Notes

1. National Research Council, Toward a New Era in U.S. Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1986, p. 5.

2. S. Berger et al., “Toward a New Industrial America,” Scientific American, Vol. 20, No. 9, June 1989, pp. 39-47.

3. President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, Global Competition: The New Reality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), 1985; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), February 1990; and MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity, Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press), 1989.

4. Names other than product realization process are used for the process by which new and improved products are conceived, designed, produced, brought to market, and supported. The process includes determining customers' needs, translating those needs into engineering specifications, designing the product as well as its production and support processes, and operating those processes. Brief descriptions of this and other terms in this report appear in the Glossary, which begins on page 99.

5. The Profit Impact of Market Strategy data base, compiled by The Strategic Planning Institute of Cambridge, Mass., includes operating and quality data from approximately 3,000 business units in 450 companies for periods ranging from 2 to 10 years.

6. The PIMS Principles (New York: The Free Press), 1987.

7. J. R. Dixon and M. R. Duffey, “Quality Is Not Accidental—It Is Designed,” New York Times, June 26, 1988.

8. Adapted from Chapter 1 of J. L. Nevins and D. E. Whitney, eds., Concurrent Design of Products and Processes (New York: McGraw-Hill),



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage Notes 1. National Research Council, Toward a New Era in U.S. Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1986, p. 5. 2. S. Berger et al., “Toward a New Industrial America,” Scientific American, Vol. 20, No. 9, June 1989, pp. 39-47. 3. President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, Global Competition: The New Reality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), 1985; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), February 1990; and MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity, Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press), 1989. 4. Names other than product realization process are used for the process by which new and improved products are conceived, designed, produced, brought to market, and supported. The process includes determining customers' needs, translating those needs into engineering specifications, designing the product as well as its production and support processes, and operating those processes. Brief descriptions of this and other terms in this report appear in the Glossary, which begins on page 99. 5. The Profit Impact of Market Strategy data base, compiled by The Strategic Planning Institute of Cambridge, Mass., includes operating and quality data from approximately 3,000 business units in 450 companies for periods ranging from 2 to 10 years. 6. The PIMS Principles (New York: The Free Press), 1987. 7. J. R. Dixon and M. R. Duffey, “Quality Is Not Accidental—It Is Designed,” New York Times, June 26, 1988. 8. Adapted from Chapter 1 of J. L. Nevins and D. E. Whitney, eds., Concurrent Design of Products and Processes (New York: McGraw-Hill),

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage 1989. An earlier study giving similar results is reported in W. G. Downey, “Development Cost Estimating,” Report of the Steering Group for the Ministry of Aviation (HMSO, 1969). Reference from D. J. Leech and B. T. Turner, Engineering Design for Profit (New York: John Wiley), 1985. 9. K.B. Clark and T. Fujimoto, “Overlapping Problem Solving in Product Development,” K. Ferdows, ed., Managing International Manufacturing (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 1989. 10. In “Turning Ideas Into Products,” The Bridge, Volume 18, No. 1, Spring 1988, pp. 11-14, R. E. Gomory, a senior vice-president of IBM, states that IBM's “most effective foreign competition has been characterized by tight ties between manufacturing and development, an emphasis on quality, the rapid introduction of incremental improvements . . . of preexisting product, and a tremendous effort by those actually in the product cycle to be educated on the relevant technologies, on the competition's products and on what is going on in the world.” 11. The phrase “best engineering design practices” should be construed to mean the set of practices that is best for a particular company. Best practices will vary from firm to firm. 12. R.E. Gomory and R. W. Schmitt, Science, Vol. 240, May 27, 1988, pp. 1131-1204. 13. For example, R. S. Kaplan, “Management Accounting for Advanced Technological Environments,” Science, Vol. 25, August 25, 1989, pp. 819-823. 14. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), February 1990, Chapter 7. 15. See, for example, J. Hauser and D. Clausing, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988, pp 63-73; R. B. Chase and D. A. Garvin, “The Service Factory,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1988, pp. 61-69; and G. Stalk, “Time-The Next Source of Competitive Advantage,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1988, pp. 41-53. 16. As noted earlier, various other names are also used for the product realization process. 17. See appendix for material provided by Polaroid and Hewlett-Packard describing their product realization processes. 18. The interplay of the various factors that enter into this phase of definition are particularly well described in papers by D. Garvin. See, for example, D. A. Garvin, “What Does Product Quality Really Mean?,” Sloan Management Review 26, Fall 1984, p. 25. 19. The process of arriving at appropriate specifications is well described in J. Hauser and D. Clausing, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988, pp. 63-73.

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage 20. D.E. Whitney, “Manufacturing by Design,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1988, pp. 83-91. 21. Design practices used in this phase, which include designed experiments, Taguchi's robust design protocols, and specific programs such as Motorola's 6 sigma program, are described later in this chapter. 22. H. B. Bebb, “Quality Design Engineering: The Missing Link to U.S. Competitiveness, ” keynote address, National Science Foundation Engineering Design Conference, Amherst, Mass., June 1989. 23. Adapted from J. L. Nevins and D. E. Whitney, eds., Concurrent Design of Products and Processes (New York: McGraw-Hill), 1989, Chapter 8. 24. AT&T Bell Laboratories conducts research on product quality-cost models for semiconductor and printed wiring board design and fabrication processes. Research at Bell Labs yielded the Carter-Dishman theory that provides a guide to the economical application of VLSI, taking into account the many factors that enter into integrated circuit development and design. 25. J. Hauser and D. Clausing, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988, pp 63-73. 26. R.N. Foster, Innovation (New York: Summit Books), 1986. 27. See, for example, Manufacturing Studies Board, Toward a New Era in Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1986; R. S. Kaplan, Measures for Manufacturing Excellence, (Boston: Harvard Business School Press), 1990, and “Management Accounting for Advanced Technological Environments,” Science, August 25, 1989, p. 819 ff. 28. Sometimes called “quadratic-loss-function,” a somewhat inappropriate name since not all qlfs are quadratic and the utility is vastly broader than that for the quadratic case. 29. The conflicts that can arise because of differing quality definitions among the various functional organizations in a firm are discussed in D. A. Garvin, “What Does Product Quality Really Mean?,” Sloan Management Review 26, Fall 1984, p. 25. 30. M.J. Harry, “The Nature of Six Sigma Quality,” Government Electronics Group, Motorola, Inc. 31. Recent references on current DFM and DFA techniques are K.G. Swift, Knowledge-Based Design for Manufacture (London: Kogan Page), 1987; M. M. Andraesen, S. Kahler, T. Lund, with K. Swift, Design for Assembly, 2nd edition, (United Kingdom: IFS Publications), 1988. 32. S. Miyawaka and T. Ohashi, “The Hitachi Assemblability Evaluation Method” (now the Hitachi Producibility Method), Proceedings 1st International Conference on Product Design for Assembly, Newport, R.I., April 1986; G. Boothroyd and P. Dewhurst, Product Design for Assembly Handbook (Wakefield, R.I.: Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc.), 1987. 33. D. E. Whitney, “Manufacturing by Design,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1988, pp. 83-91; J. L. Nevins and D. E. Whitney, eds.,

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage Concurrent Design of Products and Processes (New York: McGraw-Hill), 1989. 34. W.J. Sheehan et al., “The Application of State-of-the-Market CIM to GE's Electrical Distribution and Control Business,” Electro 88 Conference Record, 1988. 35. G.T. Rehfeldt, “The Return of Competitiveness in American Manufacturing Companies —Lessons Learned,” SRI Meeting on the Strategic Management of Technology, San Francisco, Calif., January 26, 1988. 36. There are several statements of the Principle of Robust Design. M. S. Phadke states it as, “Minimize the effect of the cause of variation without controlling the cause itself.” J. G. Elliott says, “Americans remove the cause of the effect. Japanese remove the effect of the cause.” 37. As described in D. M. Byrne and S. Taguchi, “The Taguchi Approach to Parameter Design”, Proceedings of the 1986 ASQC Quality Congress Transaction, 1986. 38. A good exposition and examples of the technique are provided in M. S. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall), 1989. 39. There are many books and references on SPICE in its various versions, such as P. Tuinenga, SPICE: A Guide to Circuit Simulation and Analysis, P-SPICE (New York: Prentice-Hall), 1988. A good survey paper containing a historic account of the development of SPICE in its several forms is contained in a paper by A. Vladimierescu, Proceedings of the Bipolar Circuits and Technology Meeting, September 1990. 40. G. Hahn and C. Morgan, “Design Experiments with Your Computer,” Chemtech, November 1988. The American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, Michigan, provides PC-based software that helps in the design and guides the execution and analysis of design experiments using Taguchi's techniques. Texas Instruments has announced a PC-based expert system that will make it possible for the user to conduct experiments of this type with no additional training. 41. R.A. Fisher, Design of Experiments (New York: Hafner Publishing Co.), 1951. 42. See G. E. P. Box, J. S. Hunter, and W. G. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 1978; and D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 1984. 43. M. S. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, describes these techniques and provides examples; J. G. Elliott, Statistical Methods and Applications, is a Taguchi “cookbook” that describes how to apply this method using examples from the automobile industry; Taguchi's contributions and the relationship between Taguchi's methods and traditional design of experiments are described clearly in G. E. P. Box and S. Bisgaard, The

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage Scientific Context of Quality Improvement (Madison, Wisc.: Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin), 1987. 44. Personal communication from Dr. J. Spira, president, Lutron Electronics Co. Inc., Coopersburg, Pa. 45. M. Patterson, Director of Corporate Engineering at Hewlett-Packard, believes that he can identify people with innate abilities for design by “their patterns of analogic thought.” 46. E. B. Wilson, An Introduction to Scientific Research (New York: McGraw-Hill), 1952. 47. G. Polya, How To Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press), 1957; and Patterns of Plausible Inference (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press), 1954. 48. H. Petroski, To Engineer Is Human—The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: St. Martin's Press), 1982. 49. National Research Council, Panel on Continuing Education of the Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States: Continuing Education of Engineers (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1985. 50. There is direct evidence of this effect in universities that have hired recent graduates whose research was supported by the NSF Design Theory and Methodology Program. 51. National Research Council, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States, Foundations of Our Techno-Economic Future (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1985, pp. 61-63. 52. Among others, National Research Council, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States, Foundations of Our Techno-Economic Future, 1985; ABET, “Engineering Education Answers the Challenge of the Future,” Proceedings of the National Congress on Engineering Education, 1986; ASEE, A National Action Agenda for Engineering Education, 1987; National Science Foundation, Report of the Workshop on Engineering Design, May 25-26, 1988; A. D. Kerr and R. B. Pipes, “Why We Need Hands-on Engineering Education,” Technology Review, October 1987. 53. The latter ability sometimes stands out because many older engineers are not proficient with computers. 54. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., Annual Report, 1989. 55. National Academy of Engineering, Focus on the Future: A National Action Plan for Career-Long Education for Engineers, Report of the Committee on Career-Long Education for Engineers (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1988; National Research Council, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States: Continuing Education of Engineers (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1985.

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage 56. In Germany, one must have several years industrial experience before being admitted to an engineering faculty. 57. The best known of these is G. Pahl and W. Beitz, Engineering Design, The Design Council (London: Springer-Verlag), 1984. 58. IGES stands for International Graphics Exchange Standard; PDES stands for Product Data Exchange Specification. 59. This was one of the recommendations of the National Science Foundation 's 1988 Workshop on Engineering Design. 60. For comparison, the practice of medicine today is based not only on heuristics, but also upon a great deal of basic research in the fields of physiology, biology, physics, and pharmacology. As a result, medical practice today is far superior to late nineteenth century practice, which was based on an evolving collection of unscientific heuristics (some of which worked, or appeared to work sometimes). Closer to current engineering practice, the basic research effort in materials over the past three decades has produced a number of general principles and resulted in striking advances in practical new materials, new industries, and a cadre of highly productive materials engineers and scientists. 61. D. G. Jansson and S. M. Smith, “Design Fixation,” Preprints of the 1989 NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, Amherst, Mass., June 1989. 62. Further categorization based on size, complexity, technical level, and other factors is also possible. 63. One methodology well known and well established for certain parametric design problems is optimization. Another body of knowledge useful in parametric design is statistical design of experiments (Taguchi makes application of these methods). Other knowledge-based approaches to parametric design of components, often implemented in computer programs, have also been developed. These are further referenced and discussed in Chapter 2 . 64. For example, because there are formal means such as optimization and statistics, it can be said that there almost exists at present a theory of parametric design of components. This cannot yet be said for the other design problem categories identified above. 65. E. C. Libardi, J. R. Dixon, and M. K. Simmons, “Computer Environment for the Design of Mechanical Assemblies: A Research Review,” Engineering with Computers, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1988, pp. 121-136. 66. J. J. Shah and P. R. Wilson, “Analysis of Knowledge Abstraction, Representation and Interaction Requirements for Computer-Aided Engineering,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Com puters in Engineering Conference and Exhibition (San Francisco, Calif.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), July 31-August 3, 1988, pp. 17-24.

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage 67. A. A. G. Requicha and H. B. Voelcker, “Solid Modeling: A Historical Summary and Contemporary Assessment, ” IEEE, Computer Graphics & Applications, March 1982, pp. 9-24. 68. J. R. Dixon, J. J. Cunningham, and M. K. Simmons, “Research in Designing with Features,” IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelligent CAD Systems, D. Gossard, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: IFIP), 1987. 69. M. R. Cutkosky and J. M. Tenenbaum, “CAD/CAM Integration Through Concurrent Process and Product Design, ” Intelligent and Integrated Manufacturing Analysis and Synthesis (New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), 1987, pp. 1-10; J. R. Dixon, “Designing with Features: Building Manufacturing Knowledge into More Intelligent CAD Systems,” Proceedings of ASME Manufacturing International-88 (Atlanta, Ga.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), April 17-20, 1988. 70. D. G. Ullman and T. A. Dietterich, “Mechanical Design Methodology,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition (New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), 1988, pp. 173-180. 71. J. R. Dixon, M. R. Duffey, R. K. Irani, K. L. Meunier, and M. F. Orelup, “A Proposed Taxonomy of Mechanical Design Problems,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition (San Francisco, Calif.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), July 31-August 3, 1988, pp. 41-46; D. G. Ullman, “A Taxonomy of the Mechanical Design Process,” personal communication, Oregon State University, 1981. 72. M. L. Maher, “HI-RISE and Beyond: Directions for Expert Systems in Design,” Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 17, 1985, pp. 420-427; J. J. Shah and L. Pandit, “Dezinev—An Expert System for Conceptual Form Design of Structural Parts,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition (Chicago, Ill.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), 1986, pp. 17-24; H. Zarefar, T. J. Lawley, and F. Etesami, “PAGES: A Parallel Axis Gear Drive Expert System,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition (New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), 1986, pp. 145-149. 73. P. Y. Papalambros and D. J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press), 1988. 74. K. Meunier and J. R. Dixon, “Iterative Respecification: A Computational Model for Hierarchical Mechanical System Design,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engi neering Conference and Exhibition (San Francisco, Calif.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), July 31-August 3, 1988, pp. 25-32. 75. G. Taguchi, System of Experimental Design, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (White Plains, N.Y.: UNIPUB/Kraus International Publications, and Dearborn, Mich.: American Supplier Institute, Inc.), 1987.

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage 76. K. W. Chase, “Design Issues in Mechanical Tolerance Analysis,” Manufacturing Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1988, pp. 50-59. 77. M.S. Shephard and M. A. Yerry, “Approaching the Automatic Generation of Finite Element Meshes,” Computers in Mechanical Engineering, April 1983, pp. 49-56; A. M. Agogino and A. S. Almgren, “Symbolic Computation in Computer-Aided Optimal Design,” Expert Systems in Computer-Aided Design, J. S. Gero, ed. (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 1987, pp. 267-284; K. L. Wood and E. K. Antonsson, “Computations with Imprecise Parameters in Engineering Design: Background and Theory,” Engineering Design Research Laboratory Report 88-01, California Institute of Technology, February 1988. 78. W. Birmingham, A. Gupta, and D. P. Siewiorek, “The Micon System for Computer Design,” IEEE Micro, October 1989, pp 61-67. 79. For good descriptions of variant process systems, see M. Inui and F. Kimura, “Representation and Manipulation of Design and Manufacturing Processes by Data Dependency,” Intelligent CAD II: Proceedings of the IFIP TC 5/WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelligent CAD. H. Yoshikawa and T. Holden, eds. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.), 1990; F. Kimura and H. Suziki, “A CAD System for Efficient Product Design Based on Design Intent,” Department of Precision Machinery Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 38, No. 1, 1989, pp. 149-152; M. Inui, H. Suzuki, F. Kimura, and T. Sata, “Extending Process Planning Capabilities with Dynamic Manipulation of Product Models,” Department of Precision Machinery Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 1987. 80. M. Cutkosky, J. Tenenbaum, and D. Muller, “Features in Process-Based Design,” Computers in Engineering: Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition (San Francisco, Calif.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers), July 31-August 3, 1988, pp. 557-562. 81. D. E. Whitney, J. L. Nevins, T. L. DeFazio, R. E. Gustavson, R. W. Metzinger, J. M. Rourke, and D. S. Seltzer, “The Strategic Approach to Product Design,” Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), 1988, pp. 200-223. 82. G. Boothroyd, C. Poli, and L. March, “Handbook of Feeding and Orienting Techniques for Small Parts,” Technical Report, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts, 1978; G. Boothroyd and P. Dewhurst, “Design for Assembly—A Designer's Handbook,” Technical Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, 1983. 83. C. Poli, J. Escudero, and R. Fernandez, “How Part Design Affects Injection Molding Tool Costs,” Machine Design, November 24, 1988. 84. D. Clausing and J. R. Hauser, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988, pp. 63-73. 85. R.S. Kaplan, “One Cost System Isn't Enough,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988; and R. S. Kaplan, “Managerial Accounting for Advanced

OCR for page 94
IMPROVING ENGINEERING DESIGN: Designing for Competitive Advantage Technological Environments,” Science, Vol. 245, August 25, 1989, pp. 819-833. 86. D. Clausing and J. R. Hauser, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1988, pp. 63-73. 87. T. J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press), 1977. 88. Two recent examples are the design for assembly work of Professor Boothroyd and the solid modeling foundations laid by Professors Voelcker and Requicha. In the former, university research identified the crucial geometric abstractions needed to predict handling and assembly costs, and these were then translated into specific design support tools. In the latter, the formal mathematical foundations for representations of solid objects were developed, and these were used as the basis not only for early versions of PADL, a pioneering solid modeler, but also for much of the solid modeling capability that has evolved since. 89. For example, a number of recent graduates whose research was supported by the NSF Design Theory and Methodology Program have gone to work in design-related positions with forefront firms and educational institutions. 90. This is the only established route to date. The category of design-oriented companies includes ComputerVision, Parametric Engineering, ICAD, Intellicorp, and Carnegie Group. 91. In other major competitive nations (e.g., Japan and Germany), mechanisms for performing and sharing such applied research are well established. The Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany are examples. 92. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), February 1990, pp 73-74. 93. Some of these are discussed in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), February 1990, pp 202-211.