Concurrent engineering has become a popular approach to product development among manufacturing companies. A lively debate has recently arisen upon whether the technique may be conveniently applied under all circumstances, or whether, in some cases, it may be inferior to other approaches, including the traditional sequential one. The paper proposes an analytical model of concurrent engineering and shows that the main, although not the only, determinants in suggesting the optimal allocation of product and process design e ort are thè evolution speeds' of product and process parameters. Evolution speed indicates whether the major part of design uncertainty is reduced early or late in the design process and, among other factors, is related to the problem's innovative content. It is eventually found that concurrent engineering is optimal in the case of routine design and when the process characteristics are not critical. Under other circumstances other three patterns, termed`sequential',`process ® rst' and`co-operative R&D' , appear to be superior.
IntroductionUntil less than a decade ago, the dominant approach to product development in manufacturing ® rms was purely sequential. The chain of activities starting from product planning, and leading to product design, process design and, ® nally, production, was managed as a strict succession of tasks. Each activity was assigned to a corresponding function (i.e. marketing, design department, process planning o ce, shop¯oor), and jobs completed by each upstream function were simply passed`over the wall' to the downstream o ce. The roots of such a kind of organization can be traced back to the turn of this century, when specialization and division of labour were the techniques of choice when pursuing e ciency (Dasu and Eastman 1994: pp. viii± xv). However, because of their iterative nature, the sequential approach does not suit design and development activities very well. The division between upstream and downstream activities is conceptually appealing but, in reality, all design tasksÐ product and process design in particularÐ are strongly interdependent. If a designer ignores the downstream implications of his or her design choices, he is bound to rework his results several times, thus reducing overall e ciency and increasing development time.As a ® rst step to solving such problems, the design review approach was proposed, in which meetings are organized at di erent steps of the development process. In such meetings, representatives from di erent functions examine and criticize intermediate design results from the perspective of downstream development activities, together with basic functionality and compliance to speci® cations. Between the