Approaching lean product development using system dynamics: investigating front-load effects

Abstract

Competing with successful products has become perplexing with several uncertainties and transmutes from time to time as customers’ expectations are dynamic. That is why manufacturing firms exhaustively strive to look for a better competitive frontier using well-established and innovative product development (PD) processes. In this paper, we would like to answer three research questions: (i) What would be the effects of front-loading in PD? (ii) Can we improve our PD process endlessly? (iii) When is the critical time that the firm should take remedial action for improvements? As a contribution to the vast numbers of improvement methods in new product development (NPD), this paper investigates the effects of front-loading using set-based concurrent engineering (SBCE) on cost and lead time. Models are developed and treated using a system dynamics (SD) approach. We assign a hypothetical upfront investment for SBCE and compare its effects on total cost and lead time of the development process. From the research, it is found that the total cost of PD is reduced almost by half—although the front loading is higher in order to encompass multiple design alternatives. The total product lead time is reduced by almost 20 %. The model reveals the critical time for improvement of the PD process. We use SD tool (e.g., STELLA) for simulation and visualization of the complex PD model, using SBCE as one of several strategies to front-load activities in the NPD process.

Keywords

Front-loading / Set-based concurrent engineering (SBCE) / Innovation / Lean product development (LPD) / System dynamics (SD)

References

[1.] Morgan JM, Liker JK. The Toyota product development system: integrating people, process and technology, 2006, New York: Productivity Press

[2.] von Wurtemberg LM, Lillieskold J, Ericsson E (2011) Abstract model of LPD: a critical review of the lean product development concept. In: Proceedings of technology management in the energy-smart world (PICMET). July 31–August 4, Portland

[3.] Sterman J (2000, 2002) Business dynamics: systems thinking for a complex world. World’s most powerful production system. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Productivity Press, New York

[4.] Thomke, Fujimoto. The effect of front-loading problem-solving on product development performance. J Prod Innov Manag, 2000, 17(2): 128-142.

[5.] Sobek W, Ward AC, Liker JK. Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manag Rev, 1999, 40(2): 67-83.

[6.] Ward A, Liker J, Cristiano J, et al. The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Manag Rev, 1995, 36(3): 43-61.

[7.] León H, Mart C, Farris JA. Lean product development research current state and future directions. Eng Manag J, 2011, 23(1): 29-51.

[8.] Cooper RG. Winning at new products, accelerating the process from idea to launch, 2001, Cambridge: Perseus

[9.] Hoppmann J, Rebentisch E, Dombrowski U, et al. A framework for organization lean product development. Eng Manag J, 2011, 23(1): 3-15.

[10.] Liker JK, Morgan J. Lean product development as a systems: a case study of body stamping development at Ford. Eng Manag J, 2011, 23(1): 16-28.

[11.] Pettersen J. Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues. TQM J, 2009, 21: 127-142.

[12.] Dennis P. Lean production simplified: a plain language guide to the world’s most powerful production system, 2002, New York: Productivity Press

[13.] Bicheno J. The new lean toolbox: towards fast, flexible flow, 2004, 3 Buckingham: PICSIE Books

[14.] Karlsson C, Ahlström P. The difficult path to lean product development. J Prod Innov Manag, 1996, 13: 283-295.

[15.] Welo T. On the application of lean principles in product development: a commentary on models and practices. Int J Prod Dev, 2011, 13(4): 316-343.

[16.] Kennedy D (2010) Engineering design and development. First international conference in mechanical technology and structural materials (MTSM). Split, 21–22 Oct 2010

[17.] Kennedy MN, Harmon K (2008) Ready, set, dominate: implement Toyota’s set-based learning for developing products and nobody can catch you! Oaklea Press, Richmond

[18.] Marujo LG. Rework impacts evaluation through system dynamics approach in overlapped product development schedule. J Technol Manag Innov, 2009, 4(2): 90-101.

[19.] Ford DN, Sterman JD. Overcoming the 90% syndrome: iteration management in concurrent development projects. Concurr Eng, 2003, 11(3): 177-186.

[20.] Raudberget D. Practical applications of set-based concurrent engineering in industry. Strojniškivestnik J Mech Eng, 2010, 56(11): 685-695.

[21.] Ford DN, Sobek DK II. Adapting real options to new product development by modelling the second Toyota paradox. IEEE Trans Eng Manag, 2005, 52(2): 175-185.

[22.] Belay AM, Kekale T, Helo P (2011) Time to market and concurrent engineering in product development processes. Int J Innov Learn 10: 68–84

[23.] Ford DN, Sterman JD. Dynamic modeling of product development processes. Syst Dyn Rev, 1998, 14(1): 31-68.

[24.] Lai C (2008) Research on modeling of product development complex system based on system dynamics. In: IEEE international symposium on knowledge acquisition and modeling (KAM 08), pp. 361–365

[25.] Ford DN. A behavioral approach to feedback loop dominance analysis. Syst Dyn Rev, 1999, 15: 3-36.

[26.] Prasad B. Analysis of pricing strategies for new product introduction. J Prod Brand Manag, 1997, 5(4): 132-141.

[27.] Pesonen (2001) Implementation of design to profit in a complex and dynamic business context. http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514264509/isbn9514264509.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2012

[28.] Anderson DM. How to design for low cost, design in high quality, design for lean manufacture, and design quickly for fast production. Design for manufacturability and concurrent engineering, 2008, Cambria: CIM Press

[29.] Al-Ashaab (2010) The conceptual lean PPD model. In: The 17th ISPE international conference on concurrent engineering (CE), 6–10 Sept 2010. Cracow, Poland