![]() A further refinement of the over-lapping areas of concurrency across product, process, and supply chain development appears in figure 9.3, which also highlights the imperative of concurrency. One can consider how architecture decisions are made through discussions within and across the product, process, and supply chain organizations. Rather, IPTs would concern themselves only with tasks where activities of two or all three functions overlap.įigure 9.2: Overlapping Responsibilities across Product, Process, and Supply Chain Development Activitiesįigure 9.2 attempts to capture visually many of the ideas of 3-DCE. That is, not all work must take place in integrated product teams. This diagram further illustrates that not all of the activities undertaken within any of the three functions need to be performed in conjunction with members of the other groups. Where the three ovals overlap we locate those activities that need to be undertaken concurrently, either bilaterally or collectively, among the three functions. Instead of such a radical solution, even as an antidote to it, I advocate leveraging one basic organizational methodology, variously referred to as concurrent engineering, the product development process design-build teams, or integrated product teams (IPTs), as the core of the implementation process for three-dimensional concurrent engineering.įigure 9.2 illustrates several interactions across product, process, and supply chain development activities. This news should come as a relief for the many who have re-engineered and have been re-engineered by managers who insist they must blow up their existing organizations in order to create necessary change. The good news is that the implementation of 3-DCE does not require radical surgery in organizational processes. In particular, once one recognizes the strategic nature of supply chain design, one feels almost compelled to integrate it with product and process development. Three-dimensional concurrent engineering (3-DCE) extends this concept from products and manufacturing to the concurrent design and development of capabilities chains. ![]() ![]() ![]() Managers realized that they could not achieve improved manufacturing performance solely, or even primarily, by concentrating on the factory rather, they had to focus on concurrently designing the product and the manufacturing process-that is, designing the product for manufacturability. A large portion of the learning came under the heading of concurrent engineering, or CE, or design for manufacturing, known as DFM (Nevins and Whitney 1989, Ulrich and Eppinger 1994, Fleischer and Liker 1997). By the early 1990s, many had achieved a huge breakthrough in their understanding of competitive advantage through manufacturing. Stimulated by the success of superior Japanese manufacturing methods, many Western manufacturers in the 1980s worked overtime to benchmark remarkable companies such as Toyota and Sony. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |