- Email: [email protected]
Concurrent engineering in small companies
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Concurrent engineering in small companies Marko Starbek, Janez Grum
*
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 4 May 2000; accepted 20 July 2001
Abstract In 1991, attainment of independence in Slovenia caused a drastic decrease in the domestic market for Slovenian companies. The companies which did not adapt to the new market conditions were destined for ruin. In this time several smaller companies were established which could adapt to new market conditions more easily. When these companies entered the world market they encountered several difficulties such as excessive flow times for development of new products. After a survey of available literature had been made it was found that those problems could be solved by transforming sequential engineering to concurrent engineering. The article presents the principles of sequential and concurrent product development processes. The market forces small Slovenian companies to a transition from sequential to concurrent engineering and as team work is the basic element of the concurrent engineering, special attention has been paid to workgroups forming in the loops of concurrent product development process in small companies. A survey of published works in the field of planning teams in big companies has revealed that a three-level team structure is recommended in big companies. Analysis of the three-level structure has led us to the conclusion that a two-level team structure and matrix organisation should be preferred in small companies. Presented are the results of planning a two-level team structure and matrix organisation of a small Slovenian company which produces mini-loaders. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Concurrent engineering; Team work; Matrix organisation; Track and loop technology
1. Introduction An analysis of the world market has shown that the customer requirements regarding functions and quality of products are continuously increasing — but the customers are not willing to pay more for better products, neither do they accept prolonged delivery terms. Customers are becoming more and more demanding and their requirements are changing all the time. “Customer is the king” is becoming the motto of today [1]. In these circumstances only those companies can expect market success which offer customers the right products regarding their functions and quality, produced at the right time, at the right quality and at the right price. A product which is not manufactured in accordance with the wishes of the customers, which hits the market too
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +386-1-477-1103; fax: +386-12518-567. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Grum).
late, which is not of the proper quality and is too expensive cannot be successful. The problems of unfulfilled wishes and requirements of customers and excessive times for product development are present in Slovene companies, as well. 23 individual and small-series production companies answered the questionnaire regarding unfulfilled wishes of customers and excessive times of product development. The answers show that these problems exist in all companies. An analysis of the answers revealed that none of the companies had quality functions deployment (QFD) method integrated into their product development process — and QFD is the very method which is intended to solve the problem of unfulfilled wishes and requirements of customers; besides that, all companies use sequential engineering for product development. The results of the questionnaire analysis were sent to all the participating companies and we tried to arouse their interest for co-operation in the project of gradual transition from the classic sequential to integrated con-
0890-6955/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 1 1 - 0
418
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
current development of products (concurrent engineering). A company which produces mini-loaders and silos in small series for the domestic market (and has plans for sales on the international market) decided immediately to participate in the project. It was agreed with the company management that in the first phase of the planned implementation of concurrent engineering the problem of forming suitable teams for concurrent product development would be solved.
2. Concurrent product development Concurrent (as well as sequential product development) usually consists of seven groups of activities: — — — — — — —
definition of goals, product planning, design, production process planning, production, manufacturing and assembly, delivery.
concurrent engineering is not possible without wellorganised team work.
3. Concurrent engineering and team work We are dealing with team work when a team is oriented towards the solution of a joint task [4]. Team work is an integral part of concurrent engineering as it represents the means for organisational integration. Requirements for team work are [2]: — flexible, unplanned and continuous co-operation, — feeling of obligations regarding achievement of goals, — communication by exchange of information, — ability to make compromises, — consensus in spite of disagreement, — reconciliation when carrying out interdependent activities, — continuous improvements in order to increase productivity and reduce process times.
3.1. Setup of workgroups and team structure in big companies
In concurrent product development there are interactions among individual groups of activities while there are no interactions in sequential product development. Track and loop technology was developed for the implementation of interactions [2]. The type of loop defines the type of cooperation between the overlapped activities. Winner [3] proposes the use of 3-T loops, where interactions exist between three groups of activities. When 3-T loops are used (Fig. 1) the product development process consists of five 3-T loops. On the basis of requirements and restrictions a transformation of input into output is made in each loop, as shown in the diagram of information flow in the track and loop process of product development (Fig. 2). Analysis of the track-and-loop process of product development, as shown in Figs 1 and 2, reveals that the
Fig. 1.
Concurrent engineering is based on the multidiscipline product development team (PDT) [5,6]. PDT members are professionals from various departments in a company and representatives of strategic suppliers and customers (Fig. 3). Team members communicate via a central information system (CIS) which provides them with data about processes, tools, infrastructure, technology, and existing products of the company. Representatives of strategic suppliers and customers — due to their great distance from the company — participate in the team just virtually, using the Internet technology (IIS — Internet information system) which allows them to use the same tools and technologies as the team members in the company [6].
Track and loop process in product development.
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
419
Fig. 2. Diagram of information flow in the track and loop process of product development.
PDT structure may change in different phases of product development. The team consists of various workgroups in various phases of product development. Each workgroup consists of four basic teams [2]: 앫 The logical team ensures that the whole product development process is split into individual logical units (operations, tasks) and defines interfaces and connections between individual process units. 앫 The personnel team has to find the required personnel
for the product development team, it trains and motivates them, and provides proper payment. 앫 The technology team is responsible for creating a strategy and concept. It has to concentrate on quality of products at minimum costs. 앫 The virtual team operates in a form of computer modules and provides other PDT members with required information. The goal of concurrent engineering is to achieve the best
420
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Fig. 3.
Product development team.
possible cooperation among the above-mentioned teams within a workgroup. As a general rule the multidisciplinary teams for product development should be structured in such a way that the following goals are achieved: 앫 exact definition of competence and responsibility, 앫 short decision paths, 앫 identification of the team members with the product being developed. A survey of the published works in the field of team structure planning in big companies [1,2,7] has revealed that a three-level product development team structure is recommended in big companies, as shown in Fig. 4. The core team consists of the company management and manager of the treated level team; its task is to support and control the product development project. The level team consists of the level team manager and
Fig. 4.
the managers of the participating functional teams in the treated level (loop); its task is to co-ordinate and tune the goals and tasks of functional teams and to provide for a smooth transition to the next level of product development. The functional team consists of the functional team manager, professionals from various fields in the company, and representatives of suppliers and customers; its task is to carry out declared tasks taking into consideration terms, finance and personnel. 3.2. Setup of workgroups and team structure in small companies Analysis of results regarding the setup of workgroups and team structure in big companies has shown that the proposed concept for planning workgroups and structure of teams cannot be used in small companies (there are
Three-level team structure in a big company.
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
too many teams in a workgroup and too many team levels). When developing the workgroup concept, structure and organisation in small companies it will therefore be necessary to propose: 앫 as few workgroup teams as possible, 앫 as few team levels as possible, and 앫 appropriate organisation of the company. Employees of the Production Systems Laboratory made several versions of workgroup, team, and organisation structure of the company and decided — after evaluation of the proposed versions — that we propose the following for small companies: 앫 transition from four workgroup teams (personnel, logical, technology, virtual team) to two teams (logical and technology team), 앫 transition from the three-level to two-level team structure, 앫 transition from project to matrix organisation of the company. In a small company a workgroup therefore consists just of two basic teams (Fig. 5): 앫 a logical team which should ensure that the whole product development process is divided into logical units and that interfaces and junctions between process units are defined, and 앫 a technology team which should be responsible for generating strategy and concept. The central information system (CIS) gets the role of the virtual team with proper software tools (workgroup members should be trained to use these tools), and the project team manager carries out the personnel team tasks. In a small company a transition should be made from a three-level team structure (core, level, functional team) to a two-level structure, as shown in Fig. 6. The core team, whose task is to support and control the product development project, should consist of: 앫 core team manager (permanent member),
Fig. 5.
Workgroup in a small company.
421
앫 department managers (permanent members), and 앫 project team manager (permanent member). The project team, which carries out the tasks given, taking into consideration terms, finance and personnel, should consist of: 앫 project team manager (permanent member), and 앫 professionals from various fields in the company and representatives of strategic suppliers and customers (variable members). The project team in a small company is therefore basically designed similar to a functional team in a big company, the difference being in that there is just one team and its structure changes in different loops of the product development process. In the feasibility loop where the project team should define customer requirements and goals, and make several versions of the product design, the project team should consist of the employees from the marketing, product planning, and design departments, and representatives of strategic customers and suppliers. In the design loop where the project team should provide general solutions regarding the product, product planning and design, its parts and structure, development of prototypes, and choice of the most suitable variants from the manufacturing point of view, the project team should consist of the employees from the product planning, design and production planning departments. In the production planning loop where the project team should select the best technological operations for manufacturing the parts and assembling the components (definition of sequence, operations, selection of machines, tools, and norm times), the project team should consist of the employees from the design, production planning, and production departments, and strategic suppliers’ representatives. In the production loop where the project team should define production type (workshop, cell or product-oriented type of production) and select the optimal layout of production means, the project team should consist of the employees from the production planning department, production, manufacturing and assembly, as well as logistics and delivery. In the manufacturing loop, where the project team should take care of prototype tests, supply of required equipment, layout of production means, manufacturing and test of the null series, the project team should consist of the employees from the production department, manufacturing and assembly, quality assurance, warehouse and delivery departments. The tasks which are performed by level teams in big companies should be done by the project team manager in small companies who should co-ordinate and tune the goals and activities between the project and core teams
422
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Fig. 6.
Two-level team structure in a small company.
and provide for smooth transition from one phase (loop) of the product development process to another. In big companies the members of the core, level and functional teams usually use a project type of organisation. This type of organisation cannot be used in small companies as they have too few employees. Analysis of various organisation types has shown that in small companies matrix organisation would be the most suitable for core and project teams. Therefore an individual member of the core team (except the project team manager) would carry out tasks in his/her department part of his/her working time (for this work (s)he would be responsible to the general manager of the company), and the rest of his/her working time (s)he would work on the product development project (for this work (s)he would be responsible to the core team manager). A member of the project team (except the project team manager) would carry out tasks in his/her department part of his/her working time (for this work (s)he would be responsible to department manager), and the rest of his/her working time (s)he would work in the product development project (for this work (s)he would be responsible to the project team manager). The project team head would be excluded from his/her department throughout the duration of the product development project and (s)he would work full time on the project. When the project is finished the project team manager would return to his department. The project team manager should be a properly trained and experienced person who knows the work in all departments of the company and has the skills to use computer tools and information technology. Figure 7 presents the proposal of matrix organisation in a small company.
4. Sample case of team formation in a small company A small Slovenian company which produces miniloaders in small series has decided to form a two-level product development team structure. There are 182 employees in the company; besides the management (general manager and assistant to the general manager) there are eight departments: — commercial department is in charge of marketing and sales (7 employees), — development department is concerned with development, product planning and design (11 employees), — technology department is concerned with production and logistics (12 employees), — supply department is concerned with supply and cooperation (5 employees), — manufacturing is concerned with production planning and manufacturing (136 employees), — financial department (3 employees), — quality assurance department (3 employees), and — IT department (3 employees). The company management decided to form a two-level mini-loader development team structure, so it was necessary to first define the core team structure and then the project team structure. In order to get the best structure of both teams the employees from the Production Systems Laboratory organised two creativity workshops [4] where the general manager and eight department managers participated. Results of the first creativity workshop have shown
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Fig. 7.
423
Matrix organisation in a small company.
that the core team for product development should consist of ten company employees: — general manager who would manage the core team, — eight department managers, — project team manager, as shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Structure of the core team for mini-loader development.
All core team members will be permanent members; therefore the core team composition will not change within the mini-loader development time. In order to define the structure of the project team in individual phases (loops) of the mini-loader development, another creativity workshop was organised where the answers should be obtained regarding the required number of loops for product development, activities which should be done by a project team within an individual loop, and responsibilities of departments for execution of the planned activities. The results of the second creativity workshop are presented in Table 1. The results of the second creativity workshop (presented in Table 1) and selection of the project team manager, made by the company management, allowed for the definition of the project team structure in individual loops of the mini-loader development, as shown in Table 2. The project team manager will be a permanent team member, while professionals from various fields in the company and representatives of suppliers and customers will be variable members. After the structure of the core and project teams had been defined the matrix organisation of the company could be presented, as shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Fig. 9, the core team members should work part of their working time in their departments (for
424
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Table 1 Loops in mini-loader development with description of activities and responsibilities of departments
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
425
Table 2 Project team structure in individual loops of the mini-loader development
Fig. 9.
Matrix organisation of company employees.
this work they would be responsible to the general manager), and the rest of their working time they would work in the core team (for this work they would be responsible to the core team manager, i.e. the general manager again). The project team members should also use part of their working time to do the tasks in their departments (for this work they would be responsible to department managers), and the rest of their working time
they would work in the project team (for this work they would be responsible to the project team manager). After the core and project teams had been formed and the matrix organisation of the company had been accepted, the company management proposed that the Production Systems Laboratory employees evaluate whether the company meets the conditions for transition from sequential to concurrent product development. In
426
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
5. Conclusions
Fig. 10. Overview of the basic concurrent engineering tools.
order to perform this evaluation we gave the core team members an overview of the basic tools which support concurrent engineering (Fig. 10), to find out which tools are already used in the company. Discussion regarding the availability of basic concurrent engineering tools in the company revealed that: — the company employees are able to find the solution of a problem in a team-work way, — the company uses CAD software ME-10, — the company has not yet implemented the quality function deployment (QFD), value analysis (VA), design for manufacture (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA) methods, and failure mode and effects analysis method (FMEA). On the basis of the above-mentioned findings the Production Systems Laboratory employees proposed to the company management that they should first implement the basic methods and tools for concurrent engineering support and only then would they start the transition from sequential to concurrent product development process.
The world market requires short product development times and therefore also small Slovenian companies are forced into transition from sequential to concurrent product development. The basic element of the concurrent product development is team work so this article pays special attention to the formation, structure and organisation of teams in a small company. Research has led to the conclusion that a workgroup in small companies should consist of just two teams (logical and technology team) instead of four, and that two-level team structure (permanent core team and variable project team) and matrix organisation of the company are more suitable for small companies. The proposed concept of team formation in a small company has been tested in a sample case of team structure definition in a company which produces mini-loaders. First the permanent core team structure and then the variable project team structure have been defined. When the company was considering whether to use concurrent development of a new type of mini-loader it was found that the company does not possess all the tools required for concurrent engineering support, so the company management decided that the established teams should first implement the quality function deployment (QFD), design for manufacture (DFM) and assembly (DFA) methods, and failure mode and effects analysis method (FMEA). First tools and methods for concurrent engineering support should be implemented and then concurrent development of a new type of mini-loader should be started.
References [1] K. Ehrlenspiel, Integrierte Produktentwicklung, Carl Hanser Verlag, Mu¨ nchen, Wien, 1995. [2] B. Prasad, Integrated Product and Process Organization, in: Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, vol. I, Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996, pp. 216–276. [3] Winner R.I., The Role of Concurrent Engineering in Weapons System Acquisition. ‘IDA Report R-338’. Institute for Defence Analysis, Alexandria, VA, 1988. [4] H. Schlicksupp, Kreative Ideenfindung in der Unternehmung, Watter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1977. [5] M. Starbek, J. Kusˇar, P. Jenko, The influence of concurrent engineering on launch-to-finish time, in: The 31st CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing System, Berkeley, USA, 1988. [6] M. Starbek, J. Kusˇar, P. Jenko, Building a concurrent engineering support information system, in: The 32nd CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing System, Division PMA, Katholieke Universitet Leuven, Belgium, 1999. [7] H.J. Bullinger, F. Wagner, J. Warschat, Ein Ansatz zur ZuliefererIntegration in der Produktentwicklung, Datenverarbeitung in der Konstruktion, VDI-Verlag, Du¨ sseldorf, 1994.
Concurrent engineering in small companies Marko Starbek, Janez Grum
*
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 4 May 2000; accepted 20 July 2001
Abstract In 1991, attainment of independence in Slovenia caused a drastic decrease in the domestic market for Slovenian companies. The companies which did not adapt to the new market conditions were destined for ruin. In this time several smaller companies were established which could adapt to new market conditions more easily. When these companies entered the world market they encountered several difficulties such as excessive flow times for development of new products. After a survey of available literature had been made it was found that those problems could be solved by transforming sequential engineering to concurrent engineering. The article presents the principles of sequential and concurrent product development processes. The market forces small Slovenian companies to a transition from sequential to concurrent engineering and as team work is the basic element of the concurrent engineering, special attention has been paid to workgroups forming in the loops of concurrent product development process in small companies. A survey of published works in the field of planning teams in big companies has revealed that a three-level team structure is recommended in big companies. Analysis of the three-level structure has led us to the conclusion that a two-level team structure and matrix organisation should be preferred in small companies. Presented are the results of planning a two-level team structure and matrix organisation of a small Slovenian company which produces mini-loaders. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Concurrent engineering; Team work; Matrix organisation; Track and loop technology
1. Introduction An analysis of the world market has shown that the customer requirements regarding functions and quality of products are continuously increasing — but the customers are not willing to pay more for better products, neither do they accept prolonged delivery terms. Customers are becoming more and more demanding and their requirements are changing all the time. “Customer is the king” is becoming the motto of today [1]. In these circumstances only those companies can expect market success which offer customers the right products regarding their functions and quality, produced at the right time, at the right quality and at the right price. A product which is not manufactured in accordance with the wishes of the customers, which hits the market too
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +386-1-477-1103; fax: +386-12518-567. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Grum).
late, which is not of the proper quality and is too expensive cannot be successful. The problems of unfulfilled wishes and requirements of customers and excessive times for product development are present in Slovene companies, as well. 23 individual and small-series production companies answered the questionnaire regarding unfulfilled wishes of customers and excessive times of product development. The answers show that these problems exist in all companies. An analysis of the answers revealed that none of the companies had quality functions deployment (QFD) method integrated into their product development process — and QFD is the very method which is intended to solve the problem of unfulfilled wishes and requirements of customers; besides that, all companies use sequential engineering for product development. The results of the questionnaire analysis were sent to all the participating companies and we tried to arouse their interest for co-operation in the project of gradual transition from the classic sequential to integrated con-
0890-6955/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 1 1 - 0
418
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
current development of products (concurrent engineering). A company which produces mini-loaders and silos in small series for the domestic market (and has plans for sales on the international market) decided immediately to participate in the project. It was agreed with the company management that in the first phase of the planned implementation of concurrent engineering the problem of forming suitable teams for concurrent product development would be solved.
2. Concurrent product development Concurrent (as well as sequential product development) usually consists of seven groups of activities: — — — — — — —
definition of goals, product planning, design, production process planning, production, manufacturing and assembly, delivery.
concurrent engineering is not possible without wellorganised team work.
3. Concurrent engineering and team work We are dealing with team work when a team is oriented towards the solution of a joint task [4]. Team work is an integral part of concurrent engineering as it represents the means for organisational integration. Requirements for team work are [2]: — flexible, unplanned and continuous co-operation, — feeling of obligations regarding achievement of goals, — communication by exchange of information, — ability to make compromises, — consensus in spite of disagreement, — reconciliation when carrying out interdependent activities, — continuous improvements in order to increase productivity and reduce process times.
3.1. Setup of workgroups and team structure in big companies
In concurrent product development there are interactions among individual groups of activities while there are no interactions in sequential product development. Track and loop technology was developed for the implementation of interactions [2]. The type of loop defines the type of cooperation between the overlapped activities. Winner [3] proposes the use of 3-T loops, where interactions exist between three groups of activities. When 3-T loops are used (Fig. 1) the product development process consists of five 3-T loops. On the basis of requirements and restrictions a transformation of input into output is made in each loop, as shown in the diagram of information flow in the track and loop process of product development (Fig. 2). Analysis of the track-and-loop process of product development, as shown in Figs 1 and 2, reveals that the
Fig. 1.
Concurrent engineering is based on the multidiscipline product development team (PDT) [5,6]. PDT members are professionals from various departments in a company and representatives of strategic suppliers and customers (Fig. 3). Team members communicate via a central information system (CIS) which provides them with data about processes, tools, infrastructure, technology, and existing products of the company. Representatives of strategic suppliers and customers — due to their great distance from the company — participate in the team just virtually, using the Internet technology (IIS — Internet information system) which allows them to use the same tools and technologies as the team members in the company [6].
Track and loop process in product development.
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
419
Fig. 2. Diagram of information flow in the track and loop process of product development.
PDT structure may change in different phases of product development. The team consists of various workgroups in various phases of product development. Each workgroup consists of four basic teams [2]: 앫 The logical team ensures that the whole product development process is split into individual logical units (operations, tasks) and defines interfaces and connections between individual process units. 앫 The personnel team has to find the required personnel
for the product development team, it trains and motivates them, and provides proper payment. 앫 The technology team is responsible for creating a strategy and concept. It has to concentrate on quality of products at minimum costs. 앫 The virtual team operates in a form of computer modules and provides other PDT members with required information. The goal of concurrent engineering is to achieve the best
420
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Fig. 3.
Product development team.
possible cooperation among the above-mentioned teams within a workgroup. As a general rule the multidisciplinary teams for product development should be structured in such a way that the following goals are achieved: 앫 exact definition of competence and responsibility, 앫 short decision paths, 앫 identification of the team members with the product being developed. A survey of the published works in the field of team structure planning in big companies [1,2,7] has revealed that a three-level product development team structure is recommended in big companies, as shown in Fig. 4. The core team consists of the company management and manager of the treated level team; its task is to support and control the product development project. The level team consists of the level team manager and
Fig. 4.
the managers of the participating functional teams in the treated level (loop); its task is to co-ordinate and tune the goals and tasks of functional teams and to provide for a smooth transition to the next level of product development. The functional team consists of the functional team manager, professionals from various fields in the company, and representatives of suppliers and customers; its task is to carry out declared tasks taking into consideration terms, finance and personnel. 3.2. Setup of workgroups and team structure in small companies Analysis of results regarding the setup of workgroups and team structure in big companies has shown that the proposed concept for planning workgroups and structure of teams cannot be used in small companies (there are
Three-level team structure in a big company.
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
too many teams in a workgroup and too many team levels). When developing the workgroup concept, structure and organisation in small companies it will therefore be necessary to propose: 앫 as few workgroup teams as possible, 앫 as few team levels as possible, and 앫 appropriate organisation of the company. Employees of the Production Systems Laboratory made several versions of workgroup, team, and organisation structure of the company and decided — after evaluation of the proposed versions — that we propose the following for small companies: 앫 transition from four workgroup teams (personnel, logical, technology, virtual team) to two teams (logical and technology team), 앫 transition from the three-level to two-level team structure, 앫 transition from project to matrix organisation of the company. In a small company a workgroup therefore consists just of two basic teams (Fig. 5): 앫 a logical team which should ensure that the whole product development process is divided into logical units and that interfaces and junctions between process units are defined, and 앫 a technology team which should be responsible for generating strategy and concept. The central information system (CIS) gets the role of the virtual team with proper software tools (workgroup members should be trained to use these tools), and the project team manager carries out the personnel team tasks. In a small company a transition should be made from a three-level team structure (core, level, functional team) to a two-level structure, as shown in Fig. 6. The core team, whose task is to support and control the product development project, should consist of: 앫 core team manager (permanent member),
Fig. 5.
Workgroup in a small company.
421
앫 department managers (permanent members), and 앫 project team manager (permanent member). The project team, which carries out the tasks given, taking into consideration terms, finance and personnel, should consist of: 앫 project team manager (permanent member), and 앫 professionals from various fields in the company and representatives of strategic suppliers and customers (variable members). The project team in a small company is therefore basically designed similar to a functional team in a big company, the difference being in that there is just one team and its structure changes in different loops of the product development process. In the feasibility loop where the project team should define customer requirements and goals, and make several versions of the product design, the project team should consist of the employees from the marketing, product planning, and design departments, and representatives of strategic customers and suppliers. In the design loop where the project team should provide general solutions regarding the product, product planning and design, its parts and structure, development of prototypes, and choice of the most suitable variants from the manufacturing point of view, the project team should consist of the employees from the product planning, design and production planning departments. In the production planning loop where the project team should select the best technological operations for manufacturing the parts and assembling the components (definition of sequence, operations, selection of machines, tools, and norm times), the project team should consist of the employees from the design, production planning, and production departments, and strategic suppliers’ representatives. In the production loop where the project team should define production type (workshop, cell or product-oriented type of production) and select the optimal layout of production means, the project team should consist of the employees from the production planning department, production, manufacturing and assembly, as well as logistics and delivery. In the manufacturing loop, where the project team should take care of prototype tests, supply of required equipment, layout of production means, manufacturing and test of the null series, the project team should consist of the employees from the production department, manufacturing and assembly, quality assurance, warehouse and delivery departments. The tasks which are performed by level teams in big companies should be done by the project team manager in small companies who should co-ordinate and tune the goals and activities between the project and core teams
422
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Fig. 6.
Two-level team structure in a small company.
and provide for smooth transition from one phase (loop) of the product development process to another. In big companies the members of the core, level and functional teams usually use a project type of organisation. This type of organisation cannot be used in small companies as they have too few employees. Analysis of various organisation types has shown that in small companies matrix organisation would be the most suitable for core and project teams. Therefore an individual member of the core team (except the project team manager) would carry out tasks in his/her department part of his/her working time (for this work (s)he would be responsible to the general manager of the company), and the rest of his/her working time (s)he would work on the product development project (for this work (s)he would be responsible to the core team manager). A member of the project team (except the project team manager) would carry out tasks in his/her department part of his/her working time (for this work (s)he would be responsible to department manager), and the rest of his/her working time (s)he would work in the product development project (for this work (s)he would be responsible to the project team manager). The project team head would be excluded from his/her department throughout the duration of the product development project and (s)he would work full time on the project. When the project is finished the project team manager would return to his department. The project team manager should be a properly trained and experienced person who knows the work in all departments of the company and has the skills to use computer tools and information technology. Figure 7 presents the proposal of matrix organisation in a small company.
4. Sample case of team formation in a small company A small Slovenian company which produces miniloaders in small series has decided to form a two-level product development team structure. There are 182 employees in the company; besides the management (general manager and assistant to the general manager) there are eight departments: — commercial department is in charge of marketing and sales (7 employees), — development department is concerned with development, product planning and design (11 employees), — technology department is concerned with production and logistics (12 employees), — supply department is concerned with supply and cooperation (5 employees), — manufacturing is concerned with production planning and manufacturing (136 employees), — financial department (3 employees), — quality assurance department (3 employees), and — IT department (3 employees). The company management decided to form a two-level mini-loader development team structure, so it was necessary to first define the core team structure and then the project team structure. In order to get the best structure of both teams the employees from the Production Systems Laboratory organised two creativity workshops [4] where the general manager and eight department managers participated. Results of the first creativity workshop have shown
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Fig. 7.
423
Matrix organisation in a small company.
that the core team for product development should consist of ten company employees: — general manager who would manage the core team, — eight department managers, — project team manager, as shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Structure of the core team for mini-loader development.
All core team members will be permanent members; therefore the core team composition will not change within the mini-loader development time. In order to define the structure of the project team in individual phases (loops) of the mini-loader development, another creativity workshop was organised where the answers should be obtained regarding the required number of loops for product development, activities which should be done by a project team within an individual loop, and responsibilities of departments for execution of the planned activities. The results of the second creativity workshop are presented in Table 1. The results of the second creativity workshop (presented in Table 1) and selection of the project team manager, made by the company management, allowed for the definition of the project team structure in individual loops of the mini-loader development, as shown in Table 2. The project team manager will be a permanent team member, while professionals from various fields in the company and representatives of suppliers and customers will be variable members. After the structure of the core and project teams had been defined the matrix organisation of the company could be presented, as shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Fig. 9, the core team members should work part of their working time in their departments (for
424
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
Table 1 Loops in mini-loader development with description of activities and responsibilities of departments
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
425
Table 2 Project team structure in individual loops of the mini-loader development
Fig. 9.
Matrix organisation of company employees.
this work they would be responsible to the general manager), and the rest of their working time they would work in the core team (for this work they would be responsible to the core team manager, i.e. the general manager again). The project team members should also use part of their working time to do the tasks in their departments (for this work they would be responsible to department managers), and the rest of their working time
they would work in the project team (for this work they would be responsible to the project team manager). After the core and project teams had been formed and the matrix organisation of the company had been accepted, the company management proposed that the Production Systems Laboratory employees evaluate whether the company meets the conditions for transition from sequential to concurrent product development. In
426
M. Starbek, J. Grum / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 417–426
5. Conclusions
Fig. 10. Overview of the basic concurrent engineering tools.
order to perform this evaluation we gave the core team members an overview of the basic tools which support concurrent engineering (Fig. 10), to find out which tools are already used in the company. Discussion regarding the availability of basic concurrent engineering tools in the company revealed that: — the company employees are able to find the solution of a problem in a team-work way, — the company uses CAD software ME-10, — the company has not yet implemented the quality function deployment (QFD), value analysis (VA), design for manufacture (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA) methods, and failure mode and effects analysis method (FMEA). On the basis of the above-mentioned findings the Production Systems Laboratory employees proposed to the company management that they should first implement the basic methods and tools for concurrent engineering support and only then would they start the transition from sequential to concurrent product development process.
The world market requires short product development times and therefore also small Slovenian companies are forced into transition from sequential to concurrent product development. The basic element of the concurrent product development is team work so this article pays special attention to the formation, structure and organisation of teams in a small company. Research has led to the conclusion that a workgroup in small companies should consist of just two teams (logical and technology team) instead of four, and that two-level team structure (permanent core team and variable project team) and matrix organisation of the company are more suitable for small companies. The proposed concept of team formation in a small company has been tested in a sample case of team structure definition in a company which produces mini-loaders. First the permanent core team structure and then the variable project team structure have been defined. When the company was considering whether to use concurrent development of a new type of mini-loader it was found that the company does not possess all the tools required for concurrent engineering support, so the company management decided that the established teams should first implement the quality function deployment (QFD), design for manufacture (DFM) and assembly (DFA) methods, and failure mode and effects analysis method (FMEA). First tools and methods for concurrent engineering support should be implemented and then concurrent development of a new type of mini-loader should be started.
References [1] K. Ehrlenspiel, Integrierte Produktentwicklung, Carl Hanser Verlag, Mu¨ nchen, Wien, 1995. [2] B. Prasad, Integrated Product and Process Organization, in: Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, vol. I, Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996, pp. 216–276. [3] Winner R.I., The Role of Concurrent Engineering in Weapons System Acquisition. ‘IDA Report R-338’. Institute for Defence Analysis, Alexandria, VA, 1988. [4] H. Schlicksupp, Kreative Ideenfindung in der Unternehmung, Watter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1977. [5] M. Starbek, J. Kusˇar, P. Jenko, The influence of concurrent engineering on launch-to-finish time, in: The 31st CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing System, Berkeley, USA, 1988. [6] M. Starbek, J. Kusˇar, P. Jenko, Building a concurrent engineering support information system, in: The 32nd CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing System, Division PMA, Katholieke Universitet Leuven, Belgium, 1999. [7] H.J. Bullinger, F. Wagner, J. Warschat, Ein Ansatz zur ZuliefererIntegration in der Produktentwicklung, Datenverarbeitung in der Konstruktion, VDI-Verlag, Du¨ sseldorf, 1994.