TMT 2012:69 Evaluation of "Design For Assembly" as a working approach at Atlas Copco Tools ALEXANDER ANTURI JENNY TIGER Examensarbete inom MASKINTEKNIK Innovation och Design Högskoleingenjör, 15 hp Södertälje, Sverige 2012 Evaluation of "Design For Assembly" as a working approach at Atlas Copco Tools av Alexander Anturi Jenny Tiger Examensarbete TMT 2012:69 KTH Industriell teknik och management Tillämpad maskinteknik Mariekällgatan 3, 151 81 Södertälje Examensarbete TMT 2012:69 Utvärdering av "Design For Assembly" som ett arbetssätt på Atlas Copco Tools Alexander Anturi Jenny Tiger Godkänt Examinator KTH Handledare KTH 2012-08-20 Namn Jan Linell Uppdragsgivare Företagskontakt/handledare Atlas Copco Tools AB Andris Danebergs Sammanfattning Denna rapport presenterar resultatet av ett examensarbete där en utvärdering av DFA(Design For Assembly)- metoden som ett arbetssätt på Atlas Copco Tools utfördes. DFA är en metod som handlar om att designa en produkt så att dess egenskaper kommer att ha en inverkan på monteringsvänligheten av produkten. Det främsta målet med DFA är att reducera antalet ingående detaljer i en produkt. Atlas Copco Tools är ett företag som har påbörjat sin resa mot ständiga förbättringar och fokuserat sig bland annat på att förbättra produktutvecklingsprocessen. Därav har företaget visat ett stort intresse för DFA-metoden som ett arbetssätt inom konstruktionsavdelningen. Idag använder sig inte Atlas Copco Tools av en specifik metod som stödjer DFA-metodiken vid utveckling av deras produkter. Den stora frågan i detta examensarbete är därför huruvida DFA lönar sig att implementeras på Atlas Copco Tools i deras produktutecklingsprocess och i så fall hur arbetet med DFA ska ske samt vilka tillvägagångssätt ska användas. En studie på företag som framgångsrikt implementerat DFA i deras produktutecklingsprocess har utförts. Studien var gjord med hjälp av benchmarking och de intervjuade företagen var DeLaval i Tumba, Scania i Södertälje och Sony Mobile Communications i Lund. Vi utförde benchmarking med syftet att undersöka hur dessa tre företag arbetar med DFA idag och vilka medel de använt sig utav för att implementera det framgångsrikt. Vidare intervjuades konstruktörer på Atlas Copco Tools, delvis för att få en giltig bild av hur produktutvecklingsprocessen går till idag men också för att ta reda på hur de som målgrupp föredrar att arbeta med DFA. Förutom detta gjordes studiebesök till produktionsanläggningen i Tierp där vi testade att montera mutterdragaren Tensor ST 10 Revo och annan viktig information om monteringsvänlighet samlades in. All faktainsamling var analyserad och en checklista som stödjer DFA-metodiken var framtagen. Checklistan testades och utvärderades på en produkt från Atlas Copco Tools som befinner sig i förstudiefasen. Till checklistan adderades kompletterande riktlinjer som ett hjälpande dokument för att besvara frågorna i checklistan och för konstruktören något att eftersträva vid utformning av produkter. Examensarbetet resulterade också i en beräkning på monteringsvänligheten av mutterdragaren Tensor ST 10 Revo. Utöver detta gavs några specifika rekommendationer på hur DFA borde implenteras på Atlas Copco Tools. Nyckelord DFA, checklista, implementering, monteringsvänlighet, produktutvecklingsprocess. Bachelor of Science Thesis TMT 2012:69 Evaluation of "Design For Assembly" as a working approach at Atlas Copco Tools Alexander Anturi Jenny Tiger Approved Examiner KTH Supervisor KTH 2012-08-20 Name Jan Linell Commissioner Contact person at company Atlas Copco Tools AB Andris Danebergs Abstract This report is the result of a thesis work in which an evaluation of the DFA (Design For Assembly) method as a working approach at Atlas Copco Tools has been done. DFA is a method about considering design features that may have a significant relevance on the assembly efficiency of a product. Its main goal is to reduce the number of parts included in a product. Atlas Copco Tools is a company in search of continuous improvements and from that it has been focused on, among others, on enhancing the product development process. Therefore, the company shows interest in the DFA method as a working approach within the design department. Today Atlas Copco Tools do not use any particular method that supports the DFA methodology in their development of products. The question is whether DFA is worth implementing at Atlas Copco Tools in the product development process and in that case, how exactly DFA can be implemented and which approaches should be used. A research of companies that successfully implemented DFA on their product development process has been done. The research was done using benchmarking and the contacted companies were DeLaval, Scania and Sony Mobile Communications. We benchmarked in order to find out how these companies work with DFA and how to implement DFA in a successful way. Furthermore, interviews with the designers from Atlas Copco Tools were done; partly to get a valid picture of the process development process and also to find out how they would prefer to work with DFA. In addition, excursions to the production plant in Tierp were made, where we tested to assemble the nutrunner Tensor ST 10 Revo and important information about assembly efficiency was gathered. All the collected information was analyzed and a checklist that supports the DFA method was developed. The checklist was tested and evaluated on a specific product from Atlas Copco Tools. Additionally, the checklist was added with complementary guidelines that explain each question on the checklist and also provides with helpful DFA advises. This thesis work also resulted in a calculation of the assembly efficiency on the nutrunner Tensor ST 10 Revo. Moreover some specifics recommendations on how DFA should be implemented at Atlas Copco Tools were given. Key-words DFA, checklist, implementation, assembly efficiency, product development process. Preface This thesis work has been performed at the School of Industrial Engineering and Management at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) for Atlas Copco Tools AB. The thesis covers 10 weeks of fulltime work and is the final part of our bachelor education in mechanical engineering. We would like to thank our supervisors Andris Danebergs at the R&D department in Nacka and Morgan Rhodin at the production plant in Tierp for good guidance and gratifying moments throughout the thesis work. During this thesis work the authors of this report have received help and support from many, different people. Thanks to: Mikael Hultqvist, DeLaval Dick Bergman and Erik Jaenssen, Scania Mattias Bognäs, Sony Mobile Communications Furthermore, we thank the designers and the operators at Atlas Copco Tools for their help in getting us to understand the processes and patiently answering our questions. We also have to mention the helpfulness of our colleagues and friendly attitude we have experienced during our time at Atlas Copco Tools. At last we would like to thank our supervisor at KTH Jan Linell, for rewarding and insightful conversations during the thesis work. Hopefully this thesis work would be useful for Atlas Copco Tools in their future work with DFA (Design For Assembly). Nacka, June 2012 Alexander Anturi Jenny Tiger i ii Glossary DFA Design For Assembly DFA2 A method supporting Design For Automatic Assembly DFX Generic name for DFM, DFS, DFA, DFMA etc. DFM Design For Manufacturing DFAA Design For Automatic Assembly DFMA Design For Manual Assembly OR Design For Manufacturing and Assembly Assembly efficiency (M) In this case an index from DFA2 that measure the assembly efficiency at products (the higher the index the better assembly efficiency) CAD Computer Aided Design ProEngineer CAD software GSD “Group Standards Department”, a database for mechanical articles FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis R&D Research & Development PDP Product Development Process EBD Engineering for Business Development WIP Work in process iii iv Table of content 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Problem ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.4. Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.5. Delimitations ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.6. Requirements ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.6.1. Documentation requirements .................................................................................................. 2 1.6.2. Time requirements .................................................................................................................... 2 1.6.3. Budget requirements ................................................................................................................. 2 1.6.4. Desired Demands .....................................................................................................................