Trends in Product Development
Dag Bergsjö Associate Professor Product and Production Development Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
[email protected]
1829 - Chalmersska Slöjdeskolan was founded by the will of William Chalmers (merchant at the Swedish East India Company) Focuses on research and education in technology, natural science and architecture Two campuses; Johanneberg & Lindholmen 12 000 students 2500 employees Annual turnover 2 800 million SEK 17 departments
Wingquist Laboratory for Virtual Product Realization
Sven Wingquist 1876-1953 § Founder of SKF (Volvo) § Engineering pioneer § Global entrepreneur § Social trend-setter
Research Areas in Product Development
Systems Engineering and PLM
Geometry Assurance & Robust Design
Geometry and Motion Planning
Flexible Automation
Three main areas of interest
Virtualization
Knowledge Management
Sustainability
Two main paradigms in developing products Lean Product Development
• Simple interfaces and methods • High transparency • Effective decision support
Systems Engineering & PLM
• Secure information • Complete • Effective methods
Two Case studies from Industrial Research Projects
www.projectvisit.org
Digitalization of Lean Planning methods for product development
A3 Problem Solving Checksheets
operational
Pulse
Project meeting, Daily Management, Kanban & Barashi
How we are used to se Visual ”Lean” Planning
Supporting the meeting with appropriate flexibility and structure
Deciding on the right flexibility is complex. It is easy to start thinking about improvements to the tool even though it does not directly affect meeting efficiency. A digital whiteboard offers great flexibility – but does not intuitively support the meeting. Continuous improvement is a part of lean and made possible when a procedure is standardized. In this case, how the tools and processes should be used. However too much creativity in meeting and process design has impacts on transparency and cross-site/project collaboration.
Large compromises considering visualizations are not preferred. - When switching to a digital solution that does not support the meeting. E.g. Excel sheets or SharePoint sites.
Barriers to knowledge management
A3 Problem Solving Checksheets
operational
Pulse
Project meeting, Daily Management, Kanban & Barashi
How we are used to se Knowledge management?
Most KM implementation and literature focuses here (knowledge capture) Knowledge creation is assumed
Knowledge transfer is assumed
Knowledge reuse is assumed
Decision
Action Truck
Better Truck
Investment Assumption: knowledge creation, transfer and reuse =
Return on Investment
f(knowledge capture)
Observations from KM implementation No knowledge flow Less time is spent on capturing relevant content Mental overload No reuse + time demanding capture destroys motivation for capture
No follow-up of reuse in business process
Less motivation to reuse Typical KM focus: ”perfect” structure for knowledge OR assumption past information = knowledge
Scaling of content to avoid mental overload
Focus on knowledge reuse – Too many KM projects have failed as a result on focus on capturing, storing and organizing the knowledge, before it can be reused.
Focus on the core knowledge – what can actually help you in the future to design better products at the company you work? Disregard irrelevant information and describe the knowledge as a few easy steps (or recipes), and link to other relevant information.
KM initiatives do not magically work in an industrial setting. Organizational support (from managers and experts) are essential to get the desired effect. Further use the process to trigger knowledge reuse events and make sure to benefit from deviations and other “learning opportunities”.
New process knowledge INBOX
Vision: integrating visual management with knowledge management
I C P K
Improvement board New knowledge Headlamp design knowledge
Deviation
Official (generic) PD process
A3
PULS
Problem solved
Visual plan
Truck requirements
Headlamp requirements
New design
PD Database
Operative process
