applying lean thinking practices in the chassis

Applying Lean Thinking Practices in the Chassis

Engineering Department in Jaguar Land Rover

George Sherrey

Jaguar Land Rover Chassis Engineering

25th October 2017

Presented by Dr Ahmed Al-Ashaab

LeanPPD Research Group

Cranfield University - UK

Agenda

1. JLR Introduction

2. The Chassis Engineering – The system “V”.

3. LeanPD Collaboration: Cranfield University – Jaguar Land Rover

4. Performance measurement

5. SBCE pilot project.

6. What’s next.

WHO is JLR? WE ARE

3

– Globally recognised British automotive company

Global sales reach, network covering 172

countries

New plant opened in China

Plant under construction in Brazil

12 vehicle lines – with ambitious

expansion plans to extend product offerings

3 UK vehicle assembly plants,

with 2 UK product development facilities

Special Vehicle Operations division created in 2014

More than £500m invested in The Engine Manufacturing

Centre

Employs 32,000 people globally – headcount has doubled

over the last few years

Employs over 7,000 engineers and designers

OUR HERITAGE

4

– Two Iconic British Brands

JAGUAR LAND ROVER

5

– Evolution

Jaguar

Land Rover

Ltd

formation

2013

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20102000

Land RoverFormed in 1948

Nationalisation

1974

Jaguar

privatisation

1984

BAe

Purchase

1988

BMW

Purchase

1994

Jaguar

Land Rover

activities

merged

2002

Ford buys

LR

2000

Swallow

Formed

1922Lanchester

Daimler

Guy Motors

MG

Wolseley

Morri

sRile

yAustin

Park

RoyalCrossley

AEC

Maudsley

Triump

hStandard

Leyland

Rover

Jaguar 1945

Tata

Purchase

2008

BLMC

Merger

1968

BMC

1966

Ford

buys

Jaguar

1989

Jaguar

Land Rover

F-TYPE F-TYPE Coupe XJ

XE XF F-Pace

Evoque Evoque Convertible Discovery Sport

Range Rover sport Discovery Range Rover

JLR’s Forecourt

© Cranfield University

Chassis Engineering Department: 8 functions

© Cranfield University8 © Cranfield University

Cranfield University – Jaguar Land Rover

Project Rationale

1. Need of continuous improvement in JLR Product Development in Chassis

Engineering Department

2. Experience and Background of the LeanPPD Research Group at Cranfield

University

3. Opportunity identified to address and overcome PD challenges:

a. Increase effectiveness and efficiency

b. Shorten lead times

c. Sustainable design

d. Production of innovative, quality, cost effective products


Chassis Engineering Department – LeanPD

Product of Value in PD

I. There are three main Products of value from PD

I. The final product - is an engineering release to be delivered to the customer.

II. Reusable knowledge - while many of the lean principles are overlapping

between Lean production and LeanPD their application and trade offs

between them are not necessarily the same.

III. Activities that results in a customer requirement being met - A team may

not deliver the end product. It is therefore key for the team to understand how

their product of value supports the delivery of the end product via the right

process flow. We all play a valuable part in the PD process, we need to

understand, with our downstream users (customers), what they really need

and make this our key focus.


Chassis Engineering Department – LeanPD

Wastes in PPD

1. The waste that can be associated with the engineering process itself – non

value activities, such as utilisation of people, poor project planning, over

processing design work, waiting for information, searching for data, data

transactions, etc.

2. The waste created by poor engineering that result in specifications not being

met, poor product performance requiring redesign, parts that are not capable in

manufacturing, parts that result in warranty.

3. The waste created by engineering the wrong product. Often the engineering

that is delivered meets the specification, but the specification does not deliver

the customer requirement, creating a significant amount of late change, which is

inherently very costly.

© Cranfield University11

Aim and Objectives

1

2

34

5

Assess current

PD practices

Identify

opportunities

for

improvement

Provide

guidance on how

to implement

LeanPD

Justify the

implementation

of LeanPD

Embed

LeanPD

knowledgeImprove PD

process

performance by

applying LeanPD

principles


Plan: 1st Feb – 27th April then 1st May – 7th September

1-Feb 3-Mar 7-Apr 21-Apr 27-Apr

LITERATUREFINDING

PERFORMANCE MEASURE TEMPLATE

PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT AT

JLR

DATA ANALYSIS

QUESTIONNAIRE DRAFT

1:1 INTERVIEWS

IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

APPLY LEANPPD PRINCIPLES IN A PILOT PROJECT

INTEGRATED PLAN – 8

FUNCTIONS

INDIVIDUAL PLANS FOR

EACH DEPARTMENT

2 SESSIONS TRAINING

COURSE AT JLR

JLR PRACTICES & PROCEDURES

GROUPBRAINSTORMING

JLR + GROUPBRAINSTORMING

ROAD MAP FINAL

PRESENTATION CRANFIELD

FINAL PRESENTATION

JLR

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Tasks at JLR

Tasks at Cranfield

DELIVERABLES

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

• LITERATURE REVIEW• PROJECT PLAN• PM TEMPLATE• QUESTIONNAIRE

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT• DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SITUATION

• PILOT PROJECT• BUSINESS CASE

• POSTER• PRESENTATION• REPORT

29-Mar

• 74 participated in Performance Assessment.

• 43 face-to-face Interviews


Team

14

Lean Product Development

Lean manufacturing

(Shopfloor)

Lean enterprise

(management)Lean product development

Lean Thinking

1.Definition exists.

2.Value Stream Mapping

3.(VSM)

4.Eliminates Waste

5.Tools exist (e.g. JIT,

Kaizan

6.& Jidoka).

7.Models available

8.Technical & Engineering

9.based

1.Definition exists.

2.Value Stream Mapping

3.(VSM)

4.Eliminates Waste

5.Creates Value

6.Tools exist (e.g. 5’M).

7.Models available

8.Management based

1.New idea.

2.No tools.

3.No VSM.

4.No models.

5.Engineering based.

Well explored Well explored Poorly explored

14

15

LeanPPD Model

15

16

LeanPPD Model

• LeanPPD is the application of lean thinking in product design and development. Itfocuses on value creation, provision of knowledge environment, continuous improvementand SBCE process that encourage innovation. LeanPPD provides process model and itsassociate tools that consider entire product life cycle.

Value-focused

panning and development

Continuous improvement

culture

Knowledge-based environment

Chief engineer

technical

leadership

Set-based

concurrent

engineering

process

16

17

Set-Based Concurrent Engineering

(Overview)

17

18

What is SBCE?

1.Design participants practise SBCE by reasoning, developing and communicating

about sets of solutions in parallel

2.As the design progresses, they gradually narrow their respective sets of

solutions based on the knowledge gained.

3.As they narrow, they commit to staying within the sets so that others can rely on

their communication” (Sobek et al, 1999).

4.Critical design decisions are deliberately delayed until the last possible moment

to ensure that customer expectations are fully understood and that the reached

design meets the requirements of different functions (design, manufacturing,

etc.).

18

19

Progress of SBCE Research

Discovered

Definition & Framework

Described

Industrial Applications

SBCE Process

2013-

15SBD Process

Model(LeanPPD

Research Team)

19

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCLzk--bLi8kCFUnUGgodv2EEPQ&url=http://www.lean.org/Bookstore/ProductDetails.cfm?SelectedProductId%3D383&psig=AFQjCNFTOMKPhIqk7RetHmQwHMqCgyo5og&ust=1447442006180017

20

Principles of

Set-Based Concurrent Engineering

20

21

Principles of SBCE

1. Strategic value research and alignmenta) Classify projects into a project portfolio

b) Explore customer value for project x, Align each project with the company value strategy

c) Translate customer value (product vision) to designers (via concept paper)

2. Map the design spacea) Break the system down into subsystems and sub-subsystems

b) Identify targets/essential characteristics for the system

c) Decide on what subsystems/components you want to improve and to what level (selective innovation)

3. Create and explore multiple concepts in parallela) Pull innovative concepts from R&D departments

b) Explore trade-offs by designing multiple alternatives for subsystems/components

c) Ensure many possible subsystem combinations to reduce the risk of failure

d) Extensive prototyping (physical and parametrical) of alternatives to test for cost, quality, and performance

e) Communicate sets of possibilities

4. Integrate by intersectiona) Look for intersections of feasible sets, including compatibility and interdependencies between components

b) Impose minimum constraint:

c) Seek conceptual robustness against physical, market, and design variations

d) Concurrent consideration of lean product design and lean manufacturing

5. Establish feasibility before commitmenta) Narrow sets gradually while increasing detail: functions narrow their respective sets in parallel based on

knowledge gained from analysis (all)

b) Stay within sets once committed and avoid changes that expand the set

c) Control by managing uncertainty at process gates

21

22

Subsystem A

Subsystem B

Subsystem C

Subsystem D

CUSTOMER INTERACTION

SUPPLIER INVOLVEMENT

SET OF

SOLUTIONS

SBCEBaseline Model

221. Define Value

2. Map Design Space

3. Develop Concept Sets

4. Converge on System

5. Detailed Design


b) Explore customer value for project x, Align each project with the company value strategy

c) Translate customer value (product vision) to designers (via concept paper)

2. Map the design spacea) Break the system down into subsystems and sub-subsystems

b) Identify targets/essential characteristics for the system

c) Decide on what subsystems/components you want to improve and to what level (selective innovation)


b) Explore trade-offs by designing multiple alternatives for subsystems/components

c) Ensure many possible subsystem combinations to reduce the risk of failure

d) Extensive prototyping (physical and parametrical) of alternatives to test for cost, quality, and performance


4. Integrate by intersectiona) Look for intersections of feasible sets, including compatibility and interdependencies between components


c) Seek conceptual robustness against physical, market, and design variations

d) Concurrent consideration of lean product design and lean manufacturing

5. Establish feasibility before commitmenta) Narrow sets gradually while increasing detail: functions narrow their respective sets in parallel based on knowledge

gained from analysis (all)

b) Stay within sets once committed and avoid changes that expand the set

c) Control by managing uncertainty at process gates

23

SBCEActivity View

23

1.1 Classify

projects

2.1 Identify

subsystem targets

3.1 Extract (pull)

design concepts

4.1 Determine

intersections of

sets

5.1 Release final

specification

1.2 Explore

customer value

2.2 Decide on level

of innovation to

subsystems

3.2 Create sets

for sub-systems

4.2 Explore

possible product

system designs

5.2 Manufacturing

provides

tolerances

1.3 Align project

with company

strategy

2.3 Define feasible

regions of design

space

3.3 Explore

subsystem sets:

simulate,

prototype & test

4.3 Seek

conceptual

robustness

5.3 Full system

definition

1.4 Translate

value to designers

(via product

definition)

3.4 Capture

knowledge and

evaluate

4.4 Evaluate

possible systems

for lean

production

3.5 Communicate

sets to others

4.5 Begin process

planning for

manufacturing

4.6 Converge on

final system

1. Define Value2. Map Design

Space3. Develop

Concept Sets4. Converge on System

5. Detailed Design


b) Explore customer value for project x, Align each

project with the company value strategy

c) Translate customer value (product vision) to designers

(via concept paper)

2. Map the design spacea) Break the system down into subsystems and sub-

subsystems

b) Identify targets/essential characteristics for system

c) Decide on what subsystems/components you want to

improve and to what level (selective innovation)


b) Explore trade-offs by designing multiple alternatives

for subsystems/components

c) Ensure many possible subsystem combinations to reduce

the risk of failure

d) Extensive prototyping (physical and parametrical) of

alternatives to test for cost, quality, and

performance


4. Integrate by intersectiona) Look for intersections of feasible sets, including

compatibility and interdependencies between components


c) Seek conceptual robustness against physical, market,

and design variations

d) Concurrent consideration of lean product design and

lean manufacturing

24

SBCEActivity View

24

1.1 Classify

projects

2.1 Identify

subsystem targets

3.1 Extract (pull)

design concepts

4.1 Determine

intersections of

sets

5.1 Release final

specification

1.2 Explore

customer value

2.2 Decide on level

of innovation to

subsystems

3.2 Create sets

for sub-systems

4.2 Explore

possible product

system designs

5.2 Manufacturing

provides

tolerances

1.3 Align project

with company

strategy

2.3 Define feasible

regions of design

space

3.3 Explore

subsystem sets:

simulate,

prototype & test

4.3 Seek

conceptual

robustness

5.3 Full system

definition

1.4 Translate

value to designers

(via product

definition)

3.4 Capture

knowledge and

evaluate

4.4 Evaluate

possible systems

for lean

production

3.5 Communicate

sets to others

4.5 Begin process

planning for

manufacturing

4.6 Converge on

final system

1. Define Value2. Map Design

Space3. Develop

Concept Sets4. Converge on System

5. Detailed Design


Bracket

Pedal Arm

Pedal Pad

Bushing

SBCE Pilot Project

It demonstrates how SBCE would help establish the improvement opportunities

identified in the Performance Measurement and the Face to Face interviews.

3. Pedal Pad

1. Bracket

2. Pedal Arm

4. Bushing


SBCE Pilot Project: SBCE Process Model

1.1 Classify projects2.1 Identify

subsystem targets

3.1 Extract design

concepts

4.1 Determine

intersections of sets

5.1 Release final

specification

1.2 Explore

customer value

2.2 Decide on level

of innovation to

subsystems

3.2 Create sets for

subsystems

4.2 Explore possible

product system

designs

5.2 Manufacturing

provides tolerances

1.3 Align project with

company strategy

2.3 Define feasible

regions of design

3.3 Explore

subsystem sets:

simulate, prototype

& test

4.3 Seek conceptual

robustness

5.3 Full system

definition

1.4 Translate value

to designers

3.4 Capture

knowledge and

evaluate

4.4 Evaluate

possible systems for

lean production

3.5 Communicate

sets to others

4.5 Begin process

planning for

manufacturing

4.6 Converge on

final system


3. Pedal Pad

1. Bracket

2. Pedal Arm

4. Bushing

Research and development

High level of innovation

Medium level of innovation

No innovation

• SBCE Pilot Project - Level of Innovation


SBCE Pilot Project- Create Sets of Subsystems

Bracket

Pedal

Arm

Bracket:

• High Level Innovation

• Considering new Designs

• Materials

• Structure

• Holes to attach to the car

• Durability

Pedal Arm:

• Medium Level Innovation

• Considering new Designs

• Materials

• Structure

• Durability



4 x 3 = 12

4 x 3 = 12

3.2 Create Sub-Systems Sets


12 ALTERNATIVES

12 ALTERNATIVES

12 x 12 = 144

Combinations

SBCE Pilot Project- Explore Subsystems Sets: Simulation

Bracket

Pedal Arm

Component Level

Sim

ula

tio

n

31

Each alternative for both Bracket and Pedal arm is simulated under certain loads.

B1 B2

B3 B4

PA1 PA2

PA3 PA4

WEAKER SOLUTIONS

RULED OUT

TRADE-OFF CURVES

OPPORTUNITY TO

CAPTURE KNOWLEDGE

• Cost/Weight

• Stress

• Factor of Safety

Pedal arm simulation results Bracket simulation results

3. Develop Concept Sets3.2 Explore Sub-Systems Sets: Prototype and Test


SBCE Pilot Project - Capture Knowledge and Evaluate – Trade-off curves

B1 B2

B3 B4

12 RESULTS PLOTTED

3 MATERIALS

Al 6061 Alloy

Glass Filled Nylon

Mg Alloy

B1+Mat 1= 1.1 B2+Mat 2= 2.2

Load simulation results - Stress

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

0 5 10 15

Min

Str

ess

1.1

1.21.32.12.22.3

3.13.23.3

4.14.24.3

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

0 5 10 15

Min

Str

ess

1.1

1.21.32.12.2

2.3

3.13.23.3

4.14.24.3

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

0 5 10 15

Min

Str

ess

1.1

1.2 1.3

2.1

2.22.3

3.1

3.23.3

4.1

4.24.3

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

0 5 10 15

Min

Str

ess

33


Bracket

Target

Max cost

material£2

Max weight 500 grams

Min FOS 2

Min stress 1e+003

1.1

2.1

3.1 4.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5

Fact

or

of

Safe

ty

Design concept

2.3

1.1

1.21.3

2.12.22.3

3.1

3.23.3

4.14.24.3

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

min

Str

ess

Design concept

A

B

ToCs for Stress

ToCs for Factor of Safety ToCs for Material Cost / Weight

Vo

n M

ises

Str

ess

(Nm

-2 )

Feasible Area

Feasible Area

Feasible Area

Agg

ress

ive

Nar

row

ing

Pro

cess

Example of ToCs for Bracket

C

3.2 Explore Sub-Systems Sets: Prototype and Test

34

12 ALTERNATIVES

12 ALTERNATIVES

12 x 12 = 144

Combinations

Explore Subsystems Sets: Simulation

Bracket

Pedal Arm

Component Level

Sim

ula

tio

n

2 ALTERNATIVES

3 ALTERNATIVES

2 x 3 = 6

Combinations

Component Level


SBCE Pilot Project – Seek conceptual Robustness

B1.3+PA2.3 B1.3+PA3.1

B2.1+PA2.3 B2.1+PA3.1

Example of some (4 out of 6) of the combinations

B1.3+PA2.3 B1.3+PA3.1

B2.1+PA2.3 B2.1+PA3.1

6 system simulation results 6 system designs

TRADE-OFF

CURVES

36

B2.1+PA2.1

B2.1+PA2.3

B2.1+PA3.1

BA2.3+PA2.1

B2.3+PA2.3

B2.3+PA3.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mat

eria

l co

st (

£)

Material weight (g)

B2.1+PA2.1

B2.1+PA2.3

B2.1+PA3.1

B2.3+PA2.1

B2.3+PA2.3

B2.3+PA3.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fact

or

of

safe

ty

Design

B2.1+PA2.1

B2.1+PA2.3

B2.1+PA3.1

B2.3+PA2.1B2.3+PA2.3

B2.3+PA3.1

9.20E+07

9.30E+07

9.40E+07

9.50E+07

9.60E+07

9.70E+07

9.80E+07

9.90E+07

1.00E+08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

von

Mis

es S

tres

s (N

m-2

)

Design

4. Converge on SystemA

B C

ToCs for Stress

ToCs for Factor of Safety ToCs for Material of Cost/Weight

System

Target

Max cost

material£ 3

Max weight 1100 grams

Min FOS 2

Max stress 1E+08

Agg

ress

ive

Nar

row

ing

Pro

cess

B2.3+PA2.3

4.1 Determine Intersections of Sets

37

12 ALTERNATIVES

12 ALTERNATIVES

12 x 12 = 144

Combinations

Explore Subsystems Sets: Simulation

Bracket

Pedal Arm

Component Level

Sim

ula

tio

n

2 ALTERNATIVES

3 ALTERNATIVES

2 x 3 = 6

Combinations

Component Level

Sim

ula

tio

n

System Level

3 ALTERNATIVES

Co

nve

rge

38

4. Converge on System

Using Trade-Off Curves only 3 combinations remaining. To evaluate these, Pugh Matrix is used. In it, the Key Value Attributes are evaluated to make the final selection.

This solution has been identified as the best

Key Value

Attributes

Loads of

importanc

e

B2.3+PA2.1 B2.3+PA2.3 B2.3+PA3.1

Safety 39% 3 4 1

Reliability 35% 2 3 1

Stiffness 26% 1 2 4

Weighted Total 2.13 3.13 1.78

Scale

4 The Best

3 Good

2 Moderate

1 The worst

A B

Final Combination = B2.3+PA2.3

Material:

1) B2.3 = Magnesium Alloy

2) PA2.3 = Magnesium Alloy

4.2 Converge on Final System

39

3. Risk

3.1. Improved probability of project success

3.2. Improved risk of failure

99.9% success rate; average of 122

successful designs

Risk of failure reduces from 25% to 0.0002%

1. Product Innovation1.1. Large increase in number of designs generated.

Product innovation increased from 1 to 144

possible design configurations

Category ImprovementsImprovement

Percentage

2.4. Material Cost

2.3. WeightWeight reduction by

85%

Cost of materials was reduced by 45%

2. Product Performance

2.2. Pedal Arm Stiffness

2.1. Bracket Stiffness

2.5 Reliability (Factor of Safety

Improved by 92%

Improved by 68%

Improved by 45%


• SBCE process model is applicable to any level of detail

1- Current PD process model is detailedat high level but does not cascade well tocomponent level

• SBCE changes this restrained environment to allow structured innovation

2- Current PD is restrained in terms ofinnovation

• SBCE relies on a knowledge environment, and uses tools such as Trade-Off Curves to capture

and re-use knowledge.

3- Knowledge capture shows greatopportunity for improvement

• SBCE eliminates inefficient redesigns with the convergent approach and discards concepts as

knowledge is gained.

4- Current PD model leads to inefficientredesign iterations

SBCE Pilot Project - Addressing Shortcomings

applying lean thinking practices in the chassis

Documents