Detc2004 Platform Assessment [compatibility Mode]

Transcript

© Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto A Multi-Criteria Framework for Screening Preliminary Product Platform Concepts Kevin Otto Katja Hölttä Product Genesis Inc. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Helsinki University of Technology, Finland HUT Machine Design © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Agenda • • • • • HUT Machine Design Motivation Overview of the tool Individual metrics Example Conclusions © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Motivation Manager: We want to gain more leverage on our core technology and decided to create more variants using a platform. We developed this XYZ platform. Is it good? At gate review: We are developing this platform. How good is it? What areas needs to be improved? Platform selection: Which one of these 3 alternative platforms in most suitable for our company? Why? HUT Machine Design © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Assessing and Communicating Platform Alternatives Cell Phone Architecture RF RF DSP Processor DSP Call and Apps Processor Text Display Camera Graphics IC Base band RF DSP Call Control Proc. Apps Processor Display Camera Display WhatDesign set of metrics should you use to compare? HUT Machine How do you communicate these assessments to upper management? © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Agenda • • • • • HUT Machine Design Motivation Overview of the tool Individual metrics Example Conclusions © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Platform Assessment Tool Metric W Score A Current B 9.5 Redesign complexity 3.3% 10 10 10 Anti-synergies 3.3% 0 0 0 1 DOF adjustment 3.3% 10 10 10 Challenge extremes 3.3% 6.6 6.6 6.6 Value add 8.3% 8.0 7.6 7.2 Requirements 8.3% 7.3 7.3 8.8 Isolate unknowns 8.3% 10 10 10 Flexibility to expected change 8.3% 9.1 9.0 6.4 Complexity Score 7.3 7.2 7.2 Customer Score 7.7 7.5 Flexibility Score 9.6 9.5 Cust omer Flexibility Platform Score HUT Machine Design W Score Current A B Assembly ease 4.2% 4.6 5.0 4.5 Drive the organization 4.2% 5.4 4.6 1.5 Make-buy 4.2% 9.6 8.8 8.6 Testing 4.2% 5.4 5.5 5.7 Carryover 5.5% 9.7 9.7 8.3 Common unit 5.5% 5.9 5.9 5.4 Different specification 5.5% 10 10 10 Reliability 5.5% 8.6 8.5 7.9 Service 5.5% 10 10 10 Environmental friendliness 5.5% 8.1 8.1 8.1 Organization Score 6.3 6.0 5.1 8.0 Variety Score 8.5 8.5 7.9 8.2 After Sale Score 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.0 7.9 7.5 After Sale 9.6 Variety 9.7 Organization 3.3% Complexity Function and form Metric © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Agenda • • • • • HUT Machine Design Motivation Overview of the tool Individual metrics Example Conclusions © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Complexity Metrics • Goal to reduce apparent complexity i1 • Function and Form – 1-1 mapping between functions and modules – Limit redesign effort to adjacent modules • Anti-Synergy Management – Interface Adjustment Factor (IAF) to adjust flow responses Inputs and outputs • Redesign Complexity IAFs • 1 DOF adjustment – For serviceable modules • Challenge extremes – Over challenging requirements force poor performance also on other requirements HUT Machine Design o1 x in on x1 x2 x3 i1 i2 i3 xm - + + - + + + in o1 o2 o3 + + - + + + on * YIAF = # flows improving # flows as IAF increases © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Customer Related Metrics • Primary goal to meet customer needs • Value Add 3 – Cost – worth ratio transmission motor • Requirements 5 Relative Cost → – Distances from targets 0 slip clutch 7 10 chuck casing switchspeed changer contacttrigger 7 Relative Worth → HUT Machine Design 5 3 0 © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Flexibility Metrics • Platform must last longer than the products it supports • Isolate Unknowns Unknown – Interface adjustment factor (IAF) – Adjustment range • Flexibility to expected change – Change mode analysis HUT Machine Design YIU = ∑ 10 adjustment range # modules interfaces required range to uncertain modules © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Organizational Metrics Component interaction matrix • Does the organization support the platform? • Assembly Ease • Drive the Organization • Make-Buy • Testability HUT Machine Design Task interaction matrix © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Product Variety Metrics • Enable product variants Percentage over total functions Ycarry = 10 ( # functions to carryover ) # functions “Swapability” • Carry over • Common unit • Different specification HUT Machine Design 3 Can be swapped into any variant with no changes Can be swapped into at least one other variant with no changes Requires different mounting hardware to interchange Requires interface design changes 0 Requires unique interfaces for each variant 10    YCU =    7 5 © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto After Sale Metrics • Responsibility beyond product launch • Reliability – Equal reliability • Service ease – Isolate serviceable items into modules • Environmental friendliness Yrel 1 If you have FMEA or reliability estimates: Yrel HUT Machine Design  n # modules   = 10 min ,  # modules  n   = 10 − (RPN max ) 3 1 2 © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Agenda • • • • • HUT Machine Design Motivation Overview of the tool Individual metrics Example Conclusions © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Example Manager: We want to gain more leverage on our core technology and decided to create more variants using a platform. We developed this XYZ platform. Is it good? At gate review: We are developing this platform. How good is it? What areas needs to be improved? Platform selection: Which one of these 3 alternative platforms in most suitable for our company? Why? HUT Machine Design © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Cordless Drill Family casing Hand force Force into opposite hand Register Battery Battery Force into opposite hand Un-Register Battery Transmit Electricity Battery contact Noise, Heat motor Force in to finger Convert Elec. To Motion Input speed selection Permit Drill Bit Positioning 7.2V DC switch Hand trigger Switch Power Input Signal Hand Finger Noise Rotary Torque Finger Transmit selection Transform (τ,ω) speed changer transmission Noise drilling slip clutch Object Transmit Power Drill Hole Hot filings Heat in bit Bit secured Hand Force Drill Bit chuck Register Drill Bit Secure Drill Bit Un-lock Drill Bit Release Drill Bit Force into opposite hand function Function only in the Heavy-duty and the Professional models HUT Machine Design Current drill modules Heavy-duty / Professional module Drill bit Integrated module for platform alternative A 2 integrated modules for platform alternative B © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Cordless Drill Platform Assessment Metric W Score Current A B 9.5 Redesign complexity 3.3% 10 10 10 Anti-synergies 3.3% 0 0 0 1 DOF adjustment 3.3% 10 10 10 Challenge extremes 3.3% 6.6 6.6 6.6 Value add 8.3% 8.0 7.6 7.2 Requirements 8.3% 7.3 7.3 8.8 Isolate unknowns 8.3% 10 10 10 Flexibility to expected change 8.3% 9.1 9.0 6.4 Complexity Score 7.3 7.2 7.2 Customer Score 7.7 7.5 Flexibility Score 9.6 9.5 Cust omer Flexibility Platform Score HUT Machine Design W Score Current A B Assembly ease 4.2% 4.6 5.0 4.5 Drive the organization 4.2% 5.4 4.6 1.5 Make-buy 4.2% 9.6 8.8 8.6 Testing 4.2% 5.4 5.5 5.7 Carryover 5.5% 9.7 9.7 8.3 Common unit 5.5% 5.9 5.9 5.4 Different specification 5.5% 10 10 10 Reliability 5.5% 8.6 8.5 7.9 Service 5.5% 10 10 10 Environmental friendliness 5.5% 8.1 8.1 8.1 Organization Score 6.3 6.0 5.1 8.0 Variety Score 8.5 8.5 7.9 8.2 After Sale Score 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.0 7.9 7.5 After Sale 9.6 Variety 9.7 Organization 3.3% Complexity Function and form Metric © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Conclusions A multi-criteria tool for platform assessment 1. You need to assess platforms on multiple criteria with comparable scales 2. You need to compare alternative platforms based on multiple product variants over time 3. You need to help upper management understand pros and cons at gate reviews This approach meets these 3 needs HUT Machine Design © Katja Hölttä & Kevin Otto Thank You! HUT Machine Design