yang 011402

7/27/2019 Yang 011402

1/6

1

Journal of Industrial Technology Volume 18, Number 2 February 2002 to April 2002 www.nait.org

KEYWORD SEARCH

The Official Electronic Publication of the National Association of Industrial Technology www.nait.org

2002

Integrating the Thinking Process

into the Product Design ChainBy Mr. Chang Lin Yang, Dr. Tsung Shin Hsu, and Dr. Chung Yaw Ching

Volume 18, Number 2 - February 2002 to April 2002

Reviewed Article

CAD

DesignManagement

ManufacturingProduction

Quality

7/27/2019 Yang 011402

2/6

2


Integrating the Thinking

Process into the Product

Design ChainBy Mr. Chang Lin Yang, Dr. Tsung Shin Hsu, and Dr. Chung Yaw Ching

Mr. Yang, Chang-Lin is a Ph. D. candidate in theDepartment of Industrial Management at NationalTaiwan University of Science and Technology(NTUST), Taipei, Taiwan. He has taught IndustrialEngineering and Management related courses atLunghwa University of Science and Technology(NTUST), Taoyuan, Taiwan. His teaching and re-search areas are Product design management andthe applications of Theory of Constraints.

Dr. Hsu, Tsung-Shin is an associate professor inthe Department of Industrial Management at Na-tional Taiwan University of Science and Technol-ogy (NTUST), Taipei, Taiwan. His teaching and re-

search interests are Product design and Operationsmanagement, Manufacturing Strategies, EnterpriseResources Planning (ERP), and the applications ofTheory of Constraints.

Dr. Ching, Chung-Yaw is an associate professor inthe Department of Communications Managementat Shih Hsin University, Taipei, Taiwan. His teach-ing and research interests are technology transferand operations management for communicationsindustries, especially on the Theory of Constraintsrelated topics.

IntroductionWhile facing intensive global

competition, rapid technologicalchange, and the shifting patterns ofworld markets, a firm is expected tomaintain a competitive advantage.Therefore, shortening the duration ofthe product design chain (PDC), depictas in Figure 1, which is defined as aseries process of product concept,detail engineering, process engineer-

ing, prototype manufacturing, and post-launch activities, is a necessity (Song& Montoya-Weiss, 1998; Twigg,1998). The key factors identified in thePDC offer the primary strategy fordetermining its future. Failing toidentify the factors not only affects anorganizations competitiveness, but alsoaffects corporate image, financialvalue, research and development(R&D), marketing, production andoperations, and human resources. As aresult, the factors that influence the

PDC process must be taken intoconsideration as relates to the types ofproducts. The PDC is normally appliedto three types of products: new prod-ucts, upgraded products, and custom-ized products (Globerson, 1997;Thomas, 1993).

The PDC can be considered fromtwo aspects: technical factors andcustomer feedback. Technical factorsthat has implications for manufacturingare; strategic planning, market analysis,technical development, and product

commercialization (Song & Montoya-Weiss, 1998). On the other hand,customer feedback also plays animportant role in successful productdevelopment. Customers have manyideas in mind when considering newproducts or services in regard to thePDC. Hence, designers and manufac-turers must listen to their customerssuggestions and keep closer ties with

them. If products fit the customersexpectations, then this implies a higherlikelihood of completing projectssuccessfully (Crawford, 1997; Veryzer,1998). When taking all of this and theirinteractions into consideration, one canimagine how complex the activities inthe PDC can be. Many businessesemploy techniques such as qualityfunction deployment (QFD), concur-rent engineering (CE), design for

manufacturing (DFM), design forassembly (DFA), and modular designto help in focusing on key factors, inother words, these techniques aresystemically focused on the coreproblems and also solutions to them.Although, these techniques contributeimmensely during the conceptual stagein respect to implementation, there stillexists much room for improvement(Schroeder, 2000; Stevenson, 1999).

When addressing planning issuesand attempting to solve problems, it is

imperative to ensure that core prob-lems, and not just the symptoms, areaddressed. So developing systematicthinking is one of the effective methodsfor improving and accelerating thePDC. However, also needed is amethod that increases the probabilitythat core problems will be uncoveredand solved. The thinking process (TP)of theory of constraints (TOC) is anemerging philosophy providing asystematic approach to identifying thecore problem in any system (Goldratt,

1990; Klein & DeBruine, 1994;Scheinkopf, 1999). Under TOC, wheresatisfying the necessary condition orsupporting the process of continuousprofit improvement, the TOC thinkingprocess (TP) increases the probabilitythat core problems will be addressed bysubstantiating the supposed cause witheffects or entities (Stein, 1997).

7/27/2019 Yang 011402

3/6

3


Therefore, it is appropriate to adopt theTP as a means of improving the PDC.

The primary goal of this study is toexplore the efficient ways of integratingthe thinking process within the PDCcycle. Consider the following twoprospects, on the one hand, since thedifferent product types feed back the

different customers suggestions, impliesthat different logic tools are needed. Onthe other hand, the five logic tools of TP:current reality tree (CRT), conflictresolution diagram (CRD), future realitytree (FRT), prerequisite tree (PRT), andtransition tree (TT), can be used individu-ally or in concert. These two prospectsdevelop our main theme for this study.Three integrating modes; series, parallel,and feedback are applied to integrate theTP with PDC. Series mode is integratingwith new product design processes,

parallel mode is integrating with upgrad-ing product development, and feedbackmode is integrating with customizedproduct development.

BackgroundChallenges to strategic success in

faster new product development includethe uncertainty of increasingly turbulentbusiness environments and marketfriction from potential buyers andstakeholders, such as labor marketdemands, the need to be competitive;

the demand of customers for just-in-time products, etc. Shortening the lengthof time it takes to complete the productdesign chain (PDC) is a necessity inmaintaining a competitive advantage.Song and Montoya-Weiss (1998) statedthat there is an increasing interest inmaking product development faster.Hence, production cycles are shortenedand costs are reduced as a consequence.

Thomas (1999) indicates that thereare two perspectives from which toview the above problems: operationalview and the product view. As regardsthe operational view, the activities ofproduct development processes may bedescribed in three ways. For one firm,product development may appear to beimplemented using a sequentialapproach, with occasional looping backto previous steps. For another firm, itmay seem like it is overlapping orholistic, with interacting and parallel

processes that carry out multipleactivities. For other corporations,product development may seem like achaotic activity.

The product view has three catego-ries; new products, upgraded products,and customized products, with eachcategory having a different focus. In

new product design, product develop-ment should start by analyzing thecustomers needs and planning productswith the required functions, plus themanufacturing action plan. In upgradedproduct design because the manufac-turer already has experience in manufac-turing technology and has a product onhand, product development can startwith repositioning and focus on improv-ing the factors found necessary tomaintain a competitive edge. Incustomization, customers explicitly

define the required functions andspecifications of the products. Theprimary focus is on how to fulfill therequirements.

The product development processbecomes more complex by consideringthese four mixed factors: the complex-ity of the process, the variability ofproduct functions, the characteristics ofthe environment, and the volume ofcomponents. The PDC requires theconsideration of tradeoffs betweenthese mixed factors. Also, PDC focuses

on the vital core problems. Techniquessuch as QFD, CE, DFM, DFA, andmodular design are employed by manybusinesses to help in focusing on keyfactors and thereby reaching their goal.But these techniques are operationallyoriented, thus there still exists greatroom for product design chain (PDC)

improvement while product consider-ation is mixed in. Developing asystematic thinking approach is one ofthe applicable methods to elicit andmap the structure of complex systemsand relating those structures to theirdynamics. Thinking Process (TP) is asystematic thinking tool used to

identify the core problem by modelingand simulation of the complex system.

The Thinking Process and ItsApplication

The thinking process (TP) logic ofthe TOC is a systematic thinkingapproach, developed by Eli Goldratt.The process can be utilized to help acompany enhance product developmencapabilities in the PDC (Klein &DeBruine, 1994). Figure 1 illustratesthe conceptual process of using the TP

to assist the PDC.Establishing and planning the PDC

involves a series of internal and externalmanagerial activities. The cross-relatedactivities form a complex design chainnetwork. Within the PDC cycle, thereare many problem-solving activitiesperformed within the network. Theseactivities are cost-intensive in nature.Therefore, improving crucial activitieswithin the network is essential. Improv-ing crucial activities will lead to areduction in PDC costs and enable full-

scale manufacturing to commence.The thinking process (TP) providesfive, tree-type logic tools: current realitytree (CRT), conflict resolution diagram(CRD), future reality tree (FRT),prerequisite tree (PRT), and transitiontree (TT). These five logic tools assist inanswering the questions about what to

detail

engineering

product

concept

process

engineering

prototype

manufacturing

post-launch

activities

Product Design Chain

problem solving by the logical

thinking process of the TOC

Figure 1. Product Design Chain Process by Applying the Thinking Process

7/27/2019 Yang 011402

4/6

4


change, to what to change to, and howto cause the change.

The current reality tree (CRT) is alogical structure designed to depict thestate of reality existing in a given system.It articulates the undesirable effect(UDE) and the causalities that exist in thePDC. It also connects the UDE to Effect-

Cause-Effect (E-C-E) analysis in order toidentify the core problem.

The conflict resolution diagram(CRD) is an idea generator that allowsthe invention of new breakthroughsolutions to troubling problems. TheCRD is used to identify the designproblem as a systemic conflict that isperpetuating the major problem ofproduct design, to produce solutions tothis core conflict, and to select theinitial elements of the solution.

The future reality tree (FRT) is a

simulation model of the future andenables effective testing of new ideasbefore committing resources to imple-mentation. FRT provides an effectivetool for persuading decision-makers tosupport a desired course of action. TheFRT is used to examine the productdevelopment process by logicalanalysis of current technology, thecompatibility of equipment, and thepartial process arrangement.

The prerequisite tree (PRT) is alogical structure designed to identify all

obstacles and the responses needed toovercome them in realizing an objec-tive. The PRT identifies obstaclespreventing achievement of a desiredcourse of action, objective, or injection.It also identifies what should be doneand what is the best way to overcomeobstacles. Additionally, it tells what

critical sequence is needed to completea project and depicts unknown steps toa desired end when one does not knowprecisely how to achieve it.

A transition tree (TT) is a cause-and-effect logic tree designed to providestep-by-step progress from initiationthrough completion of a course of action

or change. It is an implementation tooland additive process, combining eachsuccessive expected effect with subse-quent specific actions to produce neweffects. Creating a TT will definespecific, detailed step-by-step instruc-tions and plans for implementing acourse of action.

As authors knowledge, somesuccessful applications of thinkingprocess in the literature. For example,Dettmer (1997) used CRD for conflictresolution. Klein and DeBruine (1994)

applied full thinking process analysis(FTPA) in establishing managementpolicies. Peach (1996) demonstrated inmanufactured coatings that CRT is aninvaluable aid to identify core problems,and CRD is a technique-focused effort tostructure win-win solutions. Roadman,Roadman, Benge, McGinnis, Yurkosky,Adams, Cockerham, and Flowers (1995)detailed the use of FTPA to addressperformance issues and theorized aboutthe value of applying TOC in theirmilitary medical service organization.

Hsu, Ching, Yang, and Hwang (1999)use the partial thinking process of theTOC to analyze the planning, executing,and evaluating of a New ProductDevelopment (NPD) project, andpropose a three phases, hierarchicalevaluation model. Stien (1997) illustrateimproving the quality function deploy-

ment (QFD) process by applying theTOC thinking process to support theprocess of product/process design inorder to satisfy the necessary condition ofcustomer needs and support the processof continuous profit improvement.

Three Modes of IntegratingThinking Process with ProductDesign Chain

Applying the thinking process withthe product design chain (PDC) couldbe very beneficial. This applicationcould be used to resolve a problem orto improve a system, based on thecharacteristics of the product andnature of the design process. In thisstudy, three integrating modes: series,parallel, and feedback of TP logic withPDC of three types of products: newproducts, upgraded products, and

customized products are proposed.Which is summarized as in Table 1,and depth details are discussed as inthe following paragraphs.

Series ModeSeries mode, demonstrated in

Figure 2, is used for the new productdesign process to handle the overallactivities within the PDC cycle. Fornew product design, most productcharacteristics in the four designstages: product concept, detail engi-

neering, process engineering, andprototype manufacturing are unknownand the resulting outcomes are uncer-tain. FTPA is integrated into theprocedure in a series mode after eachof the four design stages. Where FTPAuses all five-application tools toanalyze a system or situation in order

Table 1. Summaries of Applying Thinking Process in Product Design Chain

Type of Product Integration Mode The role of TP Tools used

What to changeNew Products Series What to change to FTPA

How to cause the change

Upgraded Products Parallel What to change to CRD, FRT,How to cause the change PRT, TT

Customized Products Feedback How to cause the change FRT, PRT, TT

7/27/2019 Yang 011402

5/6

5


to identify the core problem, developsolutions, and determine implementa-tions right after each of the four stages.For each stage, FTPA plays a role as aproblem solver in reviewing theprevious steps and overcoming discrep-ancies that are found. In consequence,the quality of design is improved.

Parallel ModeWhen a product already exists and

needs to be upgraded, customers havealready provided feedback for theirspecified requirements. In such situa-tions continuous improvement isneeded by manufacturers to maintain acompetitive edge. Integrating the TPparallel with the PDC is called theparallel mode in this study and isdepicted as Figure 3.

While conduct the parallel mode,

the manufacturers have already experi-enced how to manage the process andhow to control key technologies. The TPtools CRD, FRT, PRT and TT need onlyto be applied. The tools act as a consult-ant for consulting the problems when-ever there is a need. The best way tohandle upgrading products is consultingthe TP tools which helps to resolveconflicts between functions and cost andto focus on the factors that should beconsidered for the product upgradeprocess as the reference for improving

product function, replacing components,and correcting the specifications. Themanufacturers can then devote theirefforts to accomplishing the upgrade.For example, the customer feedback thatthere is a specific specification has notbeen satisfied. In such circumstances,this specific specification is a coreproblem, a new specification establisheddirectly from the result of CRD andcrucial improvements and relevantactions. Consulting TP tools in a parallelmode not only solves the productdevelopment problems but also isbeneficial for proposing a better alterna-tive for product development.

Feedback ModeFeedback mode of TP integration,

demonstrated as in Figure 4, is nor-mally applied to the customization ofproducts, such as in original designmanufacturing (ODM).

F T P Acus tomer

requ i rement sp roduc t

concep t

detai l

eng inee r i ng

compe t i t i ve

produc t

pos t - l aunch

act ivi t ies

Techn i ca l

de sc r i p t i on

pa r t , componen t

supp l ement

des ign

f ramework

Pro d u ct D es i g n C h a i n

process

eng inee r i ng

pro to type

manufac tu r i ng

F T P A

F T P A F T P A

Figure 3. Parallel Mode Integration

Figure 2. Series Mode Integration

detai l

eng ineer ing

modi f i ca t ion

requ i r ement

proces s

eng ineer ing

pro to type

manufac tu r ing

pos t - l aunch

act ivi t ies

Techn ica l

descr ip t ion

par t , componen t

s upp l emen t

Product Design Chain

conf l i c t resolu t ion d iagram

TP logic

t r ans i t ion t ree

prerequi s i t e t ree

future real i ty t ree

de ta i l

eng ineer ing

cu s tom ized

requ irement

process

eng ineer ing

pro to type

manufac tu r ing

pos t - launch

activities

P ro duc t D es i g n C ha i n

future rea l i ty t ree

TP log ic

t rans i t ion t ree

prerequis i te t ree

Figure 4. Feedback Mode Integration

7/27/2019 Yang 011402

6/6

6


Customization of products isdefined for existing products thatcustomers have already given thespecifications and characteristics forthese products. To meet the customersrequirements, the manufacturer needsto review the PDC in order to searchfor better manufacturing technologies

and management methodologies forcost reduction and process improve-ment. TP tools FRT, PRT, and TT aresufficient for reaching these goals aswell as for focusing on the features thatneed be modified or added.

ConclusionGlobal competition, rapid changes in

technology, and market fragmentationhave resulted in a need for shorterproduct cycles. Creating a framework forproduct development is a significant

objective for businesses. The followingare the four conclusions of this researchfor integrating the TP into PDC activities.

The PDC can be used to build aframework that links customers,product design engineers, and manu-facturing planners. They then cananalyze worth and quality, set specifi-cations, conduct design reviews, andplan for the eventual safe reuse or saleof products. The key factors identifiedin the PDC offer the primary strategyfor determining how to shorten the

time needed to complete a project andto improve the product manufacturingprocess and quality.

Three types of product development:new products, upgraded products, andcustomized products are discussed. Thethree modes of integrating the TP withthe PDC are series, parallel, and feed-back. Different product types indicatedifferent product development flow. As aresult, the product development flow andthe capability of the technology point outwhich mode of the TP and the PDCintegration should be used for thedifferent product development to ensurethat products will satisfy the customersneed from design to production.

It is important to evaluate strengthsand weaknesses and to comparecompetitive products and customersexpectations of the products. These

insights help an enterprise to compre-hend the development perspectives andtechnology bottlenecks, which aidproduct positioning and take advantageof technological improvements. Logicaltree analysis of the TOC for solvingproblems was detailed in this article.The procedure needs to be institutional-

ized to preserve reference documenta-tion that is helpful in improving technol-ogy engineering and in accumulatingdevelopment experience.

In summary, this article describes theapplication of the TP to PDC activities tofind and solve problems of productdevelopment in order to ease manufactur-ing, to shorten time-to-market, and toproduce more customer-oriented prod-ucts. The TP is a well-proven approach,which has been applied in conflictresolution, in establishing management

policies, in coatings manufacture, and ina military medical service. This articledemonstrates how the TP may beextended to applications in the PDC.

ReferencesCrawford C. M. (1997). New product

management, 5th ed. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Dettmer. W. H. (1997). Goldratts theoryof constraints a system approach tocontinuous improvement. Wisconsin:ASQ Quality Press.

Globerson, S. (1997). Discrepanciesbetween customer expectations andproduct configuration. InternationalJournal of Project Management.15(4), 199-203.

Goldratt, E. M. (1990). Theory ofconstraints, New York: North RiverPress.

Hsu, C. S., Ching, C. Y., Yang, C. L., &Hwang, R. R. (1999). A study ofconstructing a performance assessmodel for new product development.1999 Conference on TechnologyManagement (Taiwan). 539-549.

Klein, D. J. & DeBruine, M. (1994). Athinking process for establishingmanagement policies. Review ofBusiness. 16(3), 31-37.

Peach, B. (1996). The use of the theoryof constraints thinking processes atCourtaulds coatings NZ. technology

for manufacturing. Integratingmanufacturing research withindustrys needs, Vol.2 of Proceed-ings of the Technology for Manu-facturing Conference. MaseyUniversity, Palmerston North, NewZealand 383-396 .

Rahman, S. (1998). Theory of con-

straints a review of the philosophyand its applications, InternationalJournal of Operations & ProductionManagement. 18(4), 336-355.

Roadman, H. C., Benge,J. M.,McGinnis,L. P., Yurkosky,T. P. D.,Adams, V., Cockerham,G. C., &Flowers, S. H. (1995). Theory ofconstraints and the United StatesAir Force medical service. APICSConstraints Management Sympo-sium and Technical Exhibit: Pro-ceedings Phoenix, AZ. 107-115.

Scheinkopf, L. J. (1999). Thinking for achange putting the toc thinkingprocess to use. St Luice Press/APICS.

Schroeder, G. R. (2000). Operationsmanagement contemporaryconcepts and cases. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Song, X. M. & Montoya-Weiss, M. M.(1998). Critical developmentactivities for really new versusincremental products. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management.15(2), 124-135.

Stein, R. E. (1997 2nd

ed.). The theoryof constraints: applications inquality and manufacturing, NewYork: Marcel Dekker.

Stevenson, W. J. (1999 6thed.). Produc-tion operations management, NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, J. R. (1993). New productdevelopment managing andforecasting for strategic success.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Twigg, D. (1998). Managing productdevelopment within a design chain.International Journal of Operations& Production Management. 18(5),508-524.

Veryzer, R. V. Jr. (1998). Key factorsaffecting customer evaluation ofdiscontinuous new products. Journaof Product Innovation Management.15(2), 136-150.

yang 011402

Documents