- Band, W. 1995. Customer-accelerated change. Marketing Management, Winter: 19-33.Google Scholar
- Best, R.J. 2000. Market-Based Management: Strategies for Growing Customer Value and Profitability. 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Bonnet, D. 1986. Nature of the R&D/marketing cooperation in the design of technology advanced new industrial products. R&D Management,16: 121-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Burgelman, R.A., C.M. Christensen and S.C. Wheelwright. 2003. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Calantone, R.J., R. Garcia and C. Dröge. 2003. The Effects of Environmental Turbulence on New Product Development Strategy Planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20 (2): 90-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clark ,K. and T. Fujimoto. 1991. New Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R.G. 1993. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R.G. 1995. Developing new products on time. Research and Technology Management, 38 (5): 49-57Google Scholar
- Cooper, R.G. 2001. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. 3rd edn. New York: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R.G. 2005. Product Leadership. Pathways to Profitable Innovation. 2nd edn. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R.G., S.J. Edgett and E.J. Kleinschmidt. 2002. Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best Practices Companies Are Doing – Part I. Research Technology Management, 45 (5): 21-27.Google Scholar
- Crawford, C.M. 1992. The hidden costs of accelerated product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9 (3):188-199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Daneels, E. and E.J. Kleinschmidt. 2001. Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: Its dimensions and their impact on project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18 (6): 357-373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dröge, C., R. Calantone and N. Harmancioglu. 2008. New Product Success: Is It Really Controllable by Managers in Highly Turbulent Environments? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (3): 272-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Khan, K.B. 2004. The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. Product Development & Management Association. 2nd. edn. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Lawley, B. 2007. Expert Product Management: Advanced Techniques, Tips and Strategies for Product Management & Product Marketing. Silicon Valley: Happy About.Google Scholar
- Maidique, M.A. and B.J. Zirger. 1984. A study of success and failure in product innovation: the case of the U.S. electronics Industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 31: 192-203.Google Scholar
- Meyer, M.H. and A.P. Lehnerd. 1997. The Power of Product Platforms. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and T.M. O´Driscoll. 2000. From experience: applying performance support technology in the fuzzy front end. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17: 143-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rothwell, R. and P. Gardiner. 1988. Re-innovation and robust designs: producer and user benefits. Journal of Marketing Management, 3 (3): 372-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rothwell, R., C. Freeman and A. Horseley, V. Jervis, A.B. Robertson and J. Townsend. 1974. SAPPHO updated – Project SAPPHO Phase II. Research Policy, 3: 258-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shank, J. and V. Govindarajan. 1988. The perils of cost allocation based on production volumes. Accounting Horizons, 4: 71-79.Google Scholar
- Tucker, R. 2008. Driving Growth Through Innovation: How Leading Firms Are Transforming Their Futures (Business). 2nd rev. edn. New York: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
- Ulrich, K.T. and S.D. Eppinger. 2007. Product Design and Development. 4th rev. edn. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
- Wonglimpiyarat, J. 2004. The Use of Strategies in Managing Technological Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7 (3): 229-250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zirger, B. and J. Hartley. 1996. The effect of acceleration techniques on product development time. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43 (2): 143-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jo, H.H. Parsei, H.R. and Sullivan, W.G. “Principles of concurrent engineering” in H.R. Parsei & W.G. Sullivan (ed), Concurrent Engineering: Contemporary Issues and Modern Design Tools (Chapman & Hall, London), pp 3–23, 1993.Google Scholar
- Bennett, G.R. “Virtual reality simulation bridges the gap between manufacturing and design”, Mechanical Incorporated Engineer, April/May, pp43–46, 1995.Google Scholar
- Bennett, G.R. “The role of virtual prototyping and engineering data management in improving product development”, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Concurrent Engineering & Electronic Design Automation (CEEDA‘96), 18–19 Jan, Poole, Dorset, pp 193–199, 1996.Google Scholar
- Case, K. And Gao, J. “Feature technology — an overview”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacture, Vol. 6, No.1&2, pp 2–12, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Roberts, A.F. “Solid modelling trends and new directions”. Proceedings of AUTOFACT’91, Nov.10-114, Chicago, Illinois, pp 1–7, 1991.Google Scholar
- Hammer, H. and Champy, J. “Re-Engineering the corporation”, (Harper Business, New York), 1993.Google Scholar
- Allada, V. and Anand, S. “Feature-based modelling approaches for integrated manufacturing: state-of-the-art survey and future research directions”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.8, No.6, pp 411–440, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
![Concurrent Product Development Concurrent Product Development](/uploads/1/2/3/7/123761149/867858131.png)
How Toyota’s product design and development process helps find the best solutions and develop successful products.
advertisement
Toyota Motor Corporation is an industry leader in product development lead time while using fewer engineers than its U.S. competitors. It has also shown remarkable consistency in market share growth and profit per vehicle, which led to cash reserves of $21 billion, exceeding those of the “Big Three” automakers combined.1 The Toyota Production System (TPS), dubbed “lean manufacturing,” has been critical in these accomplishments,2 but we believe that Toyota’s product design and development system is also an important contributor.3
While Taiichi Ohno and others have meticulously described the TPS, the Toyota development system has not been well documented.4 Indeed, Toyota does not use many of the practices often considered critical to successful concurrent engineering and associated with Japanese manufacturers. Its development teams are not colocated. Personnel, with the exception of the chief engineer and his staff, are not dedicated to one vehicle program. Cross-functional job rotation is unusual for the first ten to twenty years of an engineer’s career. Engineering and test functions rarely use quality function deployment (QFD) and Taguchi methods. Toyota excels at value engineering (VE) and value analysis (VA), yet Toyota engineers say they do not use any of the text-book tools and matrices for VE or VA. And there is nothing remarkable about Toyota’s CAD or CAE systems. These practices, then, do not explain Toyota’s effectiveness in developing new vehicles.
In a previous article, we called Toyota’s product development system the “second Toyota paradox.”5 TPS was the first; its features seem wasteful but result in a more efficient overall system, such as changing over manufacturing processes more frequently (presumably inefficient) in order to create short manufacturing lead times. The second paradox can be summarized in this way: Toyota considers a broader range of possible designs and delays certain decisions longer than other automotive companies do, yet has what may be the fastest and most efficient vehicle development cycles in the industry.
Traditional design practice, whether concurrent or not, tends to quickly converge on a solution, a point in the solution space, and then modify that solution until it meets the design objectives. This seems an effective approach unless one picks the wrong starting point; subsequent iterations to refine that solution can be very time consuming and lead to a suboptimal design.
Read the Full Article:
Sign in, buy as a PDF or create an account. Karate kid part 4.
Concurrent Product Development Llc
Already a member? Sign In
Not a member? Sign Up Today!
Application Notes Glasswire elite cracked.
General Knowledge
Subject: What is the difference between concurrent engineering and sequnetial engineering
Sequential engineering is the term used to describe the method of production in a linear format. The different steps are done one after another, with all attention and resources focused on that one task. After it is completed it is left alone and everything is concentrated on the next task.
In concurrent engineering, different tasks are tackled at the same time, and not necessarily in the usual order. This means that info found out later in the process can be added to earlier parts, improving them, and also saving a lot of time.
In concurrent engineering, different tasks are tackled at the same time, and not necessarily in the usual order. This means that info found out later in the process can be added to earlier parts, improving them, and also saving a lot of time.
Concurrent New Product Development
Concurrent engineering is a method by which several teams within an organization work simultaneously to develop new products and services and allows a more stream lined approach.
The concurrent engineering is a non-linear product or project design approach during which all phases of manufacturing operate at the same time - simultaneously. Free maze runner full movie. Both product and process design run in parallel and occur in the same time frame.
Product and process are closely coordinated to achieve optimal matching of requirements for effective cost, quality, and delivery. Decision making involves full team participation and involvement. The team often consists of product design engineers, manufacturing engineers, marketing personnel, purchasing, finance, and suppliers.
The concurrent engineering is a non-linear product or project design approach during which all phases of manufacturing operate at the same time - simultaneously. Free maze runner full movie. Both product and process design run in parallel and occur in the same time frame.
Product and process are closely coordinated to achieve optimal matching of requirements for effective cost, quality, and delivery. Decision making involves full team participation and involvement. The team often consists of product design engineers, manufacturing engineers, marketing personnel, purchasing, finance, and suppliers.