Published in: Wognum, Nel; Thoben, Klaus-Dieter; Pawar, Kulwant S (Eds.): 5th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising. The Hague, The Netherlands, 15-17 March 1999, pp. 201-209.
Approach and Concepts for a Methodology and Software System for the Implementation and Improvement of Concurrent Engineering in Small and Medium Enterprises in the Aeronautics Industry Frithjof Weber1, Dr. Kul Pawar2, Dr. Richard Barson2, Dr. Roberto Santoro3 1
Bremen Institute of Industrial Technology and Applied Work Science at the University of Bremen (BIBA), PO Box 33 05 60, D-28335 Bremen, Germany, Email:
[email protected]
2
Department of Manufacturing Engineering & Operations Management, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK, Email:
[email protected] 3
CEC-Concurrent Engineering Consulting srl, Piazza Ungheria 6I-00198 Roma, Italy, Email:
[email protected]
Abstract Concurrent Engineering (CE) is widely accepted as an effective approach to new product development practices. Large organisations in the aeronautics industry have already committed themselves to CE and have achieved a high level of implementation. In small and medium enterprises (SMEs), however, the situation is heterogeneous and further support for implementing and improving CE is desired. The CEPRA project aims to develop an electronic consulting system supporting these SMEs on their way towards CE. The system comprises three modules: An Assessment Module evaluates a company's CE practices and identifies weaknesses. A Solution Identifier Module presents potential improvements and existing solution cases addressing these problems. Finally the Tool Selection Module suggests methods and tools which can assist in the implementation of the solutions. The paper outlines the current state of the art of CE in SMEs in aeronautics. It describes the approach and findings from capturing the user requirements and presents a draft architecture of the CEPRA system. Keywords Concurrent Engineering, Methods, Assessment, Solutions Cases, Tool Selection
1
Introduction
The aeronautic industry today is characterised by a global competition between large consortia and enterprises mainly from Europe and USA. The European aeronautic sector is going through a period of change including consolidation of some of the major manufacturers through different alliances and mergers. Reduced time-to-market, reduced product and maintenance costs as well as improved quality, reliability and manufacturing responsiveness are some of the key success factors which are essential. It is widely accepted, that in this area, Concurrent Engineering (CE) is an effective concept for replacing traditional product development practise with new and efficient processes. Various authors report significant savings from implementing CE, like e.g. time-to-market improvements of 30% to 60% [Gatenby et al,1994]. Many success stories describe the benefits which have been gained by introducing Concurrent Engineering in aircraft development. However, most cases focus on the implementation in large organisations. Only few descriptions about application of CE in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can be found, though SMEs have to cope with the same challenges in
aeronautics as large enterprises have to (e.g. complex product structures, distributed development, long product life cycle, etc.). Analysing this situation in detail, it can be found that the individual ‘CE status’ of SMEs is heterogeneous: While some can already be characterised as active practitioners others are hardly aware about the actual concepts of CE. The term CE itself is mainly associated with the idea of lead time reduction by increasing parallelity. Often, the need for CE is imposed on them by their customers, i.e. large aeronautic companies. However, further CE principles like e.g. team building, leadership, or systematic approach are less recognised. Simplifying this correlation, it can be stated that the smaller a company is, the less it knows about CE. The reason for this is obvious: CE umbrellas such a wide variety of subjects, that it is difficult to keep track of all of them [Thoben, Weber 1997]. The domain ranges e.g. from technologies like virtual prototyping via formal methods like Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to soft issues like motivating employees. The smaller a company is, the less resources it has to get acquainted with these many concepts. Instead, it has to concentrate its resources on its core competencies, which are typically technical or engineering competencies, but hardly managerial or soft aspects. Consequently, a knowledge gap hinders SMEs in implementing and improving CE practice. The here proposed approach assumes that to a certain degree, this gap can be bridged by means of information technology. The CEPRA project – Concurrent Engineering in Practice – which is funded by the European Commission's ESPRIT and BRITE EuRam program, aims to develop a methodology and software system which provides CE knowledge for assessing companies’ product development practice and suggesting possible solutions and tools for overcoming weaknesses. Thus, the authors aim to provide a kind of ‘electronic consultant’ who assists companies in a self-directed improvement process. The CEPRA consortium comprises nine partners from three European countries. 5 SMEs which provide different products and services to the aerospace industry (e.g. strengths analysis, software development, manufacturing, flight inspections systems) act as the industrial end users: Aerodata Flugmesstechnik, Cardinal Broach, Northern Technlogies, SIGMA Statik und Dynamik, and SOFITER. The research and development activities are carried out by CE Consulting as a consultancy in the aerospace sector, BIBA and University of Nottingham as research organisations, and TEAM as a software vendor. The industrial users pair up with one development partner in each country. The paper presents initial findings and concepts from the project. Chapter 2 outlines the current state of the art of CE implementation in SMEs in aeronautics. Chapter 3 describes the approach taken in the CEPRA project and reports about the capturing of the user requirements. Chapter 4 presents a draft architecture of the CEPRA system.
2
International State of CE in SMEs in Aeronautics
Recently, several research studies have been reported on developing practical approaches for implementation of CE in SMEs. A strategy for implementing CE based on a cyclic approach for continuous improvement is reported by [Usher 1996]. One practical approach for accelerated initiation of CE practices in a small companies is to develop a team based on members of different departments using a checklist for early input tracking and monitoring of new product projects [Albin, Crefeld 1994], [Pawar, Sharifi 1997]. Research studies have also suggested that using a relatively simple CE implementation methodology and a supporting “toolbox” can facilitate trust, closer working relationships across the supply networks and bring more products to the market more quickly [Haynes, Frost 1994]. Although different attempts have been made to develop decision making support methodologies and “toolboxes” for implementation of CE in small businesses, they usually concentrate
on single facets of the process [Walker, Weber 1997]. [Pye 1993] and [Nichols 1994] highlighted a reluctance to make changes demanded by CE because organisations felt they had insufficient expertise to do so - this was particularly evident for SMEs. Highlighting the team aspect of CE, [Smart 1997] in her recent PhD study, which was based on 20 West European and North American organisations in the aerospace industry, developed 10 factors for successful CE implementation and these are in rank order: • Full-time internal change Agent • Controlled pilot project • Multi-disciplinary team • Formal Team Selection Process • Full-time core team and leader and part-time extended team • Permanent collocation of core team and temporary collocation of extended team • Formally assigning, clarifying and documenting team roles and responsibilities • Team ownership of collective challenge • Defining a future role for functional managers • Realignment of organisational structures and processes Essential part of the implementation process is the initial assessment of the small company “core” activities and its performance as well as attitudes and perceptions within the company. Existing studies suggest that there is still a lack of coherent approaches to measuring the performance of the small companies and assessing their activities as integrated nodes in larger supply chains [Brown, Benhadj 1997], [De Graaf 1997]. Another factor for successful implementation of CE in SMEs is the level of implementation of information technology (IT) and its successful management [Ramesh et al. 1995], [Eversheim et al. 1997]. In small businesses the main emphasis in IT implementation is on selecting the appropriate type of hardware and software and developing well structured company-specific implementation strategies. The CE principles have also significant effect on the rate of adoption of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) by small companies. A study of the relationship between intangible assets and further AMT adoption in 116 small firms indicates that technical skills of the bluecollar workers, the influence of customers and vendors, and strategic motivations focused on process improvement are the strongest determinants for the levels of adoption of AMT [Lefebvre et al. 1996]. Summarising the situation, the analysis of contemporary research in CE for small businesses shows that despite the recent developments there are several significant gaps: • The awareness about CE principles and their benefits is limited at the SMEs • SMEs have restricted resources for reengineering and continuous improvement (e.g. no specific departments for improving the own organisation) • There is insufficient knowledge on the key performance indicators for small aerospace manufacturing companies to assess the potential gains from implementing CE; • There is a limited availability of approaches for selection of appropriate methods and tools and the right level of new technology from the large amount of CE supporting means which take into account the specific needs of SMEs The CEPRA project aims to address this situation by developing a consulting methodology and software system assisting SMEs in aeronautics in improving their CE practice.
3
Approach and Initial Findings
The CEPRA project uses a classical development approach for reaching its development and demonstration goals. The approach is extended with some specific elements addressing the specific situation of SMEs as described above. One of them are the awareness seminars with which the project started at the industrial partners. Since the knowledge of CE is different in SMEs and the facets of CE are very broad, the development of a common understanding and common goals both within the individual enterprises and within the CEPRA consortium was seen as mandatory for a successful co-operation. The seminars at the industrial partners were carried out by their respective national consulting partner in order to avoid potential language barriers. They were attended by engineers and managers. The seminars covered three major subjects: • Introduction into Concurrent Engineering • Methods and tools for Concurrent Engineering • Development objectives for the CEPRA consulting system
3.1
Analysis of User Requirements
Only after this phase of ‘tuning in’, the analysis of the user requirements started. Three main aspects were to be investigated from the users: • Needs for specific CE solutions: In which areas of CE do the companies think they need help for finding new solutions (e.g. IT-Management, 3D-CAD). This knowledge is necessary in order to limit the development effort for the first prototype. • Functionality of the software system (respectively the proposed modules, see below) • Critical success factors: What are the prerequisites for the acceptance of the software system and why would somebody refuse to use it. The analysis was carried out by means of semi-standardised interviews, where the interviewer asked predetermined questions in a systematic and consistent order and extended them with additional, interactively formulated questions as far as necessary. It is important to note that this analysis did not start from scratch, but was built on a proposal for a methodology and software system which was presented to the users. This proposal is based on the authors’ recent work in the CE area, where a need for such a system has been raised during contacts with different companies [Driva, Pawar, 1997], [Reetz et al 1997]. Figure 1 presents this concept: In the Assessment Module, a company's CE practices are evaluated and weaknesses and problems are identified. These are forwarded to the Solution Identifier Module, where potential improvements and existing solution cases addressing these problems are presented. Finally the system suggest methods and tools which can assist in the implementation of the solutions. A detailed description of the concept can be found in chapter 4.
3.2
Capitalisation of Existing Approaches
In parallel to the identification of the user requirements, a survey about other relevant approaches was carried out. It was found that in the area of the individual modules, several reusable elements are available. However, concepts which integrate such approaches in a sequential flow as proposed in Figure 1 could not be found. Most reusable elements were found in the area of assessment, where questionnaires (e.g. RACE questionnaire, PACE assessment, YU-RACE questionnaire, etc.) and performance measurement (e.g. PACE PM Tool, ENAPS benchmarking approach, AMI metrics, etc.) are the key means for evaluating current practice. Solution cases are today often presented under the heading of ‘best practice’ (e.g. AESOPIAN) or as company success stories in papers or
books. Also, case based reasoning (CBR) is used increasingly for retrieving past solutions. Information about tools or methods is mainly restricted to the presentation of information about them, either in paper form (e.g. ISIS engineering report, BPR tools surveys, or books about problem solving techniques, etc.) or in electronic form (e.g. PACE Tool Selection or C/NET shareware library), but no systematic selection support is given. Consequently, there are various building blocks in different levels of maturity from which the CEPRA developments can be started. CEPRA Consulting System
CEPRA Consulting Methodology
defines approach
CEPRA Consulting Software System
company's situation
Assessment Module contains questions + metrics
strengths, weaknesses and problems
Solution Identifier Module
potential solutions depending on success and failure cases
contains solution cases
Tool Selection Module
solutions and appropriate methods and tools to implement them
contains methods + tools
Figure 1: The CEPRA Consulting System as proposed to the users during the requirements definition
3.3
Development of Methodology and Software System
As the next step the CE Consulting Methodology will be developed. The methodology will describe the theoretical concepts and procedures for how to assess the company situation and identify the company problems, how to map this situation to potential solutions by using success and failure cases, and how to select appropriate tools and methods that help companies to reach these solutions. The major research challenge can be seen in a suitable mapping mechanism which compares the different elements (problems, solutions, tools) in order to identify the links between them. It is expected that a common model with different views is a potential solution to this problem. This methodology and the underlying models will be the essential input for the development of the actual software modules (see chapter 4).
3.4
Internal and External Pilot Projects
The CEPRA system will then be applied and evaluated in pilot projects at the end user companies. The pilots will include on one hand the usage of the modules, and on the other hand, the realisation of the suggested solutions and usage of the proposed tools and methods. The specific synergy will be that each end user will address one or more different target areas for improvement so that all together, the consortium can demonstrate a broad variety of different CE applications and how these can benefit the aeronautics industry. As a specific element in the project, the CEPRA consortium will trigger 6 external CE pilot projects in non-CEPRA SMEs from countries other than the consortium members. These pilots will be supported by consultancy service and free use of the CEPRA tools, but will not be directly funded from the project budget. In the pilots, it is aimed to demonstrate the usability and usefulness of the CEPRA system in companies which were not involved in the development activities.
4
CEPRA Consulting Software System
This chapter describes the CEPRA software system as it has been conceptualised on basis of the user requirements and analysis of existing approaches by now. The software system supports the self-directed application of the CEPRA consulting methodology. It consists of three independant modules which are interfaced with each other (cf. Figure 2):
4.1
CE Assessment Module
The CE Assessment Module supports the analysis of the company situation with respect to strengths and weaknesses in CE practice. It will provide functionality for interactive questioning and performance measurement, analysis and problem diagnosis, presentation and reporting. Central element of the module are different sets of predefined questions from which the user can combine a specific subset which he wants to ask to the employees. The questions will be provided in different levels of detail. For example, there can be a set with, say, 15 very general questions about the overall company situation, ranging from team work to application of formal methods, as well as a very specific set with detailed questions about problems with geometrical data conversions. Also, the user can add self defined questions. Thus he can customise the questions for assessing different company aspects. Either on a regular basis or demand oriented, the user selects a set of questions and asks them to the employees. The employees can fill out the electronic questionnaire via the company network and the answers are analysed automatically. The module provides reports about strengths, weaknesses and problems in a textual and graphical output, using e.g. radar diagrams and similar presentation means. For assessing the answers, the module will consult its repository with benchmarks and assessments of companies. The assessment questionnaires are complemented with functionality for performance measurement, which supports a quantitative capturing of self-defined metrics. Metrics and questionnaires can be used independently from each other. The analysis of user requirements has shown that the demand for accurate performance measurement was limited among the SMEs. With most companies there was a significantly higher interest in questioning than in measuring. This finding is quite interesting and has to be investigated deeper, as it may give new directions for the various benchmarking initiatives which currently take place in Europe.
4.2
CE Solution Identifier
The output of the Assessment module can be used as the input for the Solution Identifier Module, where solutions for the detected problems are presented. The solutions are identified by mapping the weaknesses and problems to appropriate concepts in the repository of solutions, which contains existing and potential solution cases in terms of successes and failures. The solution cases are either collected from companies in the aerospace sector or are defined on basis of theoretical knowledge. Thus, they provide a kind of best practice knowledge about CE implementation and operation in aeronautics. Output of the module is information about the solution cases, describing e.g. how the solution looks like, how it was implemented, which experiences were made, and where additional information can be received. The module can be also used without the Assessment Module by directly searching for solution cases. Central element of the module is a case based reasoning (CBR) mechanism which provides sophisticated algorithms for querying the case base in natural language and retrieving cases that match the problem description. The module will also provide functionality for interactively detailing problems, mapping problems with solutions, presentation and reporting, and update mechanisms for maintaining the solutions repository and inserting not yet available solutions.
4.3
CE Tool Selection
Finally, the Tool Selection Module is used for identifying tools and methods which can be used for supporting the identified solutions. This comprises techniques, formal methods, software tools and non software tools like checklists, guidelines, training material etc. For example, if a solution case describes how co-operation between dislocated teams was improved successfully by applying a specific team building method, the Tool Selection Module provides information about such existing methods. This includes which prerequisites are necessary, how the methods or tools are applied, which constrains have to be considered, where they can be bought, etc. CEPRA Architecture User Interface Layer
Solution IdentifierTool User Interface
Assessment Tool User Interface
(Java Applets)
Network Layer
Internet
(HTTP, TCP/IP)
Tutorial Module
Tool Layer (Java Servlets)
Tool Selection User Interface
Benchmarking and rating
Reasoning
Assessment Tool
Interactive Questioning
Analysis
Help Module
Presentation and reporting
Update mechanism
Presentation and reporting
Demo launch and tool download
Solution Identifier Tool
Tool Selection
Mapping, case based reasoning
Mapping
DB Connection Layer (JDBC, ODBC)
Repository of CE Benchmarks
Database Layer (Access, SQL Server)
Repository of Solutions
Repository of CE Tools and Methods
Figure 2: The CEPRA Consulting Tools system architecture (draft concept)
In terms of direct usage of these methods and tools, the module provides different levels, depending on which agreement can be made with the tool provider. Different scenarios are, e.g., free download of electronic handbooks for methods, access to libraries with specific checklists, free software demos for download or direct usage via the Internet, or even direct links for purchasing software tools. Thus, the module also provides a link to ‘Electronic Commerce’ functionality or has even directly implemented payment functionalities. All modules will be implemented as Java applets and can be run via the World Wide Web. After the end of the project, the CEPRA consulting system will be made available as a commercial Internet based consulting service for SMEs in aeronautics, and will provide basic support for improving company practice on the way to CE at reasonable low prices.
5
Conclusion
This paper presented the approach of the European CEPRA project for developing a consulting system which assists SMEs in aeronautics in a self directed implementation and improvement of CE practices. Initial findings from analysing the user requirements were presented by describing a draft concept for the CEPRA software system. However, two major research questions are still to be investigated in the project: Firstly, it has to be found out whether a mapping mechanism can be developed which connects the elements of the three CEPRA modules (i.e. problems/weaknesses, solutions cases, and methods and tools). Here, the challenge is to develop a model which allows to enter new questions, solution cases or tools without the need to refine the underlying mapping
mechanism. Secondly, the acceptance of such an electronic consulting service has to be evaluated. It is expected that it will depend significantly on the transparency of the underlying mechanisms and the amount of solutions and tools contained. Here, there is a risk that the system might only be accepted by the users if it can behave as a ‘general problem solver’. However, different research activities have shown that such a system is not feasible (yet?) and thus the authors hope that this expectation will not be raised during the pilot applications. Findings about the ongoing research work will be made available continuously on the CEPRA WWW site [Beyer 1999]. Companies interested in participating in the project as external pilots are encouraged to contact the CEPRA Consortium. Acknowledgement This work has been partly funded by the European Commission through ESPRIT/Brite EuRam Project No. EP 29365 CEPRA - Concurrent Engineering in Practice - Demonstrating the Innovative Development of Aircraft Components in Small and Medium Enterprises. The authors wish to acknowledge the Commission for their support. We also wish to acknowledge our gratitude and appreciation to all the CEPRA project partners for their contribution during the development of various ideas and concepts presented in this paper. References Albin, S. L.: Crefeld, P.: Getting started: concurrent engineering for a medium-sized manufacturer, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol.13, No.1, 1994, pp.48-58. Beyer, Nils: CEPRA homepage, http://www.biba.uni-bremen.de/projects/cepra, 1998. Brown, M. L.; Benhadj, R.: Implementation of modern new product development and introduction theory in a small manufacturing company, Proceedings of the 1997 5th International Conference on Factory 2000 The Technology Exploitation Process, pp.57-62, Cambridge, UK, Apr 2-4, 1997. De Graaf R.: Lessons Learned from Implementing Change in Product Development, Proceedings of Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, McLean, USA, 1995, pp. 549-556. Driva, Helen; Pawar, Kulwant S.: Overview of PACE from Conceptual Model to Implementation Methodology. In: [Walker, Weber 1997], pp. 14-28. Eversheim, W.; Roggatz, A.; Zimmermann, H.J.; Derichs, T.: Information management for concurrent engineering, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.100, No.2, 1997, pp.253-265. Gatenby, D. A.; Lee, P. M.; Howard, et al: Concurrent Engineering: an enabler for fast, high-quality product realization, AT&T Technical Journal, Vol.73, No.1, 1994, pp.34-47. Haynes, I.; Frost, N.: Accelerated product development: an experience with small and medium-sized companies, World Class Design to Manufacture, Vol.1, No.5, 1994, pp.32-37. Lefebvre, L. A.; Lefebvre, E.; Harvey, J.: Intangible assets as determinants of advanced manufacturing technology adoption in SME's: toward an evolutionary model, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.43, No.3, 1996, pp.307-320. Nichols, K.: Developing with the best: Survey of product development within UK industry, World Class Design to Manufacture, Vol 1, No 2, 1994, pp 7-12. Pawar, K.S.; Sharifi, S.: Physical or virtual team location: Does it matter? International Journal of Production Economics Vol 52, 1997, pp. 283-290. Pye, A.: A long crawl to market, Engineering, February, 1993, pp. 40-42. Ramesh, M. C.; Fulton, R.E.; Duhig, J. J.: Approaches to bringing information technology to small business applications, Vol.7, pp.33-39, Proceedings of the 1995 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, San Francisco, CA, USA, Nov 12-17, 1995. Reetz, U.; Krömker, M.; Thoben, K.-D.; Weber, F.: Information and Decision Support for the Selection of Methods and Tools within Concurrent Engineering Environments. Proceedings of the Int. Conference On Concurrent Enterprising, 8 - 10 October 1997, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 1998. Thoben, K.-D.; Weber, F.: A Concurrent Engineering Knowledge Platform: Providing Engineers and Managers with Practical and Theoretical CE Information. In: [Walker, Weber 1997], pp. 27-37. Usher, J.M.: Implementing concurrent engineering in small manufacturing enterprises, Engineering Management Journal, Vol.8, No.1, 1996, pp.33-43. Walker, R.; Weber, F.: PACE ’97 - A Practical Approach to Concurrent Engineering. Proceedings of European Workshop on Conc. Engineering, , 15 May 1997, Centimfe, Marinha Grande, Portugal, 1997.
