VSM Group case

Transcription

VSM Group case

INTERFACE – Interfaces in Industrial Innovation Processes
©VSM Group AB
VSM Group AB
(Company Home)
Thomas Magnusson
2008-06-23
Contents
VSM Group AB ......................................................................................................................... 1
(Company Home) ....................................................................................................................... 1
Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
The Company ............................................................................................................................. 2
Product development at VSM .................................................................................................... 3
Project P08 ................................................................................................................................. 8
Background ............................................................................................................................ 8
The Technology/Product development interface ................................................................... 9
The Product development/Production interface ................................................................... 10
Lessons from the P08 development ..................................................................................... 11
Project P11 ............................................................................................................................... 12
Background .......................................................................................................................... 12
The Technology/Product development interface ................................................................. 13
The Product development/Production interface ................................................................... 14
Lessons from the development project ................................................................................. 15
Group assignment ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1 Internal view of sewing machine ................................................................................. 4
Figure 2 External view of sewing machine ................................................................................ 4
Figure 3 R&D organisation at VSM .......................................................................................... 5
Figure 4 Product development process ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 Presser foot assembly, needle threader and needle plate ............................................. 8
Figure 6 Platinum 730 - results from the P08 development project........................................... 9
Figure 7 Designer SE - results from the P11 development project .......................................... 13
1
Introduction
This case report describes the company VSM Group, its R&D department and two product
development projects which have been accomplished by the company. The report is based on
12 tape-recorded interviews with managers and engineers at VSM Group as well as studies of
project documentation and participatory observation a project evaluation seminar. These
empirical studies were conducted in March – June 2005. Hence the report describes the
company in a situation as it was by the beginning of 2005.
The Company
VSM Group develops, manufactures and markets sewing machines under two main brands:
Husqvarna Viking and Pfaff. VSM has its roots in Husqvarna AB, a company with a 300-year
history as a manufacturer of a broad range of engineering products including hunting
weapons, bicycles, motorcycles, kitchen appliances, sewing machines and outdoor products.
Husqvarna AB started manufacturing of sewing machines about 150 years ago and
application of new technologies and continuous introduction of new products and product
ranges has since long been a hallmark of this company. In 2003, VSM Group employed 2246
people. The annual turnover was about 2 billion SEK and the annual sales volume is about
500 000 sewing machines. Represented in this figure are about 300 000 traded machines and
200 000 machines that are manufactured by VSM.
VSM was separated from Husqvarna AB in 1997. Since then the company’s operations have
been solely focused on sewing machines and sewing machine accessories including software,
embroidery designs, presser feet etc. Accessories presently represent about 20% of the total
turnover, but the market for accessories is expanding. The product range, which presently
comprises about 40 different products, includes sewing machines in three different segments:
Electronic, Computer and Embroidery. Electronic refers to a segment of lower-end basic,
electronically controlled, machines; Computer refers to a more advanced mid-range segment
and Embroidery comprises the most exclusive and expensive high-end machines. Present in
the product range are also a number of traded sewing machines, both simpler and lower priced
mechanical machines and Overlock machines that are specifically designed for overlockseams. All of VSM’s products are directed to the consumer market and they are distributed
world-wide via an extensive network of dealers. North America is the largest and most
important market for VSM with about 60% of their sales volume.
The VSM headquarters, as well as the main manufacturing plant and R&D facilities are
located in Huskvarna, Sweden. The company also runs a manufacturing plant in Brno, the
Czech Republic. This plant came as part of the acquisition of the Pfaff household sewing
machines division and the Pfaff brand name in 2000. The acquisition also included a
manufacturing plant in Germany, which thereafter was shut down, and a R&D unit in
Germany, which is in the process of being terminated. Part of the VSM Group is also VSM
Software Ltd., a software development company in London, U.K., which was acquired in
1999.
The VSM Group organisation has a traditional functional structure with five different
departments: Finance, Research and Development (R&D), Production, Marketing and Sales.
It also entails three different support functions: Quality/IT, Human Resources and an
Executive Assistant. VSM has an ambition to retain the heritage from Husqvarna as an
2
innovative company and they have defined six “corporate values” that should reflect the
business operations as well as the products: Trustworthy, Respect, Performance, Excellence,
Goal Driven, Innovation, and Quality obsession. The brands Husqvarna Viking and Pfaff also
have their individual proliferation. Husqvarna Viking stands for “values that reflect the real
world and are part of your life: Innovative, Family, Caring, and Fun”. By contrast, Pfaff
represents “values related to creating desire and dreams of what you can be: Elegant,
Individual, and Sophisticated”.
VSM generally has a smaller sales volume than their competitors, but also larger margins. In
order to retain these margins it is necessary to introduce new products with improved
functionality and performance, and with new technical features, at a steady pace. Especially in
the high-end segment, this continuous innovation strategy has proved to be successful for
VSM. Customers seem to be prepared to pay for technical novelty. In recent years, the market
for sewing machines has tended to divert into two broad categories: buyers who are less price
sensitive but wants the most advanced sewing machines, and buyers who consider price as a
prime selection criteria for their purchase. Thus the mid-range segment is shrinking in volume
and it is becoming less profitable. In the low-end segment, the competition is particularly
challenging, with a large number of manufacturers represented. Especially, competition from
Asian volume producers is daunting in this segment.
Product development at VSM
The sewing machine traditionally relies heavily on precision mechanics. However, during the
last decades the product has undergone a rapid technical development. Advanced electronics
and computer controls, which were implemented for the first time in the 1980s, have made it
possible to add a lot of functionality to the machine and this has also propelled the
development of graphical user interfaces and the use of graphical displays. New functionality
such as embroidery capabilities has also resulted in additional demands in terms of enhanced
accuracy and precision of the mechanical components. In addition, the amount of software in
the machine has increased rapidly. As a result, today’s most advanced sewing machines rely
just as much on electronics and software as on mechanics.
The central mechanical component in the sewing machine is the arm, which is made from
press cast aluminium. The tooling lead time for this component is about 18 months. VSM
sources the arm from an external supplier. The arm forms the basis for a hardware platform,
which is shared by a number of different models. Today, VSM uses a hardware platform
called S2, which was developed in the mid 1980s. The S2 developments were initiated as a
collaborative project involving both R&D and production departments at the company with
the aim of rationalizing production and reduce the number of components. This development
initiative was very successful as it meant that many functions could be integrated to the same
components. As a result, the number of components in the sewing machine was reduced with
about one third.
Various mechanic and electronic components are attached to the arm. VSM sources all
electronic components from external suppliers. Since VSM uses the same suppliers as many
large consumer electronics firms, VSM is a relatively small customer and they often have to
be very active in the procurement process. Mechanic components are both sourced from
external suppliers and manufactured in-house. In particular, VSM have developed in house
expertise in sinter-casting. This is held as an important manufacturing technique since this
makes is possible to produce self-lubricating components with good precision. Another
3
important manufacturing technique, in which VSM retains expertise in-house, is injectionmoulding. The sewing machine entails a lot of injection moulded plastic parts and injectionmoulded plastic covers form the exterior of the sewing machine. VSM generally manufactures
these covers as well as other plastic components in house. One exception however is the front
cover because this component is too large to be manufactured at VSM’s production facilities.
The lead time for manufacturing of plastic component tools is about 6-9 months. Figure 1
shows an internal view and figure 2 shows an external view of a sewing machine.
Figure 1 Internal view of sewing machine (© VSM Group AB)
Figure 2 External view of sewing machine (© VSM Group AB)
4
The R&D department at VSM employs about 80 people. The engineers are divided in seven
groups: Project administration (6 engineers/project managers), Pre-Development and Design
(6 engineers), Mechanical Development (15 engineers), Electronics Development (2
engineers), Software Development (16 engineers), Test and Verification Laboratory/Sew
technique (9 engineers), and Technical documentation (5 engineers). The department also
entails three product managers, one for traded products and one each for the Husqvarna
Viking and Pfaff brands. Three systems engineers support the product managers, two of them
work for the Husqvarna Viking product manager and one for the Pfaff product manager.
Present in the R&D organisation is also VSM Software Ltd., which presently employs 11
engineers and a separate German unit with four engineers working with product support on
existing Pfaff machines. Figure 3 presents an organisational chart for the R&D department at
VSM.
R&D Director
Product
Manager
Traded
Products
VSM Software
Ltd.
Software Appl.
Product
Manager
Husqvarna
Viking
Pfaff GmbH
Product
Maintenance
Product
Manager
Pfaff
Project
Administration
PreDevelopment
Design
Development
Mechanical
Development
Electronics
Figure 3 R&D organisation at VSM
5
Development
Software
Laboratory
Test &
Verification
Sew Tech.
Technical
Documentation
Rapid technological developments have resulted in a significantly shortened market life for
the sewing machine. Whereas a product model previously could exist on the market for
several decades, today’s sewing machines have to be replaced in a cycle which runs about 5
years. In turn, this means that several development projects have to be managed
simultaneously at VSM. Every year about 20 different projects are completed by the R&D
department.
VSM uses a phase-review model to describe their product development process. Development
projects are generally initiated as a result of primary development efforts involving new
technologies, or as a result of feedback signals from the market including sales companies,
agents, dealers and consumers. Another factor that may trigger development projects is
competitors´ activities. The R&D department at VSM continuously monitors the competition
through purchase and careful examination of recently introduced competitor products. The
“Strategic Product Development Group” (SPDG), involving the company CEO, R&D
manager, production manager, marketing manager and product managers, takes decisions to
initiate development projects. Before starting a formal project, all necessary investigations
should be completed and a specification should exist. Furthermore a Sponsor (in most cases
one of the product managers) and a project manager should be assigned to the project. A
specific group, the “Project Initialisation group”, works out the specification, which is handed
over to the project. Hence, the first phase of the product development process is denoted
“Specification phase” and at the end of this phase, there is a gate at which where the project
requirements are reviewed. The second phase is a concept phase, which ends in a preliminary
design review. At this point, results from FMEA, detailed schedules, WBS, article trees,
product cost estimates, FS-prototypes and sales forecasts should be at hand. Thereafter
follows a development phase, during which the project team produces prototypes, drawings
and plans for testing, quality assurance, purchasing and production. Training, launch and
service plans are also set up, and environmental evaluations, required authority approvals and
packaging requirements are made during this phase. The development phase ends in a
“Critical design review”. The following development phases involve design and
manufacturing of tools, fixtures and assembly lines. A number of test series are run before the
product is approved and handed over for mass production. The product development project
model is illustrated in figure 4.
6
Figure 4 Product development process (© VSM Group AB)
7
Project P08
Background
The purpose of the P08 development was to up-date the existing product portfolio in the
Computer-High and Embroidery segments. In total four different machines were developed in
the project. The main objective was to provide the machines with a new and modern exterior
design. Amongst others, this meant new keys and new displays, as well as new covers all
around the machine. Customers were supposed to perceive the machines as completely new
even though the interior would be quite similar compared to the existing machines.
Two of the machines were based on the S2 platform and two were based on the Designer
series. This meant that even though the customers were supposed to view the four machines
as a coherent product family, the machines were relatively different in terms of internal
technological structure and design. To some extent, this meant that there was a double
workload for product development, e.g. they had to design two different arms. However, as
the interior mechanical design was left relatively untouched, only a limited number of new
features, such as a needle threader (see figure 5), were introduced. Software development was
an important part of the project and this also turned into a bottleneck. A major reason for this
was that only two software designers were involved in the project.
Figure 5 Presser foot assembly, needle threader and needle plate (© VSM Group AB)
The P08 project was a relatively large development project at VSM and it employed a large
part of the R&D department. But the project organisation was not formally divided and no
object leaders were appointed. The project started in 2001 and it was ended in 2003. The
models are currently (in 2005) being produced at the VSM production facilities in Huskvarna.
In terms of final deadline, the project fulfilled its target and the machines were introduced in
due time. The sales, however, failed to meet expectations. A number of explanations have
been offered to this. Generally it is believed that sales in the mid-range segment have been
difficult to achieve because customers either prefer cheap and relatively simple machines, or
advanced high-end machines and this latter category of customers seems to be prepared to pay
extra to get the latest features and the most advanced technology. The implication is that it is
8
difficult to compete with mid-range machines, which are lower priced but do not comprise the
latest and most advanced functions and technology. Another explanation for the limited sales
is the exterior design, which was intended as expressing “Nordic Elegance”, seemed to be too
indifferent and anonymous. A third explanation to the limited sales is that the product price is
too high, especially when compared to the price of machines that are imported from the Far
East. Figure 6 shows Platinum 730, which is one of the sewing machine models that were
developed in the P08 project.
Figure 6 Platinum 730 - results from the P08 development project (© VSM Group AB)
The Technology/Product development interface
In this project, the primary role of the Pre-Development and Design group was related to
exterior design and graphical user interfaces. Before the Product development project was
initiated, two different design bureaus were engaged to carry out design studies for the new
machines. These design studies, as well as the work on graphical user interfaces were
coordinated by the Pre-Development and Design group. The engineer who was to be
appointed project manager was part of the Pre-Development and Design group, so she was
also involved at this stage. During 2001 Pre-development gradually turned into product
development, the project manager was appointed and a steering group, consisting of the
technical manager, the technical product manager, the commercial product manager and the
marketing manager, was assembled. The technical product manager was also appointed as
project sponsor.
Decisions on design were delayed by the Pre-Development and Design group until the turn of
the year 2001-2002 and this meant that the start of the development project was slightly
delayed. The design coordinator from the Pre-Development and Design group followed the
project. One problem with the design of the plastic cover was that it blocked insight to the
needle. This was not discovered until a while after the project initiation, and it resulted in a lot
of rework because the cover had to be adjusted and some inside components had to be moved.
Remarkably, a previous development project (Designer 1) had experienced a similar problem,
but the P08 project nevertheless failed to learn from that experience.
9
Another problem that arose had to do with the illumination of the display. According to the
initial specification, this was to be accomplished by diodes. This was an inexpensive solution,
but it was not proven that it actually worked in this application and it was considered a risk
initially in the project. During subsequent prototype tests it proved to be difficult to reach the
desired functionality level. The problem was discussed with the Pre-Development and Design
manager, who had an informal role in the development project as a “concept owner”. He had
initially stipulated the diode illumination, but as this solution did not produce sufficient
contrasts, the engineers had to turn to a back-up solution with traditional light bulbs and
reflectors very late in the project. The back-up solution demanded a slight adjustment of the
mechanical design and it also affected the electronic control unit of the machine. According to
the electronics design manager, this decision could and should have been taken much earlier:
Against better judgement they insisted to use a solution that I thought we had
good reason to believe that it would not work. Sometimes you drive the cost
issue too hard and then you won’t fulfil the demands according to the
specification.
Initially it was decided that the machine should have a key board comprising a plastic cover
with holes for the keys, similar to the key board of a mobile phone. But relatively late in the
development project, due to cost reasons, the Strategic product development group (SPDG)
decided that the project should switch to a key board with foil keys. This did not affect the
final deadline and the project manager was not involved in the decision, so the practical
implications for the project were not considered. The new key board technology later resulted
in technical problems in one of the models, the embroidery model Platinum Plus/950E. The
problem was due to bad contact because the key board was bending, which resulted in a
displacement of the complete printed circuit board. It was discovered in prototype tests during
the development project, but the problem was underestimated. Some late changes in the
injection moulds were made but it was not properly verified that these changes would actually
solve the problem. As a result, the contacting problems were still present in the machine when
it was introduced to the market and released for sales and production. Due to these problems,
which had not been properly solved in the product development project, correction had to be
made after production release and a number of delivered products had to be called back.
The Product development/Production interface
Before product development was initiated there had been a discussion on the number of
different models that were to be included in the project. The initial idea was to make a
comprehensive design update of the whole model program, involving both basic and midrange machines. Then it was decided to delimit the project to fewer models. This limitation of
the production volume meant that the injection moulding tools were designed with two
instead of four dies. However, after this decision a couple of additional models were again
included in the project, and this resulted in higher production volumes for the plastic covers.
In retrospect, it would have better to design the injection moulding tools with four dies, since
this would have resulted in lower unit costs of the plastic covers.
During the development project, there was a continuous dialogue between design and
production. As soon as the initial drawings were completed, there was a review, which
brought design engineers, production engineers and an economic controller together. During
this review, the product was scrutinized on a component level in order to assess the cost of
tools and components with the ambition to bring about ideas for improvement and cost
10
reductions. However, the project manager felt that the designers tended to prioritize
functionality and forget about the cost issue.
For production the different internal technological structure and design meant that the
machines were to be assembled on two different assembly lines. The first two models required
a completely new assembly line, something that made the product development-production
hand-over more difficult. The production capacity was unknown and the assembly philosophy
was different. Whereas the previous assembly line was more controlling, the current system
entails more autonomous assembly stations, something that makes it possible to build buffers
of unfinished products between stations. Initially this possibility resulted in a shortage of
fixtures, because each product requires a fixture and the buffers meant that more products
than usual were present in the assembly line. So there was a disagreement between production
engineers and assembly personnel regarding the number of fixtures required.
The product development/production interface in the P08 project contained a number of test
series. In the first test series, 10 units were produced, in the second 25 units were produced for
sewing education. In the last test series, 100 units were produced in the final production line.
These products undergo thorough product approval tests. Product approval means that the
product is verified and that it functions with an appropriate quality. For this purpose, a
grading system is used, in which the complete machine is assessed. The scale is 10, 50 and
100 points, where 10 refer to a minor blemish and 100 refers to problems that customers will
make complaints about. If a product passes product approval, mass production may start. The
first model in the P08 project was introduced during autumn 2002 and the second model
obtained product approval in April 2003.
Lessons from the P08 development
The P08 project was the first development project that was managed according to the formal
project model. The project manager feels that there was a problem to attract people to come to
project reviews and gate meetings, because the interest is low. Additionally, since a large
number of projects were running simultaneously, it was difficult to attract attention for
individual projects, and particularly for a mid-range project like P08. Development of top-ofthe-line models is different in this respect because such projects automatically attract attention
in the organisation.
Another problem is that the line organisation is very strong and the status of the project
manager is relatively low in the organisation. As illustrated in the P08 development and the
change of key board technology, the project manager may not even be invited to take part in
important decisions which have significant implications for the project. The project manager
was put under pressure from the steering group to reach the stipulated deadline. In order to
attract the resources needed, she had to negotiate with powerful line managers with different
agendas and priorities, something that resulted in a very stressful situation for the project
manager.
Additionally, different roles and responsibilities were not clear. Which problems and
decisions were to be addressed by the Strategic product development group (SPDG), the
Steering group, the Sponsor and the Concept owner respectively? For example, even though
the concept owner did not have a formal role in the project, as illustrated by the display
illumination problem, he was very influential in decisions on technical solutions during the
project.
11
As a consequence of the design related problem, where the needle was blocked by the plastic
cover, sewing experts are now more actively involved early on in the design review process.
The product cost and its relation to the level of ambition was not sufficiently addressed during
the project and this resulted in a product that was more expensive than originally intended. An
important lesson is that it is critical to relate the desired level of performance and functionality
to an assessment of product cost during product specification.
Project P11
Background
The purpose of project P11 was to develop a new high-end embroidery machine, which was
to replace the existing Designer 1 model. Designer 1 had been released in 98/99 and it had
been very successful on the market, but now there was a need to add functionality in order to
stay competitive. Thus an upgrade was needed. The initial specification was based on an
inventory of requests for improvements made by a small group of people from sales
companies, marketing and R&D. This inventory included requests such as:
•
Exterior design; improved sense of quality with a soft lid closing.
•
Separate winding motor.
•
Better display with higher resolution
•
More integrated customizing capabilities
•
USB-port
•
Capabilities of reading embroideries directly in HUS and VIP-format
•
Better electronics with faster generation of graphics and larger memory.
SPDG started working on the specification in early 2001. Initially the idea was to base much
of the design on existing hardware and focus on software development. P11 was the first
project which had such a clear software focus. A larger display was also part of the initial
specification. The development project was scheduled for about 1.5 years, starting in late
2001 and finishing during the first quarter of 2003. However an assessment of the amount of
software development effort needed to reach the desired functionality showed that the project
would require much more time. Since the complete software package had to be rewritten, the
project could not deliver until the beginning of 2004, at the best. This opened up for
discussions on possible changes of the exterior design, making the machine more attractive
and up-to-date. Thus the initial specification, which had been released in 2001, was reopened, and this resulted in a major re-design effort, involving changes of the plastic covers
all over the machine. In the end, 44 injection moulding tools were affected and only one was
left untouched (initially only 2 tools were to be affected). This also meant that the initial
specification phase, before the project was officially started (PRR gate), was quite extensive.
In the end, the specification phase took about one year and the project turned from a limited
upgrade to a complete redesign resulting in a completely new top-of-the line embroidery
machine.
The product development project involved almost the entire R&D department. The engineers
were divided into a hardware group and a software group, with a small electronics group in
between. A marketing group and personnel from Production, Verification and Quality were
12
also included in the project organization. In September 2004 the machine was finally released
and production was started. The market response was very positive and the project is
generally regarded as one of the most successful product development projects so far. Figure
7 shows Designer SE, which was developed in the P11 project.
Figure 7 Designer SE - results from the P11 development project (© VSM Group AB)
The Technology/Product development interface
A number of new concepts and technologies were introduced in the P11 project. The
technology development group was initially involved in electronics development, with the
work on implementing new and quicker processor being their main task. At a later stage, in
March 2003, it was decided to replace the existing floppy with a USB-port, because this new
technology had developed very fast. Thus the task of integrating the USB with the sewing
machine was added to the responsibilities of the technology development group. In retrospect
it appears as a relatively straightforward decision, but there was some hesitation around the
USB implementation, mainly on behalf of marketing and sales. The complete USB-module
was purchased from an American supplier, but the effort needed to integrate it to the system
was underestimated and the functionality could not be verified until very late in the project.
Therefore the technology development group, which was in charge of the USB
implementation, followed the project until the end of 2003.
Another technology that was implemented for the first time in the P11 project was the use of
LED instead of traditional light bulbs for illumination. Initially, technology development was
run in parallel to the product development project. This development effort was undertaken in
collaboration with a university research group. After a demonstration, the decision was taken
to implement this new illumination technology in the P11 project. The LED illumination
affected both electronics and mechanics; modifications were necessary. Additionally, a new
software module had to be added to the existing software package. According to the project
manager, this was the single largest technological change in the development project:
It was completely new and untried and in the end, these were the parts that we
had a lot of trouble with.
He further asserts that since the LED-illumination was not part of the initial specification, it
did not go through the normal product development process scrutiny. This is probably one of
the reasons why the project group experienced problems with the technology at a later stage.
13
Related to the product development was also a technology development effort aiming for the
implementation of thread portioning instead of a traditional friction based thread-tensioner.
This technology development was conducted within the product development project and the
traditional solution was developed in parallel as a back-up. The traditional solution was later
preferred. The final decision was postponed until May 2004, just a few months before
production start. A problem that arose was related to an accessory, a small tool that it used to
loosen a screw in order to change needles, as the design prevented the use of this tool. The
project manager concludes that although the machine itself was thoroughly checked, it seems
as if it is difficult to include everything in the reviews.
Additionally, there was an ambition to implement automatic feed teeth drop in the P11
project. Also in this case, technology development was conducted within the project. The
mechanical design manager relates:
Pre-development proceeded within the project, something that unfortunately is
relatively common here. So it took quite a while before we were sure that we
could use it and we took a large risk. But we had a back-up; we could use the
old technology, but it would not have been without problems to switch back,
because other components would have been affected. (…) We will never reach
the ideal situation of having ready technologies, which we just can go and get
from the shelf.
In terms of software development, there is no formal separation between technology
development (or platform development) and product development. In the P11 project a
completely new software platform was developed. The software manager felt that the time
pressure meant that short term solutions may have been preferred to more long term solutions.
He further states that there was too much of research going on within the product
development project; that the initial specifications were too fuzzy and that the specification
continuously evolved during the course of the project. This made it very difficult to estimate
time requirements and altogether it resulted in severe delays in the software development:
When there is a poor hand-over from us to production, I would say that the
reason is almost always time pressure, there is such hurry in the end and you
cannot cope. My solution to that problem is to remove research from product
development.
Although there was an obvious software focus in the P11 project, the software manager feels
that the development process and organisation is very much based on requirements from
hardware development and particularly mechanics. For example, whereas it is fairly obvious
what a critical design review means for mechanics, the implications are less clear for software
development.
The Product development/Production interface
In terms of production the P11 machine was similar to Designer 1. Initially, the plan was to
run two parallel assembly lines, but in the end it was decided to use the existing Designer 1
assembly line. Production engineers were involved in the hardware development team and the
development project had recurrent meetings with production planners, but these were not
included in the project organization. The initial plan was to start production in April 2004 but
due to problems with the LED illumination and the late decision to replace the floppy with
USB, production start was postponed until September 2004.
14
Because of late software, it was impossible to run the machine in order to verify the
functionality. When the machine eventually could be run, it was discovered that the electronic
circuit board was sensitive for ESD, i.e. the machine disturbed itself. This was discovered
very late and resulted in a late design modification of the electronics. Five different preproduction series were scheduled, but the test series were squeezed together due to time
constraints. This meant that the difference between consecutive test series became marginalthere were not sufficient time to learn from the previous series and implement changes. The
time between two series was about 4 weeks, but at least 6 weeks were required to make
modifications of tools. In the end only three separate pre-production series were run. Another
problem was that the number of components available was insufficient to produce the planned
number of machines.
One particular component that caused problems in production was the lid. Originally the
intention was to mould the window into the plastic cover, but this resulted in tensions which
twisted the lid. So they were forced to mould the window separately and use ultra-sonic
welding to attach it to the cover, something that had effects on the design. The lid was the last
component to pass the final check.
Lessons from the development project
The P11 project is considered the largest development project ever at VSM and the R&D
department grew considerably during the course of the project. This meant that much new
personnel became involved and they did not have the background information which was
required to understand various technological concepts and decision. This meant that demands
on communication and learning were extraordinary in this project. Systems integration
became a primary issue and particularly the integration between hardware and software. An
important lesson is that systems integration has to be focused from the start; it cannot be
solved at the end of the project.
There seems to be a desire to make a clear distinction between technology development and
product development at VSM. But at the same time it is not feasible to separate technology
development fully from product development and conduct technology development and
product development sequentially. This is because there is a continuous push towards
innovation. To a certain extent it is necessary to embrace possibilities of implementing new
technologies that may arise during the course of product development projects. Otherwise
competitors will be first.
The sliding specification was problematic, especially for software development; there seems
to be a need to formalize software specification, development and testing. This is perhaps due
to the fact that the software part of the development has grown considerably in a few years
and the R&D processes, organizations and routines at VSM are still very much adapted to
traditional requirements of mechanical design. One particular requirement of software
engineering is the need for clarity in specifications. Another requirement is to devote
sufficient time for verification and de-bugging.
In contrast to mechanics and electronics, software technology development is not
organisationally separated from product development. The implication is that technology
development tends to be conducted within product development projects. This makes it
difficult to predict software development lead times, which, in turn, may jeopardize the
eventual deadline of the complete project. Furthermore, there is a risk that time pressure
15
means that short term and project specific solutions are preferred in favour of long term and
more general solutions.
With regards to the product development – production interface, a critical lesson from the
project is to be cautious when compressing time between test series. To be able to implement
changes between the test series, such as modifications of tools, a certain time slack is
necessary.
Group assignment
Imagine yourself as management consultants who have been engaged by the VSM senior
management to conduct a thorough review of the R&D department and its core processes. The
senior managers have asked you to recommend measures to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the organisation. In particular, they have encouraged “out-of-the-box
thinking”, but the recommendations should nevertheless be founded in an analysis of the
organisation’s current problems. The measures that you recommend may refer to changes of
the product development process and its application, to routines for portfolio management and
resource allocation, or to changes of the organisational structure of the R&D department. You
will report your recommendations to the R&D director.
16

VSM Group case

Transcription

Similar documents

The Area`s Only Christian Gift Shop

WhitbyDecember Wishlist

vince strang motorcycles dr650 riders newsletter

PPMS Vibrating Sample Magnetometer Application Note

PPMS Vibrating Sample Magnetometer Application Note

Brochure - ARTISTIC SEWING SUITE

brother anniversary savings!

Barudan X Series Brochure