Resolving the Conflict Between Design and Manufacturing: Integrated Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling (IRPRT) by James E

Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org

Volume 17, Number 4 - August 2001 to October 2001

Resolving the Conflict between Design and Manufacturing: Integrated Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling (IRPRT) By James E. Folkestad, Ph.D. and Russell L. Johnson, Ph.D.

KEYWORD SEARCH

CAD Design Manufacturing Production Rapid Prototyping

Reviewed Article

1 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org Resolving the Conflict between Design and Manufacturing: Integrated Rapid Prototyping and

Dr. James E. olkestad, Ph.D., is an educator and Rapid Tooling (IRPRT) researcher with the Industrial Technology Manage- ment Program of the Department of Manufactur- By James E. Folkestad, Ph.D. and Russell L. Johnson, Ph.D. ing Technology and Construction Management Department at Colorado State University. Dr. olkestads teaching and research interests lie in the areas of project management, rapid-to-market Introduction positive outcomes of doing so, and strategies, change management, computer-aided- design/manufacturing, and rapid prototyping and Rapid advancements in computer provide suggestions on policy or tooling. He holds a current project management technology have given life to an practice to avoid the potential negatives professional (PMP) certification through the Project Management Institute (PMI). explosion of computer-aided design while enhancing the positives. (CAD) related technologies, which by their mere speed and automation, are Why rapid-to-market? used to produce rapid prototypes (RP) The winners in today’s competitive and rapid tools (RT) quickly and at low marketplace are those companies that cost. Although each of these technolo- can bring innovative high value products gies have shortened the time it takes to and services to the customer ahead of produce a physical prototype or tool, their competition (Murray, 1998). RP or RT used in isolation may provide Reaching the marketplace with innova- only modest reductions in the overall tion before the competition has several product development life cycle. In critical benefits. These benefits include: other words, it’s not just one thing that • The product’s sales life is cuts design time; it’s the combination lengthened, thereof. A company has to integrate • The rapid-to-market company RP & RT technologies within their gains a pricing advantage, Dr. Johnson is an educator and researcher with the Department of Manufacturing Technology and organization to rapidly bring product to • The rapid-to-market company Construction Management at Colorado State Uni- market (Smith & Reinertsen, 1998; can start product development versity. Dr. Johnsons teaching and research interests lie in the areas of systems thinking, pro- Swanstrom, 1999; Hewson, 1998). later and therefore can use more ductivity improvement, facilities layout and plan- The intent of this paper is to up-to-date technology to develop ning, project management, and competitive management strategies emphasizing constraint man- highlight a growing problem the authors that product, agement and quality improvement techniques. He have observed in the application of these • The rapid-to-market company is a Member of ASQ and serves as the faculty advi- sor for the Colorado State University student ASQ technologies from a management has a marketplace advantage by section. He has been a Jonah and certified aca- perspective. A technical review of the gaining customers that poten- demic associate of the Avraham Y. Goldratt Insti- tute since 1991 and is also a licensee in Project available rapid prototyping (RP) and tially become loyal customers Management the Theory of Constraints Way. rapid tooling (RT) technologies has not (Smith & Reinertsen, 1998). been included in this paper. Numerous professional presentations and articles Figure 1 illustrates these benefits. elucidate on the advantages of the In this figure, Company A used various RP and RT technologies to traditional product development reduce the time and/or cost of producing techniques and reached the market last; prototypes and tooling. Others expound while Company B used rapid-to-market on the superiority of one technology (accelerated) product development over the other or present detailed cost techniques (i.e., rapid prototyping, justification models. Few, however, rapid tooling), therefore reaching their seem to address the need to integrate target market prior to Company A. By these technologies into an overall rapid- reaching the market first in this sce- to-market strategy, identify the potential nario, Company B’s product has an

2 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org extended sales life and generates more may go through many changes or Timing sales than Company A. This advantage modifications. It is common knowledge The cost of changes associated is more significant than it may appear that changes should be managed and with an engineering change order as it is not the sum of the vertical gap made when they are inexpensive. (ECO) fluctuates with time. An ECO of increased sales and the horizontal However, a common mistake is to focus issued early in the development process gap of extended product life, but rather on how fast changes can be made (i.e., will cost less than the same one issued the product of the two as represented how fast we can make another prototype late in the process. ECO costs increase by the increased area of Company B’s or another tool) (Field, 1999). To gain over time as a design becomes solidi- curve in contrast to Company A’s. rapid-to-market advantage the focus fied due to product documentation (i.e., Furthermore, reductions in product should be on timing (when changes are CAD drawings and/or product specifi- introduction time (point a minus point made), and accuracy (making well- cations) and through product artifacts, b for Company B versus point a minus informed changes) (Teaque, 1998; such as prototypes and production point c for Company A) gives Com- Cunagin, 1999). tooling. Changes that occur late in the pany B several advantages. These advantages include: Figure 1. Benefits of reaching the marketplace faster than the competition • Reduction of fixed cost for product development through (Huthwaite, 1996). early release and reduction of project overhead related to personnel as well as facilities Extended sales life and equipment; • Ability to delay design commit- Company B ments resulting in the opportunity to respond to changes in Sales Company A customer demand, or if in a high risk or volatile market environ- Increased sales ment, to abandon the project with little/no development costs. • Ability to incorporate improved technology or design resulting in a b c End of Product a superior product while still Time Life Cycle matching the competitors’ introduction date (Smith & a = start of design process Reinertsen, 1998). b = product release company B c = product release company A All of these issues result in significant cost savings and/or market advantages that are not mutually Figure 2. Cost of Design Changes in relation to product development phase exclusive. In other words, the organi- (traditional development). zation can realize all of the financial benefits simultaneously. Furthermore, 100,000X these financial benefits not only impact new product costs, but they can also be distributed across all products lines— even those not using rapid-to-market technology—thereby giving the company a price and/or a level of Cost of service advantage in all markets Change (Hundal, 1997). Controlled change: Focus on time and accuracy. 10X Engineers from both design and Concept Concept Production Production First shipment manufacturing are using RP & RT design review design review (tooling) authorization technologies to control change (Ferrara, 1998). As a development project Development Phase progresses, the design of the product

3 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org development of a product affectedly significant position of loss in either the market and reduced time to gather involve changing more product docu- time and/or money. the needed information - due to rapid- mentation and artifacts and can have Rapid prototypes are used fre- to-market timelines - designers feel significant economic impact on quently to increase accuracy of deci- pressure to delay commitment to manufacturing, distribution, or packag- sions. It is not difficult to find examples design specifications as long as ing, for example. of how RP parts were used by product possible. On the other hand, those This economic concept is typically development professionals to identify responsible for manufacturing of the illustrated using a generic product design elements that had been previ- product are held accountable for development cycle and cost of ECO ously overlooked or under defined. exceeding acceptable cost and/or curve. A generic cycle may include the Anecdotal stories of this type are missing market release dates. The following phases: concept, concept enough evidence for most to come to lead-time to identify materials and design review, production design agreement that RP parts help to improve suppliers; identify, purchase and install review, production (tooling), and first design. However, despite widespread production equipment; and hire and shipment authorization (Hanson, 1998; use of RP, inaccurate decisions continue train production personnel is consider- Hewson, 1998). As a product to occur slowing the pace at which able. As a result, those responsible for progresses through these phases, the product is released to the marketplace. manufacturing are constantly pushing costs associated with ECOs increases for the earliest possible identification rapidly (see figure 2). The design versus of product specifications. For example, if an ECO issued in manufacturing conflict With the time available for product the conceptual phase has an associated If the advantages of using RP and development decreasing, the unavoid- cost of 10X, the same change issued RT to deliver a quality product to the able result is a constantly escalating in the production phase (late in the market ahead of the competition are so battle between the two groups, as each process) may cost more than 50,000X. obvious, what makes it so difficult to group struggles to perform to the Making decisions early in the product accomplish. The difficulty is in large incongruent measurements. As was life cycle has proven to be a viable part due to an inherent conflict result- stated before, when the product strategy for avoiding costly late phase ing from the way in which we measure introduction process requires signifi- changes (Teague, 1999). Adele Hars and evaluate employees’ performance cant investment in production tooling (1998) stated that a “… strong focus in design versus those who work in such as molds, the battle may become on minimizing manufacturing costs manufacturing. Those responsible for an all out war. This tooling milestone has significant benefits because they design are held accountable for does not represent a solution but a are eight to ten times higher than meeting or exceeding the customer compromise or management induced design costs.” needs with substantial penalties in the truce to the conflict, and often causes marketplace for failure. There is escalating pressures between groups as Accuracy: considerable pressure to ensure that the they work to meet the requirements. Typically, the number of product product specifications, at the minimum, Application of rapid prototyping design changes increase just prior to match or lead market requirements. (RP) in isolation fails to break the the tool production and again just With increased levels of uncertainty in design versus manufacturing conflict. before product release (see figure 3). These changes are triggered by two Figure 3. Typical number and timing of product design changes in the major project milestones, which traditional development process. include 1) manufacturing of production tooling, and 2) the scheduled product Pre-product release Post-product release release deadline. The pressure of these milestones has had a major impact on the development process often causing engineers to make forced / uninformed decisions and subsequently ship low Number of quality or poorly configured product. Product Specifically, tooling costs place Design Changes pressure on team members to commit to a product’s design. This pressure often forces engineers to make deci-

Milestone sions without fully understanding the (Tooling) design problem. Traditionally, this has Concept Concept Production Production First shipment led to the production of poorly de- design review design review (tooling) authorization signed and inaccurate production tooling, thus putting the project in a Development Phase (Time)

4 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org

Companies have traditionally testing, this type of verification can tial for increase in speed and reduction justified the purchase of RP technolo- only be done after a part has been in cost on a per tool basis. RT funda- gies based on cost savings associated produced using both the material and mentally alters the ECO cost curve with the quick production of proto- process of choice (Hewson, 1998). during the tooling phase as is illustrated types. However, astute employees are in figure 4. The altered ECO cost curve quick to find other uses for these Application of Rapid Tooling reduces the risk associated with the models. For example, employees at (RT) in isolation fails to production-tooling milestone. The Teledyne Water Pik have experienced break the design versus flattening of the ECO curve allows the tremendous dividends using RP to manufacturing conflict engineering team to first produce an communicate between functional Similar to RP, rapid tooling (RT) in inexpensive tool and subsequently departments. Employees reported isolation provides a tremendous poten- produce material and process of choice reducing the concept-design-phase time by 50%. The concept-design Figure 4. Effect of rapid-prototype tooling on cost of change curve. phase was reduced from 6-14 months prior to using RP to three - seven 100,000X months after incorporating RP models into the process cycle (Hanson, 1998). Companies using RP parts in this fashion have seen a shift in the number of product design changes from the late Cost of phase to early phase (Teaque, 1998; Change Wohlers, 1998; Cunagin, 1999). The use of prototype parts to identify design requirements has always had limitations, leaving conflicts unre- 10X solved and resulting in late phase Concept Concept Production Production First shipment changes. Similar to traditional design review design review (tooling) authorization prototyping processes, rapid prototyping does not produce parts that have identical characteristics to a Development Phase manufactured part. These differences in physical characteristics prevent Figure 5. Effects of integrated rapid prototyping and rapid tooling (IRPRT) engineers from identifying all product on the number and timing of product design changes. specifications. Material-of-choice and process-of-choice changes continue to occur late in the product development Company D (IRPRT) Pre-product release Post-product release cycle. These are typically manufacturability parameters that are only realized after a production tool has generated parts under production conditions (i.e., injection pressure, X Y cycle time, etc.) and in the production material (material of choice). The Number of Product result of this application of RP in Design isolation is significant potential for Changes improved performance on the design side of the conflict with minimal impact on the manufacturing side. For example, HACH Company Concept Concept & Tooling Production First shipment produces water-analysis equipment. To Design Review design review authorization obtain certification many of its products must remain airtight during water Integrated RP and RT (IRPRT) Development Phase (Time) submersion. RP parts allow HACH to identify typical customer driven design Campany D = Integrated Rapid prototyping and rapid tooling. modifications such as product aesthet- ics. However, RP parts cannot be used X = Customer / Design Changes for full-product certification and Y = Material / Process of Choice Changes

5 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org parts. Using these parts engineers can Company to achieve cost reductions of Concluding remarks – identify critical manufacturing criteria 50-60% over current tool making thoughts for the future earlier in the development cycle before process (Hewson, 1998). In conclusion, the use of both RP committing to expensive production Hewson acknowledges that the real and RT in isolation has provided a (high volume) tooling. benefit of the RSP process will be burst of speed in localized processes RT-generated parts are used to realized when HACH fully integrates (i.e., prototype and tool production) move the material / process of choice parts injected from this rapid produc- and as such has allowed many compa- design requirements forward and spread tion tool into its early development nies to realize a significant advantage them over time. Engineers are able to phases. “If the price of the production by bringing their products and services move design changes associated with tool gets low enough, and we make a to the market before their competitors. material-of-choice and process-of- major change late in the game, we can The application of RP in the concept choice away from the product release just throw the tool away,” Hewson phase, to shift changes forward, has deadline. However, knowing that a tool (1998) stated. paid great dividends to not only the can be produced quickly, the design Engineers can produce material-of- companies discussed in this paper but engineer can use the faster technology choice / process-of-choice, parts in the organizations worldwide. to increase the window of time for concept/design phase for testing and The companies identified in this further deliberation and/or solidification evaluation. If these material-of-choice paper have recognized both the oppor- of the final design. If this tactic is used, / process-of-choice parts are accepted, tunities and limitations of implement- and changes are required, the manufac- the tool has already been qualified by ing RP and RT technologies in isola- turing side of the conflict still exists and manufacturing and production can tion. They are working collaboratively may even be exacerbated. begin immediately. On the other hand, to take the next step to fully integrate if parts are rejected, the design can be both RP and RT into the concept Strategically Integrating RP changed and a new rapid tool can be design phase and to minimize market- and RT (IRPRT) technologies made within time and budget con- driven and manufacturing-driven to break the design versus straints due to the improved speed and changes that occur late in the develop- manufacturing conflict cost benefits of the technology ment life cycle. The strategic integration of RP and (Hewson, 1998). An integrated RP and RT (IRPRT) RT (IRPRT) must be the next step Combining these two phases and strategy offers the opportunity to toward leveraging and sustaining the moving them to the earliest time achieve sustainable reductions in both gains offered by and expected of RP possible does much to resolve the time and cost to market and signifi- and RT technologies and breaking the ongoing conflict between design and cantly reduce or even eliminate many design versus manufacturing conflict. manufacturing. Disposable tooling of the inherent conflicts between As mentioned prior, tooling technolo- allows the design engineer to release design and manufacturing. Rapid gies are being developed that can product specifications early, as there is tooling processes have matured to a produce tooling that is considered to be no tooling milestone at which the design level where tooling can be considered virtually “disposable” compared to must be fully solidified. The manufac- to be “disposable.” Disposable tooling traditional tooling. These “disposable” turing engineer can produce parts to allows the product development life tooling technologies allow the engineer determine material-of-choice, process- cycle to fundamentally change, incor- the opportunity to integrate the tool of-choice, and production-tooling issues porating the concept and tooling design design and the concept design phases, early and subsequently is not dependent review phase into one milestone; as is illustrated in figure 5. on final design specification to verify for eliminating an entire step from a For example, in order to integrate manufacturability. And, if updated project and its associated hand-offs and RPRT, tool designers at HACH Com- design specifications require retooling, a opportunities for error. This strategic pany are working with a consortium to new tool can be produced without application / integration of RP and RT develop the Rapid Solidification Process putting the project in jeopardy. Further- allows the design and manufacturing (RSP). The RSP spray-forming process more, these design iterations, which engineers to identify both the customer uses a hot, inert gas to atomize molten include input from both design and design requirements (X changes - see alloy and apply this alloy using a manufacturing, improve the final figure 5) and the manufacturing design specialized spray gun. Using this product early when changes are inex- changes (Y changes - see figure 5) process, Hach’s Bob Hewson is working pensive. The removal of the conflict during this phase. Again, these to produce fully densified P20-steel eliminates the internal battle over time changes are made at a fraction of the production tools within one-week lead- placing, the focus on the product’s cost incurred using traditional tooling times. These spray metal tool inserts overall quality in production. and product release milestones, and have identical characteristics to ma- allow the product to be released based chined P20 tools and will allow HACH on strategic market demands.

6 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number 4 • August 2001 to October 2001 • www.nait.org

While the integration of RP and ing” delaying phase hand-offs and, Hundal, M. S. (1997). Systematic RT offers the possibility of significant therefore, the overall project. The mechanical designing: A cost and reductions in both time and cost, success of IRPRT depends on a management perspective, The relative to product design and introduc- company’s ability to integrate work American Society of Mechanical tion, the true value of these technolo- processes and align performance Engineers: New York, NY. gies will vary from company to measures to overall organizational Huthwaite, B. (1996). Drive design company for two basic reasons. First, goals to avoid these problems. changes to the left, Institute for the shape of the cost of change and Competitive Design: Rochester, MI. number of changes curves presented in References Murray, C. J. (July 6, 1998). “Design this paper will vary by company and Cunagin, D. (June, 1999). “Maximiz- cycles shrink”, In Design News selected technologies. These curves ing time-compression in the product [On-line]. Available: were selected to generically represent development process”, Time- www.manufacturing.net/magazine/ concepts to a broad audience and may Compression Technologies, Vol 4, dn/archives/1998/dn0706.98/ be different for specific companies. No 3, pp. 24-31. feature3.html The potential impact of time compres- Ferrara, C. M. (May 5, 1998). “Crunch Smith, P. G. and Reinertsen, D. G. sion and/or cost reducing technologies time for engineers”, In Design News (1998). Developing products in half on an individual organization’s efforts [On-line] available: the time, Von Nostrand Reinhold: to deliver a product to the market will www.manufacturing.net/magazine/ New York, NY. obviously vary with the increased or dn/archives/1998/dn0504.98/ Swanstrom, K. A. (July 5, 1999). decreased severity of their specific 09f1618.htm “Engineers don’t operate in a situation. As such, these curves should Field, K. A. (July 5, 1999). “Fast track vacuum”, In Design News [On-line]. be evaluated with these differences in to management”, In Design News Available: www.manufacturing.net/ mind and should be modified as needed [On-line] Available: magazine/dn/archives/1999/ to represent individual company www.manufacturing.net/magazine/ dn0705.99/guest.html change and costing trends. dn/archives/1999/dn0705.99/ Teaque, P. E. (January 19, 1998). Integrating both RP and RT to feature2.html “Why engineers seek solid ground”, fundamentally change the development Hanson, T. (1998). Personal interview. In Design News [On-line]. Avail- life cycle can be a major advantage. Teledyne Water Pik. Tool Designer. able: www.manufacturing.net/ However, this presents a risk if new Hars, A. (July 20, 1998). “In Japan magazine/dn/archives/1998/ milestones and decision criteria, it’s CAM/CAD, not CAD/CAM”, dn0406.98/edit.html specifically performance measures, are In Design News [On-line] Available: Wohlers, T. (1998). Rapid prototyping not established for the movement of the www.manufacturing.net/magazine/ & tooling: State of the industry, product from phase-to-phase within the dn/archives/1998/dn0720.98/ Wohlers Associates: Fort Collins, CO. project. Without this clear criteria, the feature2.html ability to make last minutes changes Hewson, R. (1998). Personal interview. may tend to drive last minute “tweak- HACH Company. Tool Designer.