by
play

By : Sherry Cheria 2510100009 Supervisor : Putu Dana Karningsih, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 16, 2022 •514 likes •1.06k views

By : Sherry Cheria 2510100009 Supervisor : Putu Dana Karningsih, S.T., M.Eng.Sc., Ph.D Introduction Literature Review Methodology Modified RACE Model for PT.X CE Readiness Analysis Conclusion & Suggestion 2 Rapid Innovation in

  1. By : Sherry Cheria – 2510100009 Supervisor : Putu Dana Karningsih, S.T., M.Eng.Sc., Ph.D

  2. Introduction Literature Review Methodology Modified RACE Model for PT.X CE Readiness Analysis Conclusion & Suggestion 2

  3. Rapid Innovation in Product Development Produce the right product in the right time and the right cost? Rapid Innovation appears in enegy sector industry such as batteries 3

  4. 90000000 80000000 70000000 60000000 50000000 40000000 30000000 20000000 10000000 0 Passenger Car Bus Truck Motorcycle Numbers of Vehicles in Indonesia Since 1987 until 2011 (Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia, 2013) 4

  5. 5

  6. TRADITIONAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 INTEGRATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1 1. Development Planning 2. Concept Development Concurrent Development Vs. Traditonal 3. Concept Evaluation 2/3 4. Preliminary Design (International Council on Systems Engineering, 1998) 5. Design Evaluation 3/4/5/6 6. Detailed Design 7. Pre-Production Engineering 5/8 8. Production Prototyping 9. Production, Test, Ship 7/9 6

  7. Concurrent Engineering Benefits Prasad (1996) ; Abdalla (1999) Shorter Time-To-Market Improved communication Improved production quality Reduced design changes Better management Reduced development cost Increased profit Information Technology Process Collaboration Elements of Concurrent Engineering According to Salomone (1995) Concurrent Engineeering 7

  8. 2. Assessement 3. Create the Culture 1. Develop a Strategy Marketing 4. Prioritize Engineering IDEA Product Improvements Production 7. Support Implementation A generic Framework for Implementing CE 5. Plan the Change Pawar, Driva, Thoben, 6. Implement Oehlamann, & Weber Improved Situation (1996) 8

  9. Difficulities in Concurrent Engineering Implementation Haug (1993) ; Maddux & Souder (1993) ; Medhat (1997) ; Abdalla (1999) Lack of in-house experties Lack of management Lack of training and experienced support No conducive corporate Non-conducive organization Lack of documented and culture structure formalized policy Lack of customer and Lack of communication Treating as a passing fad supplier involvement Inadequate reward system Lack of IT tools 9

  10. 10

  11. PROJECT TEAM Contain no more than 10 members Members choose to serve on the team Members serve from the beginning to the end of the project Members participate on the team leader, and the leader reports to general management Key functions – at least marketing, engineering, and manufacturing – are included on the team Members are co-located within conversational distance of each other An Effective Concurrent Engineering Team – Cleland (1998) 11

  12. PROJECT TEAM Management Functional Organization Dept A Dept B Dept C Structure – Cleland (1998) Management Dept A Dept B Dept C Stand-Alone or Virtual Organization Structure – Cleland (1998) Project 12

  13. 13

  14. 14

  15. 15

  16. Research Author Method Research Goals Results Object Develop CE implementation plans, Readiness Assessment for Readiness facilitate a shared understanding of the Computer-based tool for readiness H.M. Karandikar, et al. (1993) Concurrent Engineering Assessment product, enable effective process assessment (RACE) Model management, and support process improvement usng metrics. By implementing CE principles Readiness Assessment for To be ready for Inter-Organizational internally could not solve all Robert de Graaf, et al. (1996) Concurrent Engineering PCB Concurrent Engineering by using RACE associated bottlenecks because (RACE) model in X-Circuit development. customers need to be involved. Benchmarking and Readiness Assessment for Concurrent To assess construction industry in In UK’s contractors has already Construction Khalfan (2001) Engineering Implementation in concurrent engineering implementation been ready to implement Industry Constructin (BEACON) through its readiness level. concurrent engineering Model Surabaya’s contractors has been To assess the readiness level of Surabaya’s ready to implement CE even Marben & Hadinata (2011) BEACON Model Surabaya’s contractors in implementing Contractors though it is still below England’s CE. contractor’s readiness level. Determining current condition of PT. X This method hopefully will help Secondary based on the modified RACE model and PT.X to discover the readiness Sherry Cheria (2013) Modified RACE Model Battery (VRLA Formulating proper strategic plan for PT. level for CE and improved the Battery) X improvement readiness level to readiness level to implement CE. implement Concurrent Engineering. 16

  17. Start Problem Identification & Formulation Problem Identification and Formulation Phase Research Goals Defining Literature Review : Existing Condition Observation -Concurrent Engineering -Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering (RACE) -BEACON Model -Secondary Battery A 17

  18. A Assess Readiness Level Preparation Modified RACE Model for Data Collection PT.X Establish Project CE Team CE ReadinessMeasurement Stage Modified RACE Questionnaire Readiness Level Measurement 18 B

  19. Start Problem Identification & Formulation Problem Identification and Formulation Phase Research Goals Defining Literature Review : Existing Condition Observation -Concurrent Engineering -Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering (RACE) -BEACON Model -Secondary Battery A 19

  20. Example of Readiness Assessment Results Karandikar, Fotta, Lawson, & Wood (1993) RACE ELEMENTS LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS Characterized by ill-defined procedures and controls and by Chaotic teams that do not Level 1 Ad-hoc understand their assignments nor how to operate effectively Standard methods and practices are used for Level 2 Repeatable monitoring progress, requirements change, cost estimation, etc. Process Part Characterized The process is well characterized and reasonably Level 3 Assessment Level well understood The process is not only characterizd and Assesment Level Characteristic in RACE Elements Level 4 Managed understood but is also quantified, measured, and Karandikar & Wood (1992) reasonably well controlled A high degree of control is used over the process, and there is a major focus on significantly and Level 5 Optimizing continually improving operations by using process metrics and lessons learned Level 1 Basic - Technology Part Level 2 Intermediate - Assessment Level 20 Level 3 Advance -

  21. 7 Basic Steps in RACE Model – De Graaf & Kornelius (1996) Interview management to establish business driver Study corporate documents Interview engineering related employees to identify bottlenecks Guide a group session Apply a questionnaire Interview management for the desired state Linking business drivers, desired state in the model, and remedial initiatives in a double matrix 21

  22. Developed by M.A. Khalfan in 2000 Management Task Support Systems Process Focus Integration Support TECHNOLOGY PROCESS ELEMENT ELEMENT Information Sharing Organizational Framework Coordination Strategy Support Deployment Communication Agility Support ADHOC Teams in Organization REPEATABLE Customer Focus CHARACTERIZED Discipline BEACON Model Mapping MANAGED Quality Assurance (Khalfan, 2001) PROJECT PEOPLE ELEMENT ELEMENT Team Leadership OPTIMIZING and Management Product Design Team Formation 22 and Development

  23. START A MKT PS PREPARE ENGINEERING ACCEPT CUSTOMER PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS PL MKT FEASIBILITY REVIEW NEW PRODUCT ? PL YES TIMELY REVIEW PD CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS NO ANALYSIS PL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT MKT TEAM INFORM THE CUSTOMER NO OK ? PPAP YES PD & FD TEAM PROJECT LEADER ELECTION START MASS PRODUCTION PL SCOPE DEFINING FINISH PL PTQP DRAFT MAKING Explanation: PL MKT – Marketing PD – President Director KICK OFF MEETING FD – Factory Director PL PL – Project Leader PS – Production Support PQTP REVIEW Advance Product Quality Planning (APQP) 23 Procedure (PT. X, 2008) A

  24. • Existing Organization Chart in Appendix 1 • Consisted of : Marketing Dept , Quality Dept, Product Support Dept, Production Dept. • Suggested CE Team : Product & Finance Marketing Process Design Production PPC Purchasing Quality Assurance 24

  25. • Questionnaire’s Verification: 1. Element’s Questions Modification 2. Critical Elements Comparison 3. Expert Judgment 25

  26. 1. Element’s Questions Modification BEACON Model Modified RACE Model Project Development Process (PDP) Product Development Process (PDP) Project Development Team (PDT) Product Development Team (PDT) Organizational Policy Company Policy Facility Design Product Design Client Customer 26

  27. 2. Critical Elements Comparison – 14 Critical Elements in RACE Model – 17 Critical Elements in BEACON Model : • Product Design • Strategy Deployment • Organizational Framework 27

Recommend

More recommend