The questionnaire used in the interviews is composed of open-ended questions. As the questions in a survey of this kind influence the results, it is important to know what kind of questions are asked. The twenty questions deal with the opinion of the interviewee about the methodology and its application and the implications of its use in the company. While the character of the questions enabled a broad range of answers, the small number of interviews does not permit a generalization of the findings, even though they give general view of the methodologies in the companies.
The respondents were practitioners trained in, or knowledgeable about the methodologies. They received their knowledge in training sessions or studies they made: some of them taught one of the methodologies. They work in firms using the methodologies: General Electric (GE), Volvo Area, Volvo Car Corporation (PVC) and Siemens, which use DOFFS and Shania, IV, Abaca and Autodial, which use LAP. The literature chosen is mainly intended for managers of companies, who whish to gain knowledge of DOFFS and LAP.
This literature is primarily positive about the methodology described. This positivism required a double check of the reading in order to validate the findings reported (Barman, 2004). 3. Lean Product Development LAP is a methodology that attempts to apply the principles learned in Lean Manufacturing in the PDP area. These are made to create a flow in PDP that will help the PDP process to go faster. This possibility to realize new product faster will enhance the reactivity of a company in the market (Ernestine, 2005).
Visualization tools, such as process mapping, show the improvement opportunities in the PDP process and enable companies to make the PDP process more fluent. Based on continuous improvement and visual communication, its goal is 25 to enhance customers’ values by developing top class quality products, increasing the quality from the start of a project (Liker and Morgan, 2006). The use of a common platform appears to be a decisive doctor tort the realization tot the methodology (Masticates, 2004) in term of reducing the price of development and insisting on specific innovations focused on customer’s satisfaction.
Concurrent engineering, customers and suppliers’ involvement, visual management, group work and cross- functional teams emerge as some of the techniques used to reach the purpose of LAP (Carlson and ?lasts¶m, 1996). Standardizing the PDP process, reducing the size of batches transmitted from one stage to another and a strong project leader who presents the customer and is capable of crystallizing his or her team members’ capacities are all factors that make the stream of the process flow faster (Craftsperson and Lundeberg, 2006).
LAP is based on continuous improvement, and its implementation takes time and requires humility and commitment to enable improvement in a company. Tools adapted from Lean Manufacturing e. G. AS, Awaken (Woman, Jones and Ross, 1991), process mapping, quality tools etc. , can be used as soon as they are made to fit PDP (e. G. AS would focus more on the elimination of unwanted information that on cleaning the manufacturing environment).
In addition, lolls that help the visualization of a project and the communication inside the project team can be used to help the team members to know their role. In this way, they will feel more involved in the project (e. G. A dedicated room for each project, list of tasks that need to be done and prioritize, or a project chart at the beginning of the project, Liker and Morgan, 2006, Ernestine, 2005). Finally, LAP does not propose a roadman for PDP but is an initiative that helps to improve and standardize the existing process in a company. 4.
Design for Six Sigma DOFFS is a structured methodology for PDP that consist of a stage gate model, with liberates and norms of robustness that must be approved at the end of each stage, before a project proceeds forward (Tenant, 2002). With this methodology, a company is supposed to be able to turn its PDP into customer satisfaction measurable factors (Tenant, 2002). Grey (2005) defined it as follows: “Design for Six Sigma is a meaner of developing, or improving, products that enables Six Sigma levels of performance in production, while focusing on customer satisfaction and robustness.
An outcome of Design for Six Sigma is that the product can be produced at predictable levels of costs and risks” 26 Design for Six Sigma and Lean Product Development According to Corner (2006), every company adapts DOFFS for its own needs, which make its process different from one company to another. One roadman seems to be common to some industries: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design and Verify (ADMAN). Each step is a memo for the project team members: a way to split PDP into different phases and to keep in mind the important phases of a development project.
These phases enable a team to focus on each separate step of the process, to reduce the risks of going too fast during one phase, and to define deadlines for every team ember (Harry and Schroeder, 2 S proposes a set tot tools and techniques that is fit to PDP and that can be used during the different steps (Corner, 2006). Some of them are taken from Six Sigma, which facilitates the implementation of DOFFS in companies already using Six Sigma. Quality and customer requirements are the heart of the methodology. Innovation is controlled and needs to show its robustness for customer satisfaction (Tenant, 2002).
It seems to be reduced by administrative tasks (e. G. Checklists to be filled in etc. ) and every innovation has a level of robustness hat must be attained that is fixed by customers’ expectations (Tenant, 2002). DOFFS requires cross-functional teams (Chowder, 2002), where interaction between people can bring innovation. DOFFS turns the process of PDP from deterministic to probabilistic by giving to the PDP team the opportunity to use statistical tools, e. G. Design of Experiment (Groveling, Sluts and Ant’s, 2003).
Finally, DOFFS integrates the Six Sigma hierarchy, and its projects are generally assisted by ‘Black Belts’ educated DEEDS (Tenant, 2002). 4. 1 Analysis In this section, DOFFS and LAP are compared by themes in the selected literature and racial insight is given derived from the practitioners’ interviews. 4. 1. 1 Enabling DOFFS and LAP in a Company Philosophy LAP is founded on developing quality products by continuously improving PDP and creating a flow of value added activities (Ernestine, 2005). DOFFS seems to be centered more on measurements of customer satisfaction and the robustness of the product (Tenant, 2002).
The methodologies are linked by the fact that they emphasize effort at the beginning of projects in order to reduce later rework. Strategy The Lean and DOFFS methodologies have different effects on the strategy of the company. DOFFS gives a robust output, followed by a complete documentation: the idea is to promote the company as a leader in quality (Tenant, 2002). The strategy behind LAP is a strong reactivity to market demands and positioning the company as a quality leader (Liker and 27 Morgan, 2006, Ernestine, 2005 etc. ).
Implementation DOFFS and LAP differ from an implementation point of view. Where DOFFS seems to be possible to integrate quickly in some companies (e. G. Two years for PVC, already used working with Six Sigma methodologies), Alp’s implementation never seems to end (Carlson and ?lasts¶m, 1996). However, both methodologies’ implementation makes companies centre around the demand for knowledge (Harry and Schroeder, 2000, Liker and Morgan, 2006). People need to want change and improvement and to learn by meaner of the way they do things; otherwise, their application will not create value.
