How do lean, concurrent engineering, and modern benchmarking fit together? Rafael Moras, Ph.D., P.E. INTRODUCTION We discuss the interrelationships among three cutting-edge world-class manufacturing techniques: concurrent engineering, benchmarking, and lean. We present examples of their implementation and recommendations for a successful application. We also make an attempt to dispel some of the myths related to their implementation. CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Concurrent engineering implies a transcendental shift in the traditional engineering design process. In the “old times,” a manufacturing outfit (such as Chrysler, Dell, or York) would be divided (physically, administrative, and LITERALLY) into several departments that would work in an independent fashion. The design department would work on a new automobile design for a few months. Once the blueprints and specifications were deemed to be ready, they would be sent to Manufacturing. Engineers in the latter department would frequently be perplexed at the difficulties involved in manufacturing a part. Eventually, after heroic efforts, the parts would be sent to the production department, where many an industrial engineer would wonder how to actually assemble parts that were never meant to be put together (or so it seemed). This sad comedy of errors would continue until the car would be completed and sent to dealerships while marketing experts would roll their eyes and worry about the actually marketability of the vehicle.  Companies following the simultaneous engineering approach “engineer” the product concurrently. Representatives from all the aforementioned departments (and those not mentioned such as quality, accounting, finances, etc.) sit at the design table. Representatives from the client base are frequently invited as well. The objective is that the new product be easily manufactured and assembled, and that it would be appealing to customers. Instead of tossing blueprints and spec sheets over the wall, design engineers dialog with their manufacturing and assembly counterparts in an effort to speed up the product development and introduction process. Instead of sending paperwork to the department down the line, we send the engineers! Several techniques that are traditionally used by industrial and mechanical engineers can be used to follow the simultaneous engineering approach. Most of these techniques follow under one of the following  rubrics: design, simulation, quality, human resources, and management. Design techniques that can be used in a concurrent engineering effort are computer aided design, design for manufacturing, design for assembly, and reengineering. Techniques that can be grouped under the simulation umbrella are computer simulation, mechanical/physical simulation (like the use of dummies), the use of prototypes, and pilot projects. Metrics, statistical process control, experimental design, and quality function deployment may be generally categorized in the quality group. A good simultaneous engineering effort will also need people skills, improving the performance of teams, and motivation (human resources). In the area of management, time and project management, teams (again), and issues dealing with delegation come into play. The simultaneous engineering champion must establish an exemplary leadership model. The goal is to follow principles that also apply in a lean environment such as the elimination of waste, total involvement, and the promotion of innovative ideas. In the next section we summarize the implementation of simultaneous engineering by several manufacturing companies. Implementation of simultaneous engineering The successful implementation stories summarized here were reported in technical magazines. Some of the first reports were in the automobile industry (Shenas and Derakhshan, 1992). The BMW  plant in Munich has more than 6000 employees. The concurrent engineering approach allowed them to reduce their introduction time by two years. The Volvo plant in Udevalla, Sweden, went down in history when they used teams of 10 people to build cars. Each team member received training for at least 18 months. Each team determined the best way to assembly a car. The team was responsible for testing the car for quality and performance. The Udevalla plant produced the highest quality in the Volvo world at the time this approach was implement. Lastly, we would be remiss if we did not mention the Chrysler Viper, the spectacular sports created in record time through the implementation of simultaneous engineering which featured considerable customer involvement. Other notable examples include Litton Poly-Scientific, manufacturers of electromechanical parts. A massive employee training and education effort was followed by the formation of interdisciplinary teams. Cycle times were reduced by about 40 percent. (Muscatello and Handy, 1992). Also, at Douglas, the Valisys database was used concurrently by the design, inspection, manufacturing, and assembly areas. The end (and impressive) result was a swift product introduction period (Clancy, 1991). Modern benchmarking According to Stratton (1989), Xerox implemented the first modern benchmarking effort in the 1970’s. The goal is to learn from the practice of industry leaders. Benchmarking techniques include the practice of acquiring a product from the competition and testing to find out how it works. Benchmarking features unfortunate cases of industrial espionage (not recommended by these authors because of the obvious ethical challenges). The above practices are probably as old as humankind! Modern benchmarking, however, includes the comparison of industrial practices and results under an open-door policy. Representatives of two firms get together an engage in a friendly exchange of information. Examples of successful modern benchmarking experiences are provided next. Benchmarking success stories The computer giant Texas Instruments achieved a significant inventory and cycle time reductions. TI was awarded the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for their success. They first conducted an internal benchmarking study among TI plants. An analysis of benchmarking results allowed them to bring up improvements in several categories. An open-door benchmarking experiment followed that included Martin Marietta, Hughes, and Intel. A famous benchmarking venture was carried out by Marriott; it resulted in the creation of their Fairfield Inn brand. While the Marriott name used to be associated exclusively with high-end, bit luxurious hotels, the Fairfield Inn is designed to attract business travelers. Six Marriott employees were charged to study other hotels over a six-month period. They always identified themselves as Marriott representatives. They promised to share Marriott practices and also the results of the benchmarking study with every hotel that agreed to participate. The team considered every detail involved with running a hotel: type of soap, the type of sheet rock used for walls, carpeting, amenities, discount policies, etc. Marriott acknowledges that the success of the Fairfield Inn chain is due mainly to the benchmarking project described here. Altany (1991) proposed a listing of the best companies in the world. This list includes companies that should be considered leaders and would be top candidates to benchmark one’s practices and results against. Among the companies listed are American Express (accounts payable), Xerox and Motorola (benchmarking), Motorola (design for manufacturability), Milliken (empowerment), GE (leadership), Procter & Gamble (marketing), ATT (research and development), Levi Strauss (vendor programs), Wallace (training), and IBM (Dow Chemical). Please note that the areas for which these companies are mentioned are not necessarily the products or services they are famous for. For example, while Levi Strauss is famous because of the quality of their blue jeans, they are suggested as a top company in terms of their vendor programs. Lean principles The Lean approach (formerly referred by many a Just-in-Time) has been used as a solution approach for manufacturers facing productivity problems. One of the original definitions of Lean was “Having the right part at the right place at the right time”. Lean is now viewed more than just a tool to help reduce waste. While some considered the original Just-in-Time system in the late 1970's as being equivalent to the mere application of the kanban or pull system, today's Lean encompasses many more principles and techniques. Lean is now considered to be an integrated set of activities designed to achieve high quality making efficient uses of resources. According to most people in the manufacturing industry, Lean and Just-in-Time should be considered to be almost synonymous. The term Lean appeared to have been coined some years after Just-in-Time revolutionized the manufacturing industry. The original definition of just-in-time is still accurate today. In order to have the right part at the right place at the right time, it is necessary to assure that quality and quantity are correct (otherwise we would need to order an excessive number of parts). We need to trust our suppliers. Having inventory goes against the Lean philosophy in that parts are there before we need them. To reduce inventories we need our suppliers to make frequent deliveries in small lot sizes. The production flow must be streamlined. This is frequently accomplished by setting up dedicated lines. Transportation and materials handling are minimized. “The best materials handling system is that which does not handle any materials,” is a Lean truism. The ultimate (usually unachievable) objective is to have a production system with zero inventories and zero defects. While this ideal is seldom achieved, continuous improvement is emphasized. There is always a better way to accomplish a task.  Simultaneous Engineering, Benchmarking and Lean Lean is much more than an inventory reduction package. Inventory reduction should come as a result of many other activities coming to fruition. Additional techniques not mentioned before include cycle time reduction, reduction or elimination of inspection (which can be achieved when quality is always 100%), elimination of rework, point-of-use deliveries (to reduce inventories), Poka-Yoke (fool-proof devices such that human mistakes does not translate into system errors), cross functional teams, and the kanban system (see Table 1 for a brief description of this system). Lean is totally compatible with the application of simultaneous engineering and benchmarking. Many authors engage in endless (and frequently fruitless) debates about technical definitions. Some argue that Lean can be achieved by the mere implementation of a kanban system on a dedicated line. We contend that unless many of the other techniques mention in Table 1 are implemented, achievement of significant results would be hampered. Open-door benchmarking—whether it is conducted internally or with the competition—would help a Lean champion bring out the best in their unit by identifying best practices. A friend of the author who works as a production manager was telling us that it would be close to impossible for him to be a “true Lean” manufacturer because his company’s suppliers are not very reliable. He should not forget that (1) no company can claim a perfect “Lean” system—all companies strive for perfection but are usually not there yet; and (2) many of the other Lean techniques may be applied in an effort to bring out improvement. Another manager indicated that “his workers were not Japanese,” and therefore, it would be impossible to “be Lean”. While Japanese engineers (especially a Toyota) are given credit for pioneering the Lean system in the modern manufacturing arena, Lean concepts are universally applied. While a cultural lag—resistance to foreign customs—might occasionally become a challenge when attempting to become a world-class firm, it should be considered to be just an obstacle and not an absolute impediment. Final remarks We have provided examples of the successful implementation projects of benchmarking and simultaneous engineering. We showed  the symbiotic relationship that exists between Lean and the former techniques. While benchmarking and simultaneous engineering are usually not list as members of the Lean family, these techniques indeed compatible and likely to complement any Lean effort. We content that many companies may already be using principles of any of the above philosophies, even if they do not refer to them using conventional terminology. References • Stratton, B., "Xerox and Milliken receive Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards, Quality Progress, December 1989, 17-20. • Altany, D., "Search and share alike," Industry Week, July 15, 1991, 12-17. • Muscatello, M. and G. C. Handy, "Involving employees - the catalyst to positive change," Working Paper, Litton Poly-Scientific, 1992. • Clancy, J. J., "Simultaneous engineering," 1991 ASQC Quality Congress, Milwaukee, 143-147. • Shenas, D. G. and S. Derakshan, "Technological interdependence and company organization: the case of simultaneous engineering in the car industry," International Journal of Vehicle Design, Vol. 13, 5/6, 1992, 533-541. ----------------- Did you like this paper? Check out similar resources and professional courses in the PDHTech.com library