Manufacturing Engineering Requirements in the Early Stages of New Product Development—A Case Study in Two Assembly Plants

Nafisi, Mariam; Wiktorsson, Magnus; Rösiö, Carin; Granlund, Anna

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102414-0.00005-7

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These focus areas are linked to the requirement categories in the worksheet. The requirement categories in the method are flexible enough to include previous work such as process variables (Jiao et al, 2007), manufacturing system functions (Elgh and Sunnersjo, 2007), manufacturing requirements (Nafisi et al, 2018), key performance indicators (Thompson et al, 2018) and assembly requirements (Rea Minango et al, 2022). The focus areas and requirement categories are not process-specific and new requirement categories can be added to the focus areas if needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The manufacturing system function links productrelated objects to production equipment so that design engineers can get information about the existing manufacturing options and associate aspects to consider in the development. Nafisi et al (2018) grouped manufacturing requirements into three categories-physical properties of the part, assembly process and material handling and line feeding and identifies test assemblies, risk assessment, DFA and QFD as some of the tools to verify and communicate these requirements. Bix and Witt, (2020) suggest that introducing manufacturing constraints can increase the effectiveness of communication at the design-manufacturing interface.…”

Section: Frame Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Method to Capture and Share Production Requirements Supporting a Collaborative Production Preparation Process

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production preparation process (3P) enables collaboration between design and production engineers during product development but its efficiency is limited by the abundance of documentation of manufacturing constraints and capabilities. Empirical studies showed that use of production requirements can increase the efficiency of 3P, however, the support for production engineers to capture and share production requirements is scarce. A method to support production engineers in identifying, defining, structuring and sharing production requirements and collaborating with design engineers is presented. The method has three major parts - focus areas and requirement categories, a worksheet for production requirements capturing and prioritization, and a workflow for using the worksheet. The method was developed in collaboration with practitioners and contributes to the existing knowledge by providing production engineers with a structured way of working with production requirements. Evaluation of the method in the case company showed its usability when developing product variants and that additional work is needed to support the development of new product families and assembly lines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frame Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

A Method to Capture and Share Production Requirements Supporting a Collaborative Production Preparation Process

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1. Defining and structuring of production requirements for improved support for design for producibility: Production requirements can be visualized as a combination of process variables and logistic variables [39], manufacturing requirements [36], manufacturing constraints [35] and key characteristics. Data collected from the interviews showed that a structured definition of production requirements can help to better communication between the different disciplines and overcome the lack of manufacturing inputs in the initial stages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…KC can be used to communicate production requirements to early product development phases. Concepts such as manufacturing constraints [35] and manufacturing engineering requirements [36] can also be used for better communication between design and manufacturing. Test assemblies, risk assessment, DFA, QFD and CAD tools can be combined to the above concpets to improve communication.…”

Section: Frame Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Design for Producibility: A Case Study on Theory, Practice and Gaps

Koroth

Elgh

Lennartsson

et al. 2022

Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing customer requirements, regulations, technology and regulations, shift to automated assembly and product variety are common challenges faced by many manufacturing industries and alignment between product and production system is critical for business success. Design engineers should be aware of production constraints and capabilities to ensure efficient manufacture and assembly of products that are developed. This requires different and detailed support to guide the work, evaluate different design solutions, enable continuous and concurrent work with design for producibility and production preparation. A study was conducted in three companies to understand alignment and integration of product development and production preparation processes. Also, utilization of production requirements, design for manufacture and assembly (DFMA) and failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA) to support design for producibility (DFP) was studied. Currently, production preparation is done through discussions between design and production engineers. Production preparation and work with DFMA and FMEA is skill and experience dependent. Definition, structuring and sharing of production requirements on different system levels, from production and product perspectives are identified as critical to supporting design for producibility and production preparation. The work with FMEA and DFMA can be developed and improved with systematic and structured way of working with production requirements.

show abstract

Evaluating Sustainable Conceptual Designs Using an AHP-Based ELECTRE I Method

Nghiem

Chu

2021

Int. J. Info. Tech. Dec. Mak.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating sustainable conceptual designs is a crucial part of the development of new products in various sectors because it contributes to the survival and prosperity of companies. Such designs must be compatible with a product’s functional requirements and be sustainable in economic, environmental, and social terms. Various criteria, some qualitative and others quantitative, are considered when evaluating sustainable conceptual designs; some criteria may also have sub-criteria, and these criteria and sub-criteria may differ in importance. How to effectively evaluate various criteria and sub-criteria and weight them are the major research problem. This study developed an analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-based ELECTRE I method to resolve the evaluation problem; the method entails a two-level hierarchical structure to depict the relationships between the major criteria and sub-criteria and their corresponding weights, with weights obtained through an AHP. Furthermore, an extension based on the addition of net concordance value and net adjusted discordance value is proposed for ranking alternative designs; this extension yields more distinguishable results than the method of [Nijkamp and Van Delft Multi-Criteria Analysis and Regional Decision-Making, Vol. 8 (Springer Science & Business Media, 1977)], and the proposed extension in the ELECTRE I method captures more information in the modified summation matrix when aggregating values in the concordance matrix and the modified discordance matrix, representing an advantage over the method of [Zhang et al. Virtual network embedding using node multiple metrics based on simplified ELECTRE method, IEEE Access 6 (2018) 37314–37327]. In addition, to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method, the example of the evaluation and selection of sustainable conceptual designs in the furniture manufacturing industry is presented. Finally, a numerical comparison is made to show the advantages of the proposed method.

show abstract

Manufacturing Engineering Requirements in the Early Stages of New Product Development—A Case Study in Two Assembly Plants

Cited by 4 publications

References 34 publications

A Method to Capture and Share Production Requirements Supporting a Collaborative Production Preparation Process

A Method to Capture and Share Production Requirements Supporting a Collaborative Production Preparation Process

Design for Producibility: A Case Study on Theory, Practice and Gaps

Evaluating Sustainable Conceptual Designs Using an AHP-Based ELECTRE I Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About