Changes
----,,
T) A production ready verso
'1) The prototype has been
p
1) 3 - 4 Days
2) $6,000 - $8,000
) CO(1), PDD(1), MRKT(2), ENGR(3),
PM(1), MANF(2), SLS(1),VND
Manufacturing process capabilities, detail
drawings of the prototype parts/assembhes.
production version of part/assembly bit of
materials, production version assembly
instructions, program schedde. approved
The decision is made to generate more corcepts
assembly instructions.
r-
1) 10-12 Days
2) $26,000 - $31,000
ENGR(2), PM(1), MANF(10)
VND
4) Manufactuing schedule, mantactuing
process capabilities, detail drawirgs of the
\ prototype parts/assemblies. production versio
\of, part/assembly bill of materials, productio
'version assembly instructions, prograd(
schedule, approved vendors. /
/
/ 4)
(
T) Production ready
1) The prototype has been
tested and the necessary
charges made to the design
so that engineering
reqUrements are meet
tested and the necessary
changes made to the design
so that engineering
requrements are meet
CPDP 1.9-8 Concepts
Generated
CPDP 2.8-8 Assembly
Instructions Completed
of the bill of materials.
vendors.
/3/)/PDD(1),
,--'--­
The dedsion to do one of the
folovAng:
1) Proceed Into the
production phase with the
prototype
2) Generate more concepts
(CPDP 1 9)
3) Identify the need for
another product or conduct
competitive market arelysis/
market research/engineding
assessment (CPDP 1.0 &
1.1) Start a new product
deveiopmert process.
T) A completed
The decision is
made to proceed irto
the production phase with
the prototype
manufactuing soredde.
It) The prototype is approved \
by management for
production
-i
The decision is made to indentify
another concept or idea or
conduct competitive market analysis
/market researchlergireenng assessment
Ill.
CPDP 1.0-8 Identify
Concept or Idea
Figure E.11. Section of the second page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
r1) The schedule reflects
appropriate time based on
process capabiity.
2) All detail drawings of the
prototype parts/assemblies,
production version of part/
assembly bill of materials
and production version
assembly instructions have
been completed and
U.
I!
CPDP 3.2-8 Production
T) Production models of the
selected design
138
Revised Theory of Constraints for Company B's New
Chart is based
on this generic
process model
1) 2-3 Days
2) $7000 $9000
/
Resources:
- Time is based on chart titled " Project Timeline for Concurrent
Product Development Process at Layton Manufacturing Inc. ".
Money is calculated as the sum of the number of hours x the
number of employees x the hourly pay for each respecitive
department = the average amount spent on this process
(rounded up to the nearest $1000).
- Pay rates: Marketing, $20.00/hr; Product Development
Director, $40.00/hr.; Company owner, $50.00/hr.; Production
Manager, $30.00/hr.; Engineering, $25.00/hr.; Manufacturing,
$20.00/hr.; Sales, $20.00/hr. Service Manger, $30.00; Avg. =
$30.00/hr.
- Personnel Invovled: CO = Company Owner, PDD = Product
Development Director, PM = Production Manager, MRKT =
Marketing, ENGR = Engineering, SLS = Sales, MANF =
Manufacturing, EU = End User, VND = Vendor, SM = Service
Manager. Followed by the number of people invovled from the
respective area.
Deliverables: T = Tangible (something you can touch), NT =
Non-tangible
3) C
, PDD(1), PM(1), ENGR(4), MAtilF(2),
IvRIKT(2), SLS(1), SM(1), \ND
sales information, product specifications,
4)
concept sketches, block diagrams, textual
descriptions, models or any other means of
showing how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, engineering specifications,
manufacturing schedule, manufacturing process
'capabilities. detail drawings of the prototype parts/
assemblies, production version of part/assemblytoill
of materials, production version assembly
instructions, program schedule, purchase orders,
approved vendors.
1) 4 -6 Days
2) $6,000 $9,000
3) pbD(1), ENGR(3), PM(1), MPNF(2). \ND
4)..Product specifications, concept sketches, block
,.diagrams, textual descriptions, models or any other
means of showing how the required functions are
achieved through the concept, engineering
specifications, manufacturing schedule targets and
actual manufacturing time, manufacturing process
capabilities, approved vendors, detail drawings of
thisprototype parts/assemblies, production verson
bill of materials, production
of
version assembly instructions. program schedule.
CPDP 3 3-B Production
Model Performance
Review
1) Ftecornmendations for any
changes in the production
model or manufacture of the
production model that will
decrease time to market,
reduce costs and increase
overall cornpetitiiheness.
1) The first production
models of the product are
completed.
CPDP 3.4-B Production
Approval?
1) The first production units
have been produced and are
being shipped to the
customers.
The decisicn to do one of the
following:
1) Continue with production
of the current design
2) Modify the design and test
the changes. (CPDP 2 6)
3) Generate more concepts
(CPDP 1.9)
4) Identify the need for
another product or conduct
competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering
assessment (CPDP 1.0 &
1.1). Start a new product
development process.
Thr
cork
/market
711
the desig
Figure E.12. Section of the third page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
139
its for Company B's New Product Development Process
,
CPDP 1 9-8 Concepts
Generated
1) ?7? Dap
/
3) C
1) 2-3 Days
2) $7000 - $9000
, PDD(1), W(1), ENGR(4), MA4F(2),
2) S??? ­
3)
Any sales information, product specifications
concept sketches, block diagrams, textual
desaiptions, models or any other means of
shoeing how the required functions are achieved
through the concept, engineering specifications,
manufacturing schedule, manufacturing process
capabilities, detail drawings of the prototype p
y bill
assemblies. production version of part/a
of materials, production version
instructions, program schedule, purcheSe orders,
approved vendors.
4
CPDP 94-9 Production
Approval?
1) The first production units,
have been produced and are
being shipped to the
customers.
1),
4) Owner's manual and parts list, any sale6,.,
information, product specifications,
engineering specifications, detail drawings of
the prototype parts/assemblies, production
version of part/assembly bill of materiais,..,
production version assernbly instructions',
prog m schedule, purchase orders, approved
ven ors, customer files, service sheet.
The decision is made to
generate more concepts
The decision to do one of the
following:
op(
1), CO(1), P00(1), ENGR(2),
F(2), MRKT(2), SLS(2), EU, VND
MRKT(2), SLS(1), SM(1), VTNID
1) Continue with production
of the current design
2) Modify the design and t
the changes. (CPDP 2.6)
3) Generate more concepts
(CPDP 1.9)
4) Identify the need for
another product or conduct
competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering
assessment (CPDP 1.0 &
1.1). Start a new product
development process.
The decision is
made to continue with
production of the current
design
CPDP 3.5-B Customer
Service and Support~
1) The product has been
shipped to customers and is
in service.
The decision is made to indentify
another concept or idea or
conduct competitive market analysis
/market research/engineering assessment
CPDP 1.0-13 Identify
Concept or Idea
p.1
The decision is made to modify
the design and test the changes. (CPDP 2.6)
I=12Lti Prototype
Testing (Functional)
Figure E.13. Section of the third page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
NT) Service and support of
products.
140
\
1) ??? - ??? Days
2) $??? - $???
CO(1), PDD(1), ENGR(2), PM(
D
F(2), SM(1), MRKT(2), SLS(2), EU,
M
4) Any sales information, product
specifications, engineering specifications,
detail drawings of the prototype parts/
assemblies, production version of part/
assembly bill of materials, production vers
ssembly instructions, program sched
purr se orders, approved vendors, c tomer
files, service sheet.
T) Recycled and/or
refurbished and reused
products.
-1
1) The product has reached
the end of its life cycle.
Figure E.14. Section of the third page of the revised theory of constraints diagram for Company B.
141
Appendix F: Process Measurement Matrix
...441040t44:0404.>
Oposibsm
CPDS IAA
!ii :1
001110.11./11
x
,
I
/1
11
1
<,40
000)
900 It
.44:P*;24
4A
#4444334.<>4°:3:4A
64 CO
ona 3)
mom
I
414;10;VAO$P1'4
BLS P)
9441610)
i
(v (-0
le.404...4:;11
4*. 0+ 4 2 6 ,4:0, 8.4 4 > >4 :::: >4:4:i
VW 00
691 (1)
04404111Eirr#"04:044:it
4> 4 : >4,4 OA la I Irg, 44 i4 : IA .4 : 14: po*: P4 (0 I
443#0k*,,4
> N I I PoOo+W
'4
:P*4
4:
004.,*4:04:>#4,404:,<:t
Ma a. MItles
041;04
PM.
PM= UM MP)
4 44:$444:>4:44 :14:490:OS . 0 4
0.4>4*00 °A,4>1
RAM 046166.6
4 )44,1$4>4>< >ill? ..<>< >,,, >0 .4,4,p414
PAM MO*
MI)
4
1.6 039/6
00.;."4-41,4<:N
. . . ..
B.
....,..
Memo
NI 7.,:p4ti 9.0-4
,.............,
Ms(%)
Amp Flo....
411Pkov4
.
r- z tr. z
go
BII
U
SA
SO
....tt:',;., 11°%7Av...
Imlimy. 1 M V.I..'
AM= Ti4
1/0=44.4
Imott.?,, "="
s'ir,..ii " "=.."
MIg.1z 14
11.11:0.1. 1"11
I** la
1164 1
Pug* Is 32
064 1
Cm 1
IA
1161.1M4
I.14
030 61= MOM
112033
11.6,033
SIM
112.01)
10.=
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
00
on
00
00
10
113
113
10
1.0
10
ID
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
10
01!00
10
10
10
0.0
00
00
00
ID
1.0
10
10
612030
93=
Impomp. BM
I
Figure F.4
ham MA*.
6
As11
MM.
.Iseitl
44.96.61.1
BM 1 .111
lu nh.u,
4616
.
10
10
1.0
10
00
10
10
10
1.0
Pt
1.0
10
1.0
10
10
ID
"
10
20
00
00
00
00
2.0
2.0
0.0
CIO
0.0
0.0
00
00
no
00
20
20
00
00
10
20
20
...
20
20
213
4.0
20
40
40
00
30
10
30
10
30
30
30
30
40
30
40
20
20
0.0
DO
10
0.0
2.0
0.0
00
00
ma
10
10
DO
00
00
0.0
DO
0.0
oa
00
0.0
10
00
00
20
2.0
00
1.0
00
00
20
013
20
20
20
2.0
00
100
2.0
2.0
20
00
10
10
1013
2.0
20
20
DO
0.0
ao
00
oo
00
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
no
az
OD
00
al,
no
az
on
m
m
0.0
61
"
.
01
03
IP
wa,
.
.
or
00
20
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
00
00
00
no
SO
SO
60
60
60
60
50
DO
00
60
60
20
SO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0.0
MO
1.0
10
6.61
1169 I
0..2
11.6 I ...1
1461
19.61
11.6 1
946 I
uk i
110% I
emu
au 1
..13
106 1
ft* 1
1.6 1
ua I
mu 1
ow
so
6461.42
611 1
Bo6 1 .4
0.90
3
MB I
1141. ad
sad 3
2
and 2
2
...,:
MA mai
646 I
ael
6943
MI
a0!
MA I
2
.42
1
...12
013
9.61
4.12
.612
.412
9611
ad /
.9112
116 1
.4.12
MI I
11611
..912
2.12
42
66 au
I M I ...1
646 166
I M 1W
M.
Nu
MOO
06
11.61
1.61
4.13
.6 3
1161
.9112
.12
4.6 3
611. I
11.19 I
BM I
116 I
M2
.612
.42
mad 2
9411
4.13
MS I
612
BA I
9461
..912
4.2
UM I
6.12
ad 2
I
4.12
I awl
11
43
32
64
63
4.3
3.8
42
6.5
1.4
112
12
AA
161
41
4.8
.112
1.61
41912
1.9.1
ar12
4.412
166 1
1.11
`."
I rall
1
.6.12
sod 2
IweM --lou
.12I
11.6
1146 I
eu 1
... 2
9.61
IA 3
MI
I ed
11.6
BM
.612
11.191
6.12
MA
IPA I
.4.412
6.11
16.1
11 I
1W .112
M2
11991
166 I
.611
13
1.3
10.4
4.1
41
41
27
2)
11.411
MA
IA
11.6
OD=
24
72
3.3
11
16
IA
IA
OS
31
Cl
77
It
10.4
II
17
03
Cl
101
4.0
63
23
72
1.7
17
2.7
IM
-MO
..,
.,.
­
IA
41
AB
II
10
1B
1.9
72
71
06
413
41
40
1.0
3.0
II
10
41
9.4
4.3
17
31
3
4.0
10
IA
1.0
100
1.6....1
43
MA
33
14
33
13
13
1.1
12
.
.
1319.=
30
U
11/1
U
SA
U
g
1
69
20
70
61
12
57
20
112
24
73
51
12
61
01
III
36
36
32
Z7
3.5
51
19
BO
16
1.3
4.2
3.5
69
5
47
43
5.4
42
23
23
ill
0
0
II
r3
0
0
(3
r
.6.
1! 2.111i
II
IA
.
I
il illit ii
III
li
I 1
1
r
U
40
44
44
4A
44
6
li
1
i I il
11
i
hi
4.
. .
U
11
0
!
U
U
.
. .
ms.
3.0
0
.
TB
18
16
0
. .
. .
ii ii 1
ii ii il II ii II ii t) ill
i
1
ii i, i
il
11
1j
i i
1.6
NA
20
20
IS
U
i
2.1.
Mum P...
61
12
10
1.8
11
11
U
U
IA
6
101
20
U
""
2.7
24
U
.
.
MW
41
U
10
.
MO=
1.4
MB 2 MI
I
U
20
SA
4
IA
IA
20
11
IS
2
U
U
02
II
.
II
961.
15
91
IA
I1
I 414.
55
I ml
1.8
C9
U
1.2
I
419
12
U
4.2
1
10D
41
1.8
..412
FM= 1219030
i
00
1.41
11"9
4
ao
U
.
10
13
1
10
U
10
00
4B
1
IC
717
10
12
.
10
00
U
MIMI
117
It
00
U
U
190W
10
10
MUM.
.411
NI=
00
00
3.1
331411.1
531033
CO
6
IA
19/333
I0
RP
U
10
02
111
IA
10
10
SA
02
11C
IA
10
10
14= OM
.,
.1/1294.74
l'i"."
AP
/1
41.Cm.
A
1
"
Ul
10=
.113
01
21
I
ben NOM (%)
4,( 04 tAPPI 5.0 >j* ,C41
4ti.40t1
-... -I.
31 Mt
0341.003 1269 MI
04
4 #044
4:> . 4. 41 i4.% 4:0.44
4"I :>< >4%20 >4 >41
... ,+.40.4tP. tp*Stt>4.4
66.3=A
;MI
I
al
Figure F.1. Process Measurement Matrix completed for Company B's executive level product development process.
31
0
0
10
4.
.
10
U
U
U
U
.
..
0
41
85
.
.4.
.
iii
Figure F.5
!
iii ii
i 11
142
Process Measurement Matrix Key
Complex Internal Measurements
NA - Not Applicable, No Relationship
* - Responsibility For Requirements
A 3300.00 $/day
B - Market Share Loss of 1%/month
C - Company Owner, 3.5% of team, 22% of time, 4% personnel cost
D Product Development Director, 3.5% of team, 100% of time, 13% of
personnel cost
E - Production Manager, 3.5% of team, 67% of time, 6% of personnel cost
F - Marketing, 7% of team, 22% of time, 3% of personnel cost
G Engineering, 14% of team, 92% of time, 29% of personnel cost
H - Sales, 7% of team, 14% of time, 2% of personnel cost
I - Manufacturing, 34% of team, 67% of time, 42% of personnel cost
J - End User, 7% of team, 3% of time, NA
K - Vendor, 17% of team, 61% of time, NA
L - Service Manager, 3.5% of team, 12% of time, 1% of personnel cost
M Offices and Facilities, 20% of total cost
N - Equipment, 30% of cost
O Materials, 15% of total cost
Management Structures
1 - Schedule (e.g. Gantt Chart)
2 Budget
3 - Product Planning QFD Matrix
4 Subsystem Design QFD Matrix
5 Piece Part QFD Matrix
6 - Business Plan
NA Not Applicable
Measurements
#1 - Experience with this type of design
#2 - Experience with this size of production
Complex Internal Measurements
* - Information Dependency Between Processes
a - Lost Profit of $10,000/day Planned Expense of $5000/day
1.7-B
Product
CPDP 1 9-B
Concepts Generated
Developed
CPDP 1.8-B
Program Schedule
Specifications
Developed
CPDP
CPDP 1.6-B Program
Schedule Estimated
Requirements
CPDP 1.5-B Conduct
QFD Based On
Refined Customer
CPDP 1.4-B
Complete PrePlanning Matrix
CPDP 1.3-B
Customer
Requirements Define(
Through Focus
Groups
Approval?
CPDP 1 2-B Project
Analysis/Market
Research/Engineerint
Accpcsment
CPDP 1.1-B
Competitive Market
CPDP 1.0-B Identify
Concept or Idea
Product Unit Cost
Functionality
Development Cost
Development Time
a
3
O
Ia
Sales/Advertising
Distribution
CPDP 3.6-B Product
Retirement
Support
CPDP 3.5 -B
Customer Service and
CPDP 3.4-B
Production Approval?
CPDP 3.3-B
Production Model
Performance Review
CPDP 3.2 -B
Production
Manufacturing
Scheduling
CPDP 3.1 -B
Approval?
CPDP 3.0 -B Design
Developed
CPDP 2.9-B
Technical
Publications
Completed
Assembly Instructions
CPDP 2.8 -B
Materials Completed
CPDP 2.7 -B Bill of
Prototype Testing
CPDP 2.6-B
CPDP 2.5-B
Prototype Build
Developed
CPDP 2.4-B
Prototype Detail
Assembly
Prototype Virtual
CPDP 2.3 -B
Modeling
CPDP 2.2-B
Prototype Virtual Part
Approval?
CPDP 2.1-B Concept
Concepts
CPDP 2.0-B Evaluate
CPDP 1.9-8
Concepts Generated
145
Operations Measurements
CPDP 1.0-A Product Development
Process
e
16
E
i=
1
Yi,
E
0.
g
a
.
=
M
M
80 - 85 Days
1.0
8239,000 - $289,000
8/Day 3300
CO (1)
Available
immediately, 1
PDD (1)
Immediately, 1
PM (1)
MRKT (2)
ENGR (4)
1
gS
SLS (2)
re
MANF(10)
EU (2)
VND (5)
SM (1)
Available
Available In 14
Days, 1
u_
May 3300.0
2.0
Days, 1
Available In 14
Days, 1
Available In 14
Days, 1
Available In 32
Days, 1
Available In 14
Both 2
and 3
$6,000
S
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
C
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
#1
#2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
#1
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
C
1111
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Bo
an
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Bo
an
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
Bo
2
and 2
an
1.2
5.8
1
#2
#1
NA
8/Day/Person
Both 1 and 2
1.0
2.0
NA
NA
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Equipment
1.0
2.0
NA
NA
Both 1
and 2
Both 1 and
Materials
Both 2 and 4
3.0
2.0
2 and
2
2
2
2
Number of customer
requirements that have
ibeen realized (%)
$5,
C
6.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
4.8
6.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
4.1
2.4
2.0
1
Both 1
and 6
3.0
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.8
4.8
1
Both
1.0
-:
1.0
Bath 1
and 2
Product Development
Time (Days)
(..)
1.0
NA
1.0
Reti
00recc
1.0
NA
Product Development
Cost (S)
(Doti
..
$6,000
2.0
Both 1 and 4
45
.3U
.''.
$8,000
1.0
Product Unit Cost (8)
1m
1
co
$13,000
1.
E
1- 0
(§8g.4c
$4,000
t
240.00
15
iiii
4 .9 2
5.,
re
re
Days, 1
Offices and Facilities
'Zi
$8,000
160.00
NC
03 a.
? 4.
a .,00 ,..L.,
''''.
8.0
6/Day/Person
NC
kg
4= 8'
co
3.0
200.00
100.00
Ci ;
t
5.0
160.00
i/DaylPerson
N
-,
E
3.0
240.00
6/Day/Person
Available In 14
3.0
a?
.­
i
i6
5.0
320.00
Available In 14
Days, 1
5.0
6/DayPerson
May/Person
U
Both 1
and 3
400.00
Available
Immediately, 1
0
3.0
May/Person
II/Day/Person
...ill'
...:
.g
31
d$t.
.0
,
"A
1
4
3/Day
Both
3300.00, 1
and 2
1 and
4
3.0
Both 3 and 6
3.0
Both 2
and 3
1.1
1.8
1.2
8.5
1.8
8.2
1
Achieved Customer
Satisfaction (%)
Both 1 and 6
Both 2 and 0
3.0
a0
1.1
1.9
1.6
8.9
2.0
7.9
1
Percent Earned Market
Share (%)
Both 1% /month
and 8
8.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
6.2
2.4
7.3
1
5.8
1.9
8.0
1
42
1
.e
re
Average Requirements
Importance Rating
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
2.0
1.8
Average Requirements
Quartile
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
a
3 A product that meets
B
.1
T.
customer's requirements
Customer Satisfaction
(2)
4.0
$300,000
3.0
3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
ga
4,
E 5c
..a,
a?
EE
g
§
Ei
.1.
6
§v
1
5g2
i 2'
--I t
(-) 8
re
o c o-
1
`'1 t
$[
F.15
3.0
NA
3.0
t
8 z.
.g
t'
4. .g
cl = g'
.
.6.
$ LI
O- 80 3. .1
25t
b 6.,11
Ti'
o
(S
°,,,
co c 8
E
t.' i'
c, Ea To
E.
NA
e),
. -=u­
R
i
0 cr H
IL g
,,,
0
8 o. .§E g
' Et
i (..)
e
e
fi
.,
Figure F.4. Section of Process Measurement Matnx completed for Company B's executive level product development process.
146
8.0
3.0
4.0
12.0
6.0
3.0
7??
???
1.0
1.0
80 85 Days
$8,000
$8,000
$9,000
$31,000
$9,000
$19,000
???
7 7??
2.0
2.0
$239,000 - $289,000
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
NA
NA
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1
2.0
2.0
0.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
NA
NA
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77?
???
NA
NA
n?
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
0.0
NA
NA
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
1.0
and 2
Both
1 and
Bot
lA
and 2
Both
1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
Both
1 and
Bot
and 2
Both
1 and
Both 1
lA
lA
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both
1 and
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
lA
Metal
and 2
and 2
2.0
and 2
Both
1 and
Bot
and 2
Both
1 and
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
and 2
4.2
1.1
4.3
3.2
5.4
5.3
4.3
3.9
4.2
5.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
10.4
4.1
10.0
4.4
10.9
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.0
$50,000
3.1
1.4
2.0
2.7
2.7
6.2
8.2
4.1
15.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
10.6
3.1
8.2
NA
NA
2.0
6.0
$283,000
1.7
4.8
1.8
4.8
1.8
3.0
1.8
1.8
7.2
7.2
7.2
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
1.8
2.4
7.2
3.6
1.8
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
85
1.1
9.9
1.0
4.6
4.3
9.4
4.3
3.7
3.9
3.1
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
2.1
3.8
3.8
7.7
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
95
8.2
1.2
5.6
1.2
5.7
5.5
10.9
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
10.4
2.4
3.8
3.7
8.3
2.4
1.4
6.0
6.0
85
7.9
1.1
5.6
1.2
5.6
5.6
11.1
3.5
3.5
3.4
2.7
3.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
10.1
2.8
4.0
3.7
8.3
2.3
2.0
6.0
6.0
35
7.3
1.3
5.5
1.3
4.2
3.8
6.9
5.0
4.7
4.3
8.4
4.2
2.3
2.3
2.0
7.6
2.8
6.8
3.7
7.2
1.7
1.4
NA
NA
NA
6.0
a
0
al
0
CD
0
0
NA
NA
NA
(3
3.0
NA
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Shipping
Yes, 95%
NA
4.0
Price
NA
3.0
4.0
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Shipping
Yes, 85%
NA
NA
Price
NA
16.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
$18,000
$18,000
$12,000
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
and 2
and 2
and 2
and 2
Both 1
and 2
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
and 2
and 2
and 2
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
Both 1
and 2
and 2
and 2
5.6
1.0
2.0
3.0
8.0
3.0
5.0
$6,000
$5,000
$9,000
$4,000
$6,000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1
0°
m?
=
-0
..'12.
0
.., 0 E
- 0:1 -0 a)
iii
6
I
? 2.
E
E
E
r 21
a la
"g
I1
13
.*:
a? 0
co Li'
" =a
=)
oLL cl 72
0°- g
Cl­
to
co =
'a
,­
Ei
o. TD
',to? A
TA
- 4,
c.) co
g,.1
(-)
$45,000 $12,000
0
2
1
N:
$9,000 $9,000
RE
C
e
is.
3
g
0
§
o
2
c'i
=9
c.g.
ka
0
;74
fa,
Pilm
cc.lic° i
'",',:)mi
E
:it'
1
,­
n
1
c.)
25 :5
I1 I
;tic°
CI
crcEs
S2
o2
e5,E
8.0
8.0
12.0
3.0
3.0
8.0
$12,000 $12,000
2
1
tsi
cl
1
op 8
,-,
li il
I1
n
a? .
co =
To k
0
.
.
.2,
P Aa)
A
co .
(N
17,'
I
Q. 2
75
0i /
cc, I .
03
ct
c3)
la- =
CL
CD
0
-
g.
2.
SLA 1
op
ci
cl
i
A.
in
h1
h1
h1
t
1Ct
8
m
g
cr)
.;1
. 4j
0 CL CL
C. O.
C.)
.?
11
co
il'i
r.)
.
.
.2
i
°?
CO
E
P
g
.... Ce
Figure F.S. Section of Process Measurement Matrix completed for Company B's executive level product development process.
s.
12
1
1
Standard
Medium - Production