Methods and tools used in the Swedish manufacturing industry during the early stages of design

Methods and tools used in the Swedish manufacturing industry during the

early stages of design

Authors: Sergio A. Brambila-Macias, Tomohiko Sakao

Department: Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Engineering and Management, Linköping University Submission date: 24 of January 2019

ISRN Number: LIU-IEI-RR--19/00308--SE

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Mistra REES (Resource-Efficient and Effective Solutions) program, funded by Mistra (The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research) (grant number DIA 2014/16). Sara Nilsson, Maria Widgren, Anna Adolfsson and Ganesh Deshmukh of Linköping University supported the work.

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 1: The chosen phases ... 2

Table 2: Colour-coding of methods and tools ... 2

Table 3: Identified methods and tools in the requirement identification phase ... 4

Table 4: Identified methods and tools in the conceptual design phase ... 5

Table 5: Identified methods and tools in the analysis and evaluation phase ... 6

Table 6: Number of methods and tools identified with respect to phases ... 8

1

1 Introduction

This report is a part of deliverables from the Mistra REES1 _{programme (www.mistrarees.se) work}

package (WP) 2.1 and 2.2 of Project 2 (the project concerning design). The objective of the report is to identify and describe methods and tools used as design support for REES in the Swedish manufacturing industry.

This report presents the results of an analysis to identify different methods and tools used during the early stages of design for REES in manufacturing companies in Sweden. The methods are classified in “as-is” and “be” stages. The as-is methods are what are currently used, and the to-be methods are what they would like to have in place in the future. The compilation of methods and tools also included other sources of information partly to corroborate results from interviews. These other sources included meeting minutes and internal reports, when available. Other sources are also included from two publications in the academic literature from López-Mesa & Bylund (2011) and Nilsson et al. (2018).

2

2 Method

The method opted for in this study is the qualitative method of face-to-face interviews. In this case, interviews were conducted with 25 employees of 8 different companies from the Mistra REES consortium. These interviews were recorded, and some contents were transcribed for further analysis with respect to predefined definitions to get the information about the methods and tools that the interviewees use during their work. The definitions used to identify methods and tools were carefully chosen after conducting a literature review for identifying well-known definitions of methods and tools and finally narrowing them down to one suitable definition for each. These chosen definitions are as follows:

Method: A predefined description that supports achieving a specific goal. (Based on: Conceptual

Design: interpretations, Mindset and Models. Andreasen et al. (2015) pp. 392)

Tool: An instrument that enables the performance of a certain task. (Based on: CIRP Encyclopaedia

of Production Engineering, 2014, pp 386-388.)

These methods and tools are further categorized according to the phases, as shown in Table 1, into requirement identification, conceptual design and analysis and evaluation.

Table 1: The chosen phases

The result tables are then colour-coded to identify methods and tools. These codes are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Colour-coding of methods and tools

Method

Tool

Requirement identification Conceptual design

3

3 Results

The data obtained from the interviews are analysed according to the method described earlier and then presented in a tabular form in Tables 3, 4 and 5. The identified methods and tools are further classified “as-is” or “to-be”. The table in the next section shows what methods and tools are utilized as as-is (IS) and to-be (BE). The source section in the tables represents where it is taken from (articles or interviews), while the blank space indicates that it is taken from the interview data. Columns A, B, C and D show the results from Nilsson et al. (2018) denoted as 2 in the source, while the Column Y shows results from López-Mesa et al. (2011) denoted as 1 in the source. The remaining columns from E to L are the companies from the REES consortium. The following tables show the identified methods and tools in the three phases.

To be more specific as to how the tools are identified from the data, the terms containing devices, software, workshops, list, checklist, protocols, meetings, and templates are considered instruments and therefore marked as tools.

4

Table 3: Identified methods and tools in the requirement identification phase

So

ur

ce Y A B C D E F G H I J K L

Methods and Tools IS IS IS IS IS IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE

1 Pluses, potentials, concerns, overcome concerns (PPCOc) X

1 Brainstorming methods X

1 Need finding techniques X

1 Structured inventive thinking X

1 Axiomatic design X

2 Comparison to previous version of the product X X

Comparison to / use of previous versions of the product /cases X X X

2 NDS NETWORK X

GAP- analysis to compare products with competitors X X

Customer meetings X X X

Checklist to address environmental impacts of the product X

User Requirement Specification (URS) X

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) X

Checklist for requirement specification X

NÖHRA to define current situation, etc. X

LEAN methods X

Process steps: 1. Architect 2. External expert consultant (e.g. env.) 3. Approval X

Evaluation of how the company's services affect the customers' internal operations X

Benchmarking competitors and other markets X X

Product guide to prioritize base requirements X

Long-term product planning X

A3 method to address requirements X

Break down general requirements to lower divisions, subsystem, components X X

1 7 Management tools X

Strategic exchange (remanufacturing) list, update/year X

Relation matrix with different products and req. X

Blacklist of forbidden materials X X

Product Plan X

Excel sheet for identified ideas X X

Stakeholder list X

Project templates X X

Business case description X

Clear documentation of requirements X X X X X X X

5

Table 4: Identified methods and tools in the conceptual design phase

So

ur

ce Y A B C D E F G H I J K L

Methods and Tools IS IS IS IS IS IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE

PULSE meetings X

Flexible and agile development process X X X

On-site visits at customers to identify needs X

Virtual development X X

Physical development X

Design for assembly X

Checkpoints X

Gate system through the development process X X

Traceable process X

6

Table 5: Identified methods and tools in the analysis and evaluation phase

So ur ce Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Method IS IS IS IS IS IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE 1 Matrix-based evaluation X 1 FMEA methods X 1 Checklists X X 1 Business evaluation X

1 Value analysis system engineering X

1 Quality function X

1 Statistical Japanese methods X

1 System dynamics X

2 Quality test stack - about ten levels of testing X

2 Root cause analysis for unpredicted issues X

2 Tests on actual hardware X X X X

2 Virtual verification of the system, up to a year before the release of the product X

Environmental impact description for projects (MKB) X

Validation and evaluation of the project and requirements X X X

Test of concept based on ISO standards X X

User/ customer evaluation and feedback of solutions X X X X X X

FMEA X X X X

Risk analysis X X X

A3 report method X

Statistic analyzing tools X

LCA / LCC X X X X X X

Asses societal changes and attitudes X X X

Structured evaluation of pilot studies / try-outs X

Economic analysis with gathered data X

Risk identification in collaboration with the customer X

Verifications at supplier X

Simulations and calculations X

Verification: 1. Plausibility assessment by engineer, 2. CAE calculation _{model/comparison, 3. physical tests} X

Checklists to evaluate construction requirements & product functionality & compare X

Pugh matrix X

QDCF, quality, time cost, feature X

2 Verification standard for tests unique to each type of product X

7

So

ur

ce Y A B C D E F G H I J K L

Method IS IS IS IS IS IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE IS BE

ISO 14001 Quality Certification X X

CE/ UL-labelling X

V-model for verification of requirements X X

T-model for verification of requirements X

LC management as decision tool X

8

4 Conclusions

There are in total 83 methods and tools identified from the interviews and the two articles, of which 58 are methods and 25 tools. The following table shows the total number of methods and tools.

Table 6: Number of methods and tools identified with respect to phases

Phase Methods Tools Total

Requirement identification 22 12 34

Conceptual design 7 4 11

Analysis and evaluation 29 9 38

Total 58 25 83

The above table indicates that methods are more often used to carry out all the phases compared to the tools. Further analysis is shown in Table 7, where the methods and tools used are tabulated according to how many companies use them. The results show that 23 of 83 different methods and tools (16 methods and 7 tools) are used by 2 or more companies, while the remaining 60 different methods and tools are only used or considered by 1 company.

Table 7: Popularity of methods and tools

No. of companies using/considering

method & tool Method Tool

2

• Comparison to previous version of the product

• GAP- analysis to compare products with competitors

• Benchmarking competitors and other markets

• Virtual development • Checklists

• Test of concept based on ISO standards

• Break down general requirements to lower divisions, subsystem,

components

• Blacklist of forbidden materials • Excel sheet for identified ideas • Project templates

• Gate system through the development process

• V-model for verification of requirements

3

• Asses societal changes and attitudes • Risk analysis

• Validation and evaluation of the project and requirements

• Flexible and agile development process • Customer meetings

• Comparison to/use of previous versions of the product/cases 4

• FMEA

• Tests on actual hardware 6

• User/ customer evaluation and feedback of solutions

• LCA / LCC

7 • Clear documentation of requirements

The results show there is a wide range of methods and tools used in industry, and that these are not often repeated. Reasons for this could be unshared knowledge, the differences in the type of industry, the size of the companies and the people interviewed. Moreover, many different ways of working could also be considered methods, although these might not be formally addressed in academic literature as is the case for QFD or FMEA.

9

5 References

Andreasen, M. M. (2015). Conceptual design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models. Springer Publishing

Company, 392.

Laperrire, L. a. (2014). CIRP encyclopedia of production engineering. Springer Publishing Company, 386-388. López-Mesa, B. &. (2011). A study of the use of concept selection methods from inside a company.

Research in Engineering Design, 7-27.

Nilsson, S. B. (2018). Empirical Study of Requirements Engineering in Cross Domain Development. DS92: