6Sigma 精益設(shè)計(jì)

1、Design for Lean 2 2 DMEDI Roadmap Project Schedule GANNTT Chart Project Scope MGP IN-OUT Scope Tool MGP MGP MGP Understand the Voice of The Customer Quality Function Deployment Scorecards Process Mapping Target Costing Generate High Level Concept Ideas Concept Selection Elements of High Level Design

2、 Develop Detailed Design FMEATarget Cost Design for Lean Optimize Design Performance Plan Enter Current Product Component Across the Top and Modularization Criteria in Pugh Matrix For This Example “Bicycle Brake Module was Selected. There are 4 Models Talon,Falcon, Easy Rider and Thrasher Modulariza

3、tion Criteria Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Importance Rating Functionality of design to primary design intent Stability of design over its life cycle/length of life cycle Ability and ease of technological upgradability Adaptability of the design for other cross platform uses and interfaces To

4、tal life cycle costs Cross platform applicability Multiple Functionality Cross platform manufacturability Fixed cost structure Maintainability Products Component For Bicycle example the Product Component Evaluated is Brake Module. Across the Top Enter Different Models of Brake Modules Used on Your B

5、icycle Product Line 53 Example:Brake Module Set-up the Pugh matrix include criteria elements modularity, mass customization, and reuse Set “Easy Rider” for the initial baseline Each of the Brake Module model are evaluated against the criteria Pugh Matrix Bicycle Example Brake Module Talon Falcon Eas

6、y Rider Thrasher Importance Rating Functionality of design to primary/basic design intent +B+10 Stability of design over its life cycle/length of life cycle _SB_4 Ability and ease of technological upgradability +SB+6 Adaptability of the design for other cross platform uses and interfaces _SB_7 Total

7、 life cycle costs SSBS10 Cross platform applicability S_ _B_7 Multiple functionalitySSBS5 Cross platform manufacturability _SB_8 Fixed cost structure _B_8 Maintainability +SB+7 Total +4104 Total -4305 Weighted Total +3310033 Weighted Total -27-220-33 6-1200 Talon Scored Highest with a 6, but Also Sc

8、ored Many Negitives 54 Modularity, Mass Customization and Reuse Pugh Matrix Bicycle Example Brainstormed the “+” and “-” of each brake model. Can the “-” be eliminated? Can the“+” be shared across all the models? Brake Module Talon Falcon Easy Rider Thrasher Importance Rating Functionality of design

9、 to primary/basic design intent +B+10 The higher-end models provide better stopping power and more control Stability of design over its life cycle/length of life cycle _SB_4 The higher-end and competitive designs are more prone to changes Ability and ease of technological upgradability +SB+6 The hig

10、her-end and competitive designs are designed for upgradability Adaptability of the design for other cross platform uses and interfaces _SB_7 The higher-end and competitive designs are more specificly engingeered Total life cycle costs SSBS10 For bicycle brakes, there are no real differences in life

11、cycle costs Cross platform applicability S_ _B_7Per the last example Multiple functionalitySSBS5 Number of interface zones is consistent for all modules/systems Cross platform manufacturability _SB_8 The higher-end and competitive designs require closer tolerances and more complex fixturing Fixed co

12、st structure _B_8 The higher-end and competitive designs require investment castings and more fixturing Maintainability +SB+7 The higher-end and competitive designs are inherently designed for easier maintainability and part replacement Total +4104 Total -4305 Weighted Total +3310033 Weighted Total

13、-27-220-33 6-1200 Note: Talon however, the “per piece” cost for the overhead would be the same. Team Decisions 3 cable models could be consolidated into 1 higher performance cable, and that volume pricing would offset any cost differences. Cantilevers could be consolidated into 2 basic models rather

14、 than 4. Lower-end model and a higher-end model. 57 Bicycle Example-Benefits of Consolidating Cable Models The cables models are reduced from 3 to 1: Benefits Summary: Inventory savings Material savings= none Design savings in revision history maintenance, BOM maintenance, and redesigns/upgrades 58

15、Bicycle Example-Benefits Reduced Cantilevers The cantilever models are reduced from 6 models to 2: Benefits Summary Inventory savings Material savings with volume pricing on two models as opposed to six. Design savings in less revision history maintenance, and BOM maintenance and redesigns/upgrades

16、59 Pugh Matrix Summary Use Pugh Matrix to select the best product component modules from among alternatives. All concepts and criteria are represented in the matrix One concept is selected as the baseline Weight the criteria Remaining concepts are rated better, same, or worse than baseline for each

17、criteria Seek to “Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negatives” for the module that appears superior after the first round. Use the Matrix results to spur another round of module design generation. 60 Managing the Reuse Infrastructure Involves Planning and Deriving a Reuse Process Establishing R

18、ules, Roles, and Goals to Support Reuse Designing Conventions and Standards Approving Additions, Deletions and Change to the Design Library Coordinating Schedules and Resources Aligning Goals of Reuse to Business Goals Establishing and Awarding Incentives Interpreting Metrics Data Planning Economic

19、Models 61 Reusable Knowledge Base Knowledge Base by Development Phase Define and Measure: Market opportunities, CCRs, trade studies, cost models, multi-generation plans Explore: Project/Design models, frameworks, systems, standards, product and process histories, system simulations, historical quali

20、ty Develop: Detailed product and process design integration goals and issues, design and process standards, historical costs, component and module design simulations, historical quality Implement: Current and historical process implementation, pilots and testing, training programs, product operating

21、 procedures, maintenance schedules, process capability, report tracking Design Simplicity Minimize Bill-of-Material Levels and Number of Parts 63 Design Simplicity Design for Simplicity aims at minimizing the complexity of the product structure and the processes that produce it. Each product feature

22、 is evaluated for its value-add in the eyes of the customer (internal and external) Less complexity breeds fewer opportunities for Mistakes Bottlenecks 64 Design Simplicity (Cont.) Design Simplicity Advantages: Product With Higher Process Capabilities Reduces Cycle Times Reduce the number of parts p

23、rocured, managed, maintained, inventoried, handled, and assembled. USE less parts in the design USE of off-the-shelf parts Basis for the Design for Part Reduction methodology is a penalty point and award system: 100 Penalty points assigned for every part in an assembly 25 Reward points are assigned

24、for every part or assembly That is outsourced (25) That is off-the-shelf (25) 70 Minimize Number of Designed Parts Outsourcing and Off-the-Shelf Parts Are less expensive to design. Cost of design, documentation, testing, and the cost of non-core-competency manufacturing are eliminated. Save time con

25、sidering the time to design, document, build, test, and modify prototype parts. Suppliers of off-the-shelf parts are more efficient at their specialty “Never Design a Part That You Can Buy from a Catalog” 71 Minimize Number of Designed Parts Spreadsheet Assembly, Subassembly, or Module Name or Numbe

26、rCount Penalty Points (- 100) Currently Out Sourced? REWARD (+25) Currently Off the Shelf? REWARD (+25) Current Total (PENALITY POINTS + REWARD POINTS Potential Outsource? REWARD (+25) Potential Off the Shelf? REWARD (+25) OPPORTUNITY Total (PENALITY POINTS + REWARD POINTS PartCurrent Scenario Summa

27、tionOpportunity Summation The designer should go through the assembly part by part and evaluate whether the part can be eliminated, combined with another part, or the function can be performed in another way. Ask the following: Does the part move relative to all other moving parts? Must the part abs

28、olutely be of a different material from the other parts? Must the part be different to allow possible disassembly? Design Simplicity Penalty_Reward_Points.xls Simple Spreadsheet To Highlight Opportunities 72 Minimize Number of Total Parts The concept of the theoretical minimum number of parts was or

29、iginally proposed by Boothroyd (1982). During the assembly of the product, generally a part is required only when; Kinematic motion of the part is required. Different material is required. Assembly of other parts would otherwise be prevented. If non of these statements are true, then the part is not

30、 needed to be a separate entity. KISS Keep It Simple Stupid 73 Component Reduction Analysis Poster Y N Does the part move relative to other parts in the assembly? Is movement absolutely necessary for assembly function? Combineable Y Does it need to be a separate part to accomodate function? Y Is the component part a different material from mating parts in the assembly? N Y Does it need to be a different material accomodate function? Stand Alone Y N Is the c