Introduction to Integrated Product Development Team

Today, I am introducing the book "Introduction to Product Development Team".

This book is intended to young undergraduates and graduates entering the Air-craft Engineering world, or even any other type of industry. Aerospace Product Development evolves very fast and the computer tools and applications required to develop products evolve even faster. However, one needs to realize that to develop a product, tools and application are not doing the thinking and are not responsible for anything. There are roles and responsibilities shared between functions, evolving within a product development process where change is on the menu every day. Evolving in this environment can be intimidating. This books provides guidelines and introduces you to how a product is developed within a Product Development Process where the principles of Design for Manufacturability (DFM) and Concurrent Engineering are applied.

This book also introduces the concept of Product development integrated within a Product Lifecycle Management system where Work Breakdown Structures (WBS), Product Structures and Change Management are all inter-related.

Encourage me to continue developping this subject. The book is available in both Paperback format and in eBook Format. Available at LULU Publishing (eBook) or Amazon.com.

Practical everyday DFM guidelines: They truly save time and money Part 1: Geometries

This Blog has spent a lot time talking about the philosophy of Design for Manufacturability (DFM). There are several good books on the subject of DFM and the reader can find in Amazon.com. Just type DFM in the search gadget.  We will nonetheless look at some of the very basic Guidelines to DFM, more specifically at Mechanical / Structural and System design guidelines that I picked up in Design For Manufacturability from David M. Anderson as well as other site on the internet. The Guidelines are separated in 6 groups:

· Geometries (Gn)

· Standard Parts (SPn)

· Material (Mn)

· Assemblies (An)

· Tooling (Tn)

· Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T)

Geometries

G1: Webbed Machined Parts

Make the inside corner radii of webbed, machined parts such as bulkheads, frames, beams, spars, formers and ribs, normal to the working plane. Avoid closed angle geometries that will require a ramp which add complication and cost to the part; refer to Figure 1.

Figure 1: Webbed Machined Part

G2: Driven Corner Radius

The side of an end mill creates the inside vertical corner radius. To assure tangential smoothness of the inside corner radius with the wall, the  corner radius should be designed with a radius slightly larger than the cutter radius. This is called; driven radius. By designing the corner radius oversize (consult the machinist), thus preventing the end mill smashing into the corner radius, causing undercuts, whiplashes or rope twist finishes. It enables the cutter to drive around the radius, instead of forming it with a size for size and mill cutter radius; refer to Figure 2.

Figure 2: Driven Corner Radius

G3: Fillets versus Chamfer

A Chamfer is typically less expensive than a Fillet. Unless necessary, stick to chamfering which can be done by hand, instead of programming the tool path of a special end mill. Refer to Figure 3. However, on primary structures, the fillet is preferred because of the fatigue cracks that can appear on the shaper change of geometry of a chamfer. Always consult the Stress Function.. 

Figure 3: Chamfer types

G4: Fillets and Corner Radius

Avoid excessive tool changes. Use one minimum radius size for all inside corners of a pocket. Use the same radius size for all corner, and same radius size for all fillets.

G5: Drilled Holes Size

Specify standard drill bit sizes. Unusual hole sizes bring up the cost of manufacturing through purchasing, inventory costs and generate tool proliferation. Always consult the machine shop.

G6: Through Holes

Through holes are preferred over blind holes. This has to do with the fact that a blind hole does not provide good chip exit and cooling.

G7: Reaming

Reaming after drilling is more easily conducted on a through hole.  However, Reaming add cost to the part. Reaming operations are usually required for pin installation or to prevent fatigue cracking in holes.

G8: Drilled surfaces

The entrance and exit surfaces of a drilled hole should be normal to the hole axis. Refer to Figure 4. Holes in the angled surfaces will require a spot-face normal to drill axis to prevent slippage.

 Figure 4: Angled drill Surface

G9: Number of holes and direction

Minimize the number of drilled hole sizes so that tool changes are minimized. Minimize also the number of directions on the part that holes must be drilled from so that setup time is minimized.

 

Figure 5: Surrounding geometry



G11: Tapped holes

Tapped holes cost more to produce than normal drilled holes.

G12: Access to Tools

Always consider the size of the tool required to assemble a component. For wrenches, consider the swing. Refer to figure 6.

Figure 6: Tool Clearances

 

G10: Surrounding geometry to hole

If there is protruding geometry surrounding a drilled hole, there may be risks of touching the geometry either by the drill bit or the drill chuck. Refer to Figure 5.

G11: Tapped holes

Tapped holes cost more to produce than normal drilled holes.

G12: Access to Tools

Always consider the size of the tool required to assemble a component. For wrenches, consider the swing. Refer to figure 6.

 G13: Hole depth

Deep, narrow holes with length to diameter ratios larger than three should be avoided. A drill bit will start to drift sideways at a depth .75 X Drill diameter, i.e.: a .25 Dia. drill with start wandering at .187” deep. The deeper the hole, the more chances you risk of breakage. One way to avoid a deep, narrow hole is to use a stepped entrance.

G14: Boring versus Drilling

Boring is more expensive than drilling, so drilling should be used if possible.

G15: Milling

Minimize the number of set ups required. Milling should be grouped into sets of parallel planes.

G16: Milling depth

Design milled pockets so that the end mill required is limited to 3:1 in length to diameter ratio. Longer end mills are prone to chatter. If long end mills cannot be avoided, clearances needs to be designed into the part. Refer to figure 7.

Figure 7: Milling Pockets

G17: Three-edge corner

When designing a three-edge inside corner, one of the inside edges must have a driven radius (refer to Guideline G2). Relief hole must be incorporated in the design. The hole must be drilled first since drills cannot withstand significant side loading. Refer to Figure 8.

Figure 8: Three Edges Corner

G18: Surface Flatness

For machined surfaces with a high degree of flatness, bosses should be used. The bosses are easier to control, clearly define the areas needing to be flatness controlled, and ensures stable assembly. Large flat surfaces for assembly are more difficult to control and unless highly accurate, therefore very expensive, will be a hyper-static assembly.

Software's: How do they affect Design for Manufacturability? Part 2: Integrating a CAD System?

CAD Systems have extended our capabilities in developing products. The time we took to create layouts, detail and assembly drawings in the days of the drafting table (and yes I am from that era) is greatly reduced. More and more we see integration of functions with tools and processes. However, is the work truly reduced for engineering or for the downstream functions dealing with the engineering data? Have we simplified our lives?

Duplication of tasks between Engineering and production functions is one of the leading causes of inefficiency and errors in the creation of Manufacturing Bills of Material (MBOM).  It is not uncommon for companies to maintain several version of a single BOM for any given job.  In most cases, a lot of time is spent creating a BOM within the CAD environment only to be re-typed into the ERP System, leading to increased man-hours and possible errors.  There are a few true off the shelf solutions  that integrate CAD systems and ERP Systems that enable extracting BOMs from the engineering definition , and import the data directly into the ERP system, eliminating typos and decreasing man-hours.  

Designer interaction with ERP Systems

My experience and I must admit to most product designers and engineers, an ERP system is an abstract system and as something that requires additional time and effort, for little to no value. One reason for this perception is that most ERP systems are not integrated with the design engineer’s design system. Such integration typically requires a lot of customization that will again typically be done in the middle of a product development project. Such situation only adds to aggravation and frustration and obviously makes ERP Systems even less appealing to product designers and engineers.

I was told once by a former President of Roll Royce Canada, that perception is everything when it comes to the customer’s view of a product or how a service is rendered. The product designers and engineers are the customers who are being served a system that is usually poorly explained, therefore not understood, which results in an outright rejection.  

Integrating Engineering with other Functions via ERP System

Unlike what most engineers believe, the world of product development doesn’t evolve solely around the engineering function. However, most product development datasets are issued from engineering using a tool solely used by engineering or designing functions; that is a CAD system. The closest to a CAD System any production function will get to is the viewing capability of the CAD System, as in many cases a 3rd party CAD viewer without writing rights, is used to consult the data from engineering.

It is important to understand that production functions should never work directly from the Engineering product Structure where all the product definition is defined. This is to avoid having the released engineering data tempered with by accident.  This is why it is best to avoid “2 way direct” ERP integration with the CAD System. Data should never be written from a CAD System directly into the ERP system’s database tables and that applies also from the ERP to the CAD System. The industry has realized this and, for the most part, moved away from this integration solution design. The reasons for this are:

• Writing data directly into the product structure or the ERP system can corrupt the product structure.
• Designers/Engineers should never write directly in the ERP system to avoid corrupting the Master Bill of Material (BOM).  Avoid having too many individuals entering data.  The corruption increases the total cost as cleanup is required to cleanse the Master BOM.

Example: MS20426AD5-5 is not the same as MS 20426-AD5-5, or MS20426-AD5-5

• Restrictions on updating software; if systems are tied too closely together, an upgrade of the CAD or ERP software or both in order to maintain integration between the two may be required.

Consideration when Integrating a CAD System to the ERP System

Although some CAD Systems can directly communicate with ERP systems, this integration is quite complex; from both a technical point of view as well as  a “workflow”. Some of the main issues to resolve in ERP integration with a CAD System include:

• Which system (CAD or ERP) is the authority?  Is it the product structure in the CAD/PDMS or is it the product structure in the ERP System?
• Who owns the data?
• Will the EBOM output from the CAD System need to be modified or will the CAD model contain the final complete BOM including all fasteners, packaging materials, lubricants, instruction manuals, etc.?
• How will employees in manufacturing have access to BOM info? (Viewer, CAD Models, Drawing or ERP system).
• Is the data input into the CAD System and passed to ERP, vice versa or both?  What is the interface?
• What are the attributes and who does the input into which systems?
• How will the initial input of items and BOM be handled and synchronized between the systems?
• How will revisions to items and BOM’s be handled and synchronized between the systems?
• How will you manage changes and non-conformance?
• How often will data be updated and synchronized between the systems?
• What is the trigger event for data input/output between the systems?
• What will be the driving attributes of the parts that will define a part?
• What about legacy data?

Downstream Impact when Engineering is not properly integrated

Lack of or no integration with downstream manufacturing planning activities will have the effects listed hereunder:

• Inability to reconcile EBOM to MBOM
• Inability to repurpose data to downstream functions, i.e.: Tech Pubs, Customer support, Supply Chain etc…
• Duplication of clerical tasks. Most of the information associated to a part definition in a drawing can be converted in attributes that will feed the ERP System. Attributes are like the DNA of a dataset that defines a Part,
• Errors due to duplication of tasks,
• More than one source of data, thus, introducing errors and duplicating data maintenance.
• Reporting of total cost of the product is seriously impeded,
• Difficulty to access the engineering data,
• Change management will be inefficient and ECO’s may increase, thus increasing cost,
• Inability to transition from a Drawing Based management to a Part Based Product management environment.

Closing Comments

Integrating a CAD System to the ERP system cannot be done in the middle of a product development project. To successfully implement this integration, team work between functional groups is paramount.  Engineering cannot do this alone and must work with the other functions that are generally speaking already integrated within the ERP System. It is quite a cultural change for engineering as for engineers are creator, not very good in data management. Yet, understanding data management when integrating a CAD System with and ERP System is just what is required from the engineers. Engineers need to see the added value of performing such integration, as depending of the way data is entered into the ERP System via the CAD System to ERP System Interface, the downstream function will be able to efficiently use the data or curse those who created the data. It’s garbage in garbage out.  

Software's: How do they affect Design for Manufacturability? Which CAD to buy?

Computer Aided Design (CAD) Systems have allowed us to become more creative in the way we work, but their ever evolving capabilities, power and time required to learn using them ultimately affects Design for Manufacturability. One must always remember that CAD Systems are just tools, nothing more.  

Here’s a good case study and a true story, to support this blog A company specialized in cabinetry design and manufacturing decided to put in place a top notch Engineering department, and to support it, they purchased a high-end Computer Aided Design (CAD) System with a high-end Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) System. The problem was not the applications themselves, but rather this company purchased the system without having a thorough understanding of the requirements associated to a Product Development Process (PDP). To make matters worse, there was no PDP in place at the time of the purchase.  This resulted in months (up to two years) of customization of the applications, while trying to fill customer orders, which in the end were very late, required numerous reworks, generated a significant financial loss and a no confidence vote in the systems put in place.  

Misunderstanding CAD Systems

It is not uncommon to see companies buying the wrong CAD System. This usually happens because we get blinded by the technology and some non-technical people truly think that it is the CAD System that designs the product. Ever heard the expression “Computer Designed” as a sale pitch? The CAD System is just a tool, and like any other tool, you need to know what you want to do with it before buying it. 

Consideration in the selection

Companies should develop their own considerations based on their PDP and products that ultimately leads to the selection of a CAD System. One cannot arbitrarily select a CAD System without answering (at least) the very basic questions listed hereafter and incorporate the answers in the requirements that will ultimately narrow the selection to one system. The perfect CAD System is the one that meets your requirements based on your PDP. Before putting a penny in a CAD System here are some points you should consider: 

• Purpose: What do you want to accomplish?
• Application: Aircraft, Marine, Space, Bridge, Building, Furniture, Electronics etc… Don’t try to shoot a bird with a canon,
• Ease of use—Productivity: Think of the people that will be using it,
• Training: How long is the training and how long to become proficient?
• Functionality: Consider what you need first, and then look into the nice to have. Consider the evolution of your business as well,
• Software Evolution: Some applications versions are not compatible with one another,
• Vendor stability: Make sure the selected vendor has a sound financial base, and a good track record,
• Support: Is it included, and how will future version affect your operation? Will you always need external support? Think $$$!
• Cost: it should be the last thing in your mind. Think of the Return on Investment (ROI) instead. Besides, accountants will always find the price too high, even if it’s a free open source CAD. Choosing the right CAD System that will increase productivity and reduce the design lifecycle is the only cost consideration that matters,
• Expert opinion: Ask for support from an independent CAD Expert not associated to any CAD supplier,
• Compatibility: think of compatibility with your production floor, especially if they work directly from 3D models,
• Suppliers and Customers: Do you need to be compatible with your suppliers or customers. E.g.: Aircraft OEM generally require full compatibility with their system,
• Manufacturing Functionalities: Does your CAD need to be integrated with the shop floor?
• Libraries: Is the CAD system compatible with commercial of the shelf standard parts libraries (bolts, nuts, screws…),
• Collaboration: Do you need collaboration functionality? It is useful when multiple designers work on the same assembly. This will tell you if you need a PLM application.

Your CAD Community

One of the building blocks of DFM is collaboration between functions. This is why you should involve all functions directly involved in the development of your product (except finance) to be part of the selection team. These functions should also have some level of proficiency in the use of the selected CAD System. Since they will be using a common tool, this will allow for a better collaboration among functions. 

The Ripple Effect

There is no stronger support for a CAD System then trust that it’s the right one, and trust in the PDP. This will lead to an efficient working environment where people will question how they can improve the system, rather than questioning the validity of the CAD system itself. Having the wrong CAD system in place will generate frustrations amongst functions and having no PDP in place to support the CAD will lead to people or functions working individually around the problem, therefore leading to a multitude of problems that will undoubtedly lead to a corporate wide disaster.

Closing Comment

Purchasing a CAD system requires knowing how one needs to work via a robust PDP and then list all the considerations supporting the PDP to purchase the right CAD System. There are professional consultants who are not associated to any CAD suppliers offering services that should be considered. Remember that once a CAD System is bought and put in place, only to find out you got the wrong one, will create a deep gouge on your bottom line.

Part Proliferation, Why it takes away your competitive edge? Part 4: Raw Materials

Last blog we looked at fasteners and how their proliferation affects your bottom line. In this blog we will look at Raw Materials. They have a direct impact on design, supply, and manufacturing total cost when standardized. If not standardized, it can drive up the total cost of your product.

An Aerospace company kept buying aluminum extrusions that had a minimum buy condition attached to them, and never seemed to deplete the stocks because every Engineer/Designer unknowingly specified different extrusions. However very close in dimensions, the extrusions were still different, therefore were ordered under different part numbers.   

If unchecked, raw materials can easily clutter a material storeroom. This clutter is created by the Engineers’ and Designers’ lack of visibility on what is in stock. Typically the choice of material will stop at what meets the immediate design need without regards to what is in stock, which in most case could do the job just as well.

Influence of Raw Materials,

Raw materials come in all shapes or forms that will later be transformed into components then be part of a product. Regardless of the industry, Raw Material can easily account for about 30% of the total cost of a component. Obviously, having our Aerospace Company as a scenario; inventory cost will be added over the already existing 30%.

Raw Materials are mainly classified by Format and Chemical Composition (or alloy in the case of metals, or essence for wood). Every variation of Format and Composition will generate a different material, therefore a different material stock number. Using our Aerospace Company as example; although the extrusions were aluminum alloy and shapes were the same, the extrusions shapes were of different dimensions, most of the time small differences. If the Engineers/Designers would have been aware of what was in stock, they could have designed their components around one single extrusion, thus avoiding the thousands of dollars in inventory. 

Considerations in selecting Materials

From what was discussed above, it is very obvious that one should select a raw material that is stock in the factory. However if what’s in stock doesn’t work, before selecting a material, consider the following:

• Number of parts that will be fabricated: Part volume can drive the selection of material format, as well as the transformation process.
• Availability of the material: Exotic materials are expensive and create delivery problems and are likely to have a minimum buy clause attached. Common raw materials are generally available and delivered within 24 hrs.
• Make from: Can existing parts be used as raw material and modified to suit the need? This will save time in design and minimize inventory.
• Corrosion: What are the environmental conditions? Are you dealing with dissimilar materials that can generate galvanic corrosion?
• Stress:  Vibration, creep, fatigue, strength, cracking, etc...
• Toxicity: Some materials generate toxic fumes when processed, e.g. beryllium copper.
• Dimensional Stability: Dimensions can be affected by temperature change, humidity levels, etc.: e.g. wood expands under humidity, Stainless steel warps when welded, etc...
• Transformation Process: Machinability, weldability, Formability, e.g.: Some aluminum alloy cannot be welded; Stainless Steel has poor Machinability, etc...
• Surface Protective Finish: Can it be avoided? Some metals do not require protection. Stainless steel can replace a painted carbon steel part, and will save the costs associated with painting parts.
• Environmental: Chemical transformation processes are harmful to the environment. Think green when you select a material or when specifying a Chemical process.

Raw Material initiatives

Raw material selection is done at the Design Process level, therefore should be defined as early as possible, and should be kept as much as possible to what is stock or easily available. Designers are solely responsible for material selection, and indirectly define the manufacturing process by design. This is the main reason why manufacturing and Material Management need to be involved early in the design process in order to design manufacturing and material management into the product. This exercise will also help defining a preferred raw material list.

The Ripple Effect

Having a preferred material list will have ripple effect on engineering activities, as well as purchasing and manufacturing. Having engineering use company standard raw materials minimize design uncertainty of using a new material which very often require testing and certification. It will minimize material shortage and having to buy materials with a clause of minimum buy. It will also maximize savings since the same material can be purchased at a higher volume. Manufacturing will be more stable since the mechanical behavior of the company standard material used are known and controlled. At the end of the day, it will help minimize the design and manufacturing life cycle.

Closing Comment

Raw materials are often taken for granted and the selection is done by Engineering with little regards to the production process that follow. This is not done maliciously, but  it is the result of a lack of visibility very often not given to Engineering as the everlasting motto is still being used; Engineering defines the WHAT, and Production defines the HOW.  Engineering and production function should define the materials concurrently so availability and manufacturing process stability is designed into the product.

Part Proliferation, Why it takes away your competitive edge? Part 3: Fasteners

Last Blog we looked at ways to cleanup parts off the inventory as well as the ripple effect this cleanup may have on your bottom line. In this Blog we will look at fasteners. They can have an immediate impact on design, supply, and manufacturing total cost when standardized.

Influence of Fastener,

Fasteners have been around for centuries; in all shapes or forms and materials, for all kind of applications. Typically, the application is what drive the selection of a type of fastener, the environment is what drives the material selection. There are however other factors that will influence the selection of a fastener: The tooling available on the factory floor and method used (robots, auto-feed screwdrivers, manual installation etc.) to install the fastener will also have a predominant influence on the selection, and these factors are often forgotten, only to be figured out during critical design reviews when 90% of the manufacturing cost has been committed by design.  Although fasteners are typically the smallest and the least expensive components in an assembly, if they are not properly selected and standardized, they can prohibitively drive up the cost of assembly, therefore compromising the competitivity of the product on the market.

Consideration in selecting fasteners,

Companies should develop their own considerations based on their manufacturing process and products that ultimately leads to the selection of a fastener or group of fasteners for a given application. One cannot arbitrarily select a fastening system without answering (at least) the very basic questions listed hereafter and incorporate the answers in the design. Selecting the fastening system for a given product early in the design process will lead to a conscious decision that will have an impact on the committed cost of manufacturing:

Application: Aircraft, Marine, Space, Bridge, Building, Furniture, Electronics etc...

• Load Case: Tension, Shear, Fatigue…
• Limitations: Structural, Non-Structural, Fatigue, Creep, Secondary Stress...
• Environment: Corrosive, Liquid, Space, Temperature, Salty...
• Type of joint: Fastened, Bonded, Permanent, Structural, Non-Structural...
• Joint Material: Metal, Plastics, Rubber, Concrete, Wood, Composites, Dissimilar materials...
• Number of fastening components: Screw or bolt only, washer needed, nut needed, Inserts, nut plates, self tapping...
• Installation methods: Manual, Mechanical, Quick Turn, Robotics...
• Tooling: Auto-feed, manual, robot, jigs, special tools, power tools, Access...
• Access: From top, from bottom...
• Security/Safety: Lock-wire, lock features, vibration, loosening, fatigue...
• Fastener hole Type: drilled, tapped, self-tapping…
• Fit: Clearance, loose, Press-fit...
• Head Design: Flat, Hex, Fillister, etc….
• Drive: Slotted, Hex, Philips, Robertson, Hex Socket...
• Size: Diameter and length...
• Availability: Stock, COTS, Custom...
• Fastener initiatives

Initiatives in fastener standardization will have a significant impact on total cost. Obviously the least expensive fastening system is no fastener at all, but this is another subject. The easiest way to limit fastener types is to impose a limitation on designers and educate them on what is preferred from a manufacturing point of view; the Designers are the ones selecting the fasteners. One easy way to do this, is by creating boards showing the preferred and accepted fasteners, but with today’s CAD systems, coupled with Fastener managing Systems such as SynchroFit – Vistagy and Cenit AG,  the preferred fasteners and what is common stock can be modeled and kept in a library that is linked to the Master BOM, giving full visibility to designers of what is available at all time.  In fact, Designers should always design with what is available on the factory floor. Any new fastener introduced to the factory floor should be thoroughly analyzed as the impact on factory activities can be significant.

The Ripple Effect

Minimizing the types of fastener in inventory will maximize the buying power, therefore lower cost via an economy of scale. The effort and cost to create a library and database will pay for itself in time saved in engineering, but mostly in time saved on the factory floor.  Further initiatives should thrive at designing for the least number of fastener type, and even to design for no fasteners when possible.

Closing Comment

It is a known fact that fastener types have proliferated in product development, to the point where the true selection criteria's are becoming blurred.  Understanding the influence of fasteners and how we select them will lead to significant savings on the total cost of product development. It is worth putting the effort to create initiatives that will lead to a more judicious use and a better selection of fasteners, while reducing cost.

Part Proliferation, Why it takes away your competitive edge? Part 2.

Last blog we looked at what causes part proliferation and why it takes the competitive edge out of companies. In this blog we will look at solutions that can potentially help manufacturers to reduce their inventory of parts sitting in the warehouse.

Standardization of parts,

The best way to avoid proliferation is through standardization of parts. For a company that has a legacy of parts a thorough analysis of all parts must be performed to create groups and families of parts to clean up the system. Parts that are the same must be consolidated into one part number. Parts that are similar in shapes and function can be consolidated into one part which can then be modified as required. Creating a Standard Bill of Material (BOM) of preferred parts and making it easy to consult using Off-the-Shelf applications will control and avoid the proliferation of parts. Unfortunately an iron fist is required to maintain a cleaned BOM, and this doesn’t mean that the system has to be inflexible, but rather the opposite. The flexibility is created through the designing of parts that can be modified for multiple purposes when required or the simple reuse of engineering or designing around Off-The-Shelf parts. It all starts at the very beginning in the definition phase of products.

The Zero-Based Approach,

In the previous blog we referred to this approach as the Empty Drawer or Empty Room concept. Dr. David M. Anderson has developed a similar method to reduce and cleanup parts off an inventory. The Zero-Based Approach is based on the principle of: “What is the minimum list of parts type we need to design new products”. This approach literally starts at zero and adds only the parts that are truly needed from an overwhelming list. It is like emptying a drawer and just put in what we want, rather than taking out what we don’t want. The latter takes more time as wanted and unwanted items are cluttered together. The exercise of cleanup your BOM using the Zero-Based approach must be done with a vision of developing products with a minimum of parts that can be reused in different designs.  Obviously once this is done, a decision has to be made as to what will be done with the unwanted parts. Again, don’t send then back to the store room.

Designing for Standardization,

Standardization must be designed into the product. Designing for standardization, other than engineering a product, is in fact a consolidation of activities aimed at defining, evaluating availability, purchasing, and sustaining supply of parts during the concept phase in the development of a product. Before any lines are drawn on a CAD, the use of preferred parts, reusing already designed and tested parts or designing new parts is defined in a concurrent manner involving at a minimum; Engineering, Supply Chain Management and Manufacturing. This trio must reach a consensus on parts; their supply and how they will reach the production floor on time, without inventory, and zero Work-In-Process (WIP).

The compounded effect of working in a One-Piece-Flow environment and Standardization will virtually eliminate inventory and completely eliminate WIP, therefore resulting in substantial financial savings, and product out to the customers faster.  

The Ripple Effect,

Standardization has a ripple effect on the operation of a company that develops products. The financial savings will come in the forms of: No inventory to support, less parts means less  effort to purchase, better purchasing leverage due to a higher volume of the same parts ordered, reduced floor space means no need to expand to have more room, less overhead cost, better quality due to a lesser number of different parts to support. Having the product to the customer faster also means better financial returns and repeat business. It also means that supplier will have savings as well as they will supply a higher volume of the same parts, therefore passing savings onto the customers to repeat business, yet still be profitable.

Closing Comment,

Companies that have adopted standardization as a mean to control their part proliferation have seen their inventory, and WIP virtually eliminated and Total Cost reduced, making them more profitable and competitive than they were before, and allowed them to develop new products better and faster. Standardization is not something that is technically complex, but will require leadership and vision. Cleanup the system using a zero-based-approach is a fast and simple method to create a BOM of preferred parts. Professionals like Dr. David M. Anderson have proven that standardizing parts, the total cost of developing and producing products is dramatically reduced, and the exercise typically pays itself within 3 financial quarters.