design for six sigma and lean product development

8/13/2019 Design for Six Sigma and Lean Product Development

1/10

Design for Six Sigma and Lean Product Development- Differences, Similarities and Links -

Jean-Baptiste Fouquet, MSc

da !rem"r, P#$D$ %ssistant Professor

At&ualit" Sciences, '#almers (niversit", !)te*org, S+eden

*$fouquetgmail$com, ida$grem"rc#almers$se

.e"+ords/DFSS, Lean, LPD, Product Development, Six Sigma

'ategor"/ Conceptual Paper

ntroduction

This research began with the initiation of a general discussion between customers,suppliers and scholars concerning the way product development (PD) should be carried

b ffi i d h li b d i
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

t t b t ffi i t d h li b t d t t t ti

the small number of interviews does not permit a generali8ation of the findings, eventhough they give general view of the methodologies in the companies

The respondents were practitioners trained in, or "nowledgeable about themethodologies They received their "nowledge in training sessions or studies theymade some of them taught one of the methodologies They wor" in firms using themethodologies 3eneral 7lectric (37), 9olvo Aero, 9olvo :ar :orporation (9::) andiemens, which use D1 and cania, ;91,


3/10

is supposed to be able to turn its PD into customer satisfaction measurable factors(Tennant, %&&%) 3remyr (%&&2) defined it as follows

4Design for ix igma is a means of developing, or improving, products thatenables ix igma levels of performance in production, while focusing oncustomer satisfaction and robustness An outcome of Design for ix igma is thatthe product can be produced at predictable levels of costs and ris"s5

According to :ronemyr (%&&'), every company adapts D1 for its own needs,which ma"e its process different from one company to another Bne roadmap seems to

be common to some industries Define, $easure, Analy8e, Design and 9erify(D#$D%) 7ach step is a memofor the pro>ect team members a way tosplit PD intodifferent phasesand to "eep in mind the important phases of a development pro>ectThese phases enable a team tofocuson each separate step of the process, to reduce theris"s of going too fast during one phase, and to define deadlines for every team member(/arry # chroeder, %&&&)

D1 proposes a set of tools and techni&uesthat is fit to PD and that can be usedduring the different steps (:ronemyr, %&&') ome of them are ta"en from ix igma,

which facilitates the implementation of D1 in companies already using ix igmaCuality and customer re6uirements are the heart of the methodology;nnovation is controlledand needs to show its ro"ustnessfor customer satisfaction

(Tennant, %&&%) ;t seems to be reduced by administrative tas"s (eg chec"lists to befilled in etc) and every innovation has a level of robustness that must be attained that isfixed by customers expectations (Tennant, %&&%) D1 re6uires cross!functionalteams(:howdhury, %&&%), where interaction between people can bring innovation

D1 turns the process of PDfromdeterministic to pro"a"ilisticby giving to thePD h i i i l l D i f 7 i (: li


4/10

(?arlsson # @lhstrm, -..') /owever, both methodologies implementation ma"escompanies centre around the demand for "nowledge (/arry # chroeder, %&&&, !i"er# $organ, %&&') People need to want change and improvement and to learn by meansof the way they do thingsF otherwise, their application will not create value

Process and Communication

D1 and !PD emphasi8e group wor" to facilitate communication in PD teams(:howdhury, %&&%, !i"er # $organ, %&&') !PD does not use any standardi8ed

process whereas D1 uses standard roadmaps that guide pro>ect leaders, eg D$AD9(3remyr, %&&2, *omac" # +ones, -..') According to practitioners (9::, 37, 9olvoAero), this latter methodology has a slower process and increases administrative tas"s

in order to protect the PD process against unwanted variation (Tennant, %&&%) !PDseems to be used to improve the former PD process or to try to standardi8e the way ofdoing things in the company (*omac" # +ones, -..'), whereas D1 seems to ta"ethe place of the former way of doing things at some of the interviewed company (9::,37)

:ommunication is eased in both methodologies for different reasons reduction ofbatch si8es, process mapping etc, in the case of !PD (!i"er # $organ, %&&') andprocess mapping, stage gate models etc, in the case of D1 (:reveling, luts"y #Antis, %&&) There is also a difference between the si8e of the batches of informationin the two methodologies !PD seems to have as a principle to reduce those batches inorder to give greater flow to the process (einertsen, %&&2) while D1 re6uires forrobust and documented deliverables

1inally, practitioners and reports in the literature, such as !i"er # $organ (%&&'),:lausing (-..=), Tennant (%&&%), agree that putting more effort at the beginning of PDwill ma"e it faster and more efficient at the end, and both methodologies use this

i h i h fi i i " d di h


5/10

organi8ation, on showing the opportunities for modifying the organi8ation and ongiving deadlines to pro>ect wor"ers (defined eg during the process mapping,einertsen, %&&2) ects are held by pro>ect owners ;n D1,the pro>ect leader can be outside the belt hierarchy if a tiers process helps the team tofollow the methodology (eg at 9::) or if everyone before has received training in ixigma and D1, as is the case at 37 They are both demanding cross0functionalinteractions D1 gives a structure and a clear picture of the wor" approach throughits roadmap (eg D$AD9) whereas this vision can be bloc"ed with !PD(ools

There are no rules for tools to be used in the two methodologies D1 uses a stage

gate model in which tools "nown from the 6uality and robustness areas fit to PD(:reveling, luts"y # Antis, %&&, *ilson, %&&2 etc) /owever, eg 9:: gives thefreedom to pro>ect leaders to choose the tools they thin" the team needs !PD does notgive a toolbox, even though the same tools are used by most of the interviewed

practitioners because they answer to the needs of communication and visuali8ation ofthe pro>ects, eg process mapping The tools should also correspond to the teamdemands for continuous improvement (einertsen, %&&2)

'nnovation and Creativity

7ven though some authors (:howdhury, %&&%, Tennant, %&&% etc) and some of thepractitioners interviewed (eg at 9olvo Aero) argue that innovation tools fit thestructure of D1 and that innovation is only limited by the robustness and 6ualityre6uirements, it is possible to assume that innovation will depend on the company andthe way it uses D1 !PD integrates innovation depending on the company order inPD is good for innovation according to the !PD practitioners interviewed since it willcome from the interaction of specialists D1 has an innovation toolbox, with tools

li" T;H b i i i (: li l " # A i %&&) h


6/10

methodologies also seem to have results that are indirect conse6uences of theirapplication The first one is the commitment of team members Driven by a charismaticleader, by the vision they may have of the pro>ect or by the definition of their role inthe team with deliverables and deadlines, all the team members can feel theirresponsibilities (Tennant, %&&%, !i"er # $organ, %&&') ects according tothe definition of their roles The second result is a healthy pressure put on employees,who "now what needs to be done and when A pulse meeting can be held every wee"in !PD pro>ects, and deadlines for D1 pro>ects put the necessary pressure on theemployees, hopefully without being either inhibitory, or overwhelming

!astly, both methodologies increase the demand for "nowledge in the groups (!i"er# $organ, %&&', Tennant, %&&%) D1 helps 9:: teams to "now more about their

product, !PD helps cania, Autoliv and


7/10

methodology, in a PD pro>ect the >ustification for the importance of the methodologyin the area by means of identified factors is given to the side

Discussion and 'onclusions

This paper gives a comparison of D1 and !PD that attempts to highlight thedifferences, lin"s between and synergies of the two methodologies ;nput from

practitioners and from the literature gives a broad understanding of the methodologiesand an insight into the way in which they can be implemented 1inally, the study offersa comparison of the two methodologies, and a table that summari8es the findings Thecomparison and the descriptions of !PD and D1 allow some conclusions about their

diff li " d i

Figure 2 'omparison of t#e principles, t#e practices and t#e tools of DFSS

3 LPD

PRINCIPLES

PRACTICES

TOOLS

DFSS LPDRobustness

Customer satisfaction

Structured

Quality !y

!at

"o#

Flo# $roduct de%elo$ment

Product $ortfolio

Customer satisfaction en!ancement

Standardi&e by im$ro%in' #!at e(ist

Quality

)

Structure

Sta'e 'ate model

Statistic oriented

Reducin' un#anted %ariation

Continuous im$ro%ement

*isual mana'ement

Prioriti&ation

+a,in' errors a$$ear

Reduction of #aste

Customers and Su$$liers- in%ol%ement

.S

/ai&en

DFSS Toolbo(0 Robust Desi'n+et!odolo'y

F+EA

QFD

Pu'!

)

PRINCIPLES

PRACTICES

TOOLS

DFSS LPDRobustness

Customer satisfaction

Structured

Quality !y

!at

"o#

Flo# $roduct de%elo$ment

Product $ortfolio

Customer satisfaction en!ancement

Standardi&e by im$ro%in' #!at e(ist

Quality

)

Structure

Sta'e 'ate model

Statistic oriented

Reducin' un#anted %ariation

Continuous im$ro%ement

*isual mana'ement

Prioriti&ation

+a,in' errors a$$ear

Reduction of #aste

Customers and Su$$liers- in%ol%ement

.S

/ai&en

DFSS Toolbo(0 Robust Desi'n+et!odolo'y

F+EA

QFD

Pu'!

)


8/10

These findings have come from a limited number of interviews and reports in theliterature and can thus not be generali8ed till, the particular characteristics of onecompany can sometimes enlighten other companies ;n addition, the conclusions willhopefully give practitioners and scholars ideas about why they should or why theyshould not find a 4hybrid5 methodology that merges the strengths of D1 and !PD

4eferences


9/10

Orban, 3!, /auser, +,-..,Design and #areting of 4ew Product, Prentice /all,Gew +ersey*ilson, 3, %&&2,Six Sigma, and the Product Development Cycle, Bxford,Bxford*omac", +P, +ones, DT, oos, D, -..-, (he #achine that Changed the .orld,awson Associates, Gew Lor"


10/10

synergies DFSS LPD

Expected re sults Top class Q uality R obust design Fast flow

U nderstanding of customers R esults ifficult to perceive Q uality

Commitment of project team members Q uality V isual management pportunity to correct errors

! ealt"y pressure # nowledge about product $tandardi%e product development process

New technologies & eed to s"ow value added on product 'ndependent from new tec"nologies (daptation to needs of product development

R obustness of tec"nology once implemented ! ave to bring )nowledge For people not instead of people

'ncrease t"e )nowledge of companies

Customer focus* analysis* measurement

+ etailed documentation

R eduction of batc"es for better integration in t"e project 'ntegration of ne,t people wor)ing in t"e process & o "elp to wor) wit" suppliers -roject leader represent V oice of Customer

Customer visit. gemba / or)ing sessions wit" suppliers. part of t"e team

Tools Q uality tools $tage gate model & o toolbo,

Customer focus tools $tandardi%ed (dapted tools

T ools do not give solutions Q uality and robust tools 0 $

T ool bo,

Organization 1 atri, organi%ation wit"in R 2+ & eed for communication V isual communication

-ersonal tas)s* goals and dead lines )nown Clear process for everyone ne project one room

-roject owner + ead lines Flow

Concurrent engineering & o management tools +eliverables for everyone V isual 1 anagement

Cross3functional teams T eam leader more secured Cross functional teams

Cross3functional teams

$tage gate model

efforts at t"e beginning $tage gates model 4ased on t"e previous process

group wor) and brainstorming 'ncrease administrative wor) -arallel wor). concurrent engineering

-rocess mapping -rocess mapping and responsibilities V isual communication* visual processes

-roject c"art $tructured & o process defined

+ etailed batc"es of information $mall batc"es of information

Implementation 4ecoming a company promoting )nowledge C"ange in culture T a)es time. continuous improvement

Culture of c"ange 4rea)t"roug" $tandardi%ing little by little

(fter5$ame time5before $i, $ igma6 ! umility for everyone. ability to accept mista)es

'ntroduction of a new "ierarc"y

Strategy T op class 7uality company 'nnovation outside product development process 'nnovation inside product development process

T "oroug" study of competitors T "oroug" study of competitors + evelopment of -ortfolio t"an)s to 8ust 'n T ime

+ efinition of targeted customers + efinition of targeted customers + efinition of targeted customers

Philosphy -roduct development learned t"roug" improvment 1 et"odology driven 'mprovement driven

Q uality from t"e start -robabilisty 2 1 easurment

9eader implicated and capable* sometimes mostly

administrative

Process

!ommunication

"anagement

Teams

!ustomers Suppliers

T a)ing care of "armony of t"e project wit" t"e ot"er

departments

0a*le 2 'omparison of t#e met#ogologies

design for six sigma and lean product development

Documents