Interfaces between technology development, product development and production: critical factors and a conceptual model

Abstract

In order to avoid misfits between technology and product concepts and prevent problems related to the fit of the product design and the production process, the interfaces between technology development, product development and production must be managed. In this paper the critical challenges related to these interfaces are analysed and discussed and a tentative model is formulated. The study builds on in-depth case studies of ten product development projects at five manufacturing firms, two workshops and a questionnaire. Results indicate that in the technology development/product development interface factors related to the synchronization (i.e. timing) and transfer management are ranked as most important. For the product development/production interface factors related to transfer management seem to be most important. The tentative interface management model includes a risk assessment of six contextual factors; the complexity and degree of change in the product, the complexity and degree of change in the production process, the degree of technological novelty, the geographical and organizational dispersion between technology development and product development, the organizational and geographical dispersion between product development and production and the market uncertainty in the project, and appropriate recommendations are devised to handle the specific risks related to these factors.

Lärande samspel för effektivitet: En studie av arbetsgrupper i ett mindre industriföretag

“…Närmare beskrivning av processen finns i kapitel 4. effektivitet som visat sig inom industrin är kommunikationen i olika gränssnitt (Säfsten, Johansson, Lakemond, & Magnusson, 2010). I synnerhet avses då gränssnitten mellan marknad och produktion (Shapiro, 1977) och mellan konstruktion och produktion (Lakemond, Johansson, Magnusson, & Säfsten, 2007). Kunskapsutbyte i dessa gränssnitt och mellan de olika funktionerna i ett företag är nödvändigt för att få ett effektivt flöde i hela produktframtagningsprocessen 2 (Bellgran & Säfsten, 2009).…”

Software Process Improvement in Inter-departmental Development of Software-Intensive Automotive Systems – A Case Study

“…In requirements engineering, Curtis et al [5] found that requirements communication is a crucial part in enabling stable requirements and a correct understanding of them, but that for large software systems development organizational boundaries impede the communication. Active involvement of Man in early phases of the development has in previous work been identified as one of the most critical factors for achieving flawless launches as well as cost efficient and quality assured production [4,[7][8][9][10][11]19]. For example, Daetz [7] shows that 75% of the production costs are determined early in the development of products.…”

“…For example, Daetz [7] shows that 75% of the production costs are determined early in the development of products. Earlier field studies on the PD/Man interface point out the importance of establishing clear roles and responsibilities, which become more critical in later development phases [18,19].…”

“…Empathy means that the product developers consider manufacturing aspects during the design stage through building a better understanding of each other's work in the different development stages. Similarly, Nihtilä [4] and Lakemond et al [19] emphasize the need for formalization and empathy and observed that such as early and active Man involvement, balanced recruitment between PD and Man, and continuous communication are critical factors in the PD/Man interface. An interesting conclusion in [4] is that due to the increased amount of software in products, there is emerging need for integrating software development operations to the project as a whole, indicating an important direction in future research.…”

Introducing Design Descriptions on Different Levels of Concretisation in a Platform Definition

“…In past research a large emphasis has been put on splitting TD from product development (PD) since they differ in prerequisites, technical maturity, time horizon, need for competence, process repeatability, completion point and deliverables [1]. It follows that by separating TD from PD one can reduce risk in PD projects [2].For a sub-supplier developing and manufacturing engineer-to-order (ETO) products, this becomes even more challenging due to the uncertainty regarding future customer requirements and needs. The challenge lies in conducting long term TD, developing the "right" technology for a future market that is ready to be introduced in a product when the time comes.…”