Transcript weaverjm.faculty.udmercy.edu

Design for Commonality
Last Edited by MPD Cohort 15
*
Team
▪Project Team Members:
Brisia Roberts
Mike Howie
Edits by A. Bersie, B. Dhruna, J. Fraser, J. Haddock, D.
McClure, Raghavan Setlur, Keith Warner, Mac Lunn, D.
Kammerzell
*
Commonality Definitions
▪ 1. A quality that applies to material or systems: (a)
possessing like and interchangeable characteristics
enabling each to be utilized, or operated and maintained
by personnel trained on the others without additional
specialized training; (b) having interchangeable repair
parts and/or components; (c) applying to consumable
items interchangeably equivalent without adjustment
▪ 2. Pertaining to equipment or systems that have the
quality of one entity possessing like and interchangeable
parts with another equipment or system entity.
▪ 3. Pertaining to system design in which a given part can
be used in more than one place in the system, i.e.,
subsystems and components have parts in common.
*
Commonality at Ford
*
Commonality Encompasses:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Design
Specifications
Test procedures
Processes
Components
Technologies
Platforms
Goals
BOMs
Methods
*
Commonality Benefits
▪
▪
▪
Avoids:
- Manufacturing Cost
- Multiple part numbers
- Assembly Cost
- Inventory Cost
- Launch Spikes
Reduces:
- Investment in product development
- Product complexity
- Lead-in time for production design
- Number of different production processes
Commonizes:
- Specifications
- Bills of Materials
- Processes
*
Commonality Benefits
▪ Better learning across products
▪ Acceleration of product testing and
certification
▪ Ease of designing new market niches
▪ Reduction in the number of different
production processes
▪ Avoid launch spikes
*
Commonality Benefits
▪ Increases:
- Economies of scale
- Product variety through mixing and matching
▪ Improves:
-
Ability to upgrade products
Learning across products
Testing and Certification time table of products
Opportunities for designing new market niches
6/13/2012
*
Keith Warner*
Commonality Disadvantages
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Brand identity/differentiation can be compromised (or improved!)
Internal conflict over distinctiveness/commonality (marketing versus engineering)
Difficult to implement
It can impose severe constraints on systems
Increased technical difficulties
Stagnation of long term innovation
Increased warranty risk
Difficult and/or cannot make mid-cycle changes to a part
Part may end up being over-designed for one or more vehicles, and volume may be
present to support new tooling. Commonality can be expensive, and may be an
unnecessary revenue loss and/or weight gain
Difficult to design common parts for programs on different timelines
Difficult to account for multiple different interfaces across product lines with a single
part design
Issues when common parts from different projects interface: who has to change and
what are the impacts?
Emergency Quality, Robustness, or Cost reduction actions take long time to
implement because total number of programs affected
Long lead for design test and verification of changes due to larger number of
programs affected
*
Commonality Enablers
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Cultural change
Management commitment
Market analysis
Technology
Investment
Quality products
Planning across organizations
On time Product Direction / Definition
Limited churn and change in product direction
Accurate and stable volume forecasts
Early Design definition in “common” products
Design Verification efficiency / reduction
*
Commonality Enablers
▪ Capable suppliers
▪ Concurrent Engineering with all stakeholders on all
“common” programs
▪ Effective management of product variety
▪ Minimization of non-value added variations within a
product
▪ Control the commonality of specified products
▪ Purchasing engaging from beginning to end
▪ Creation of cross commodity teams
▪ On time supplier sourcing
*
Cross Commodity Team Structure
▪ A small business with team members:
▪ Owners of cost, quality, weight, supplier selection, and
▪
▪
▪
▪
technology for their commodity
Developers of a migration plan to support the cycle plan
Integrators of brand attributes responsible for application to
their commodity
Designers of value proposition recommendations for their
commodity aligned with ‘Ford stands for Value’
Creators of commodity plans that encompass SCT, TVM,
MCR, NDPC, EMSI, DVPR etc. into one cohesive plan to
achieve targets
*
Commonality Example: M10 Bolt
▪ Ford Motor Company stocks over 300 types of M10 bolts.
▪ While the pitch and the diameter (M10 x 1.5) are common, the
major variations are the type of the drive (Hex head, and
Internal Torx,) and the length of the bolt. Length can vary from
15mm to almost 100mm depending on the application, the
grade of the bolt and the surface finish.
▪ The front seat architecture primarily uses an M10 bolt to attach
the various sub assemblies to form the seat frame (i.e. seat
back frame to the cushion frame, seat tracks to the cushion
frame, etc.)
▪ In 2004 there were 8 types of M10 bolts used on a single seat
frame to bolt the various pieces together.
Commonality Example: M10 Bolt
▪ A complete design study and a redesign of the seat
architecture was completed by 2008 that resulted in a single
M10 bolt that was unique to the seat applications.
▪ This resulted in reducing the number of suppliers from six to a
single supplier.
▪ Future programs eliminated some of the Torque-angle to failure
testing.
▪ Assembly plants reduced the inventory and supply chain was
optimized.
▪ Assembly plants also are able to use a common installation
gun which improves manufacturing efficiency / cycle time.
▪ Dealer inventory was streamlined; dealers now carry a single
M10 bolt.
▪ Service time and customer satisfaction has improved.
▪ It is estimated that this single change contributes to over $1M
in annual savings to Ford Motor Company.
Commonality Case Study for Audio
Components at Ford Motor Company
*
Audio Components Case Study
▪ Commonality is a term used more and more in daily
business decisions.
▪ Ford is currently implementing commonality in audio
systems. The pictures below show how commonality can be
achieved while maintaining different styling.
Escape Center Stack
Focus Center Stack
*
Traditional Audio Head Units
Current state:
• In the audio group we had minimal Volume Leverage
Realization. The suppliers previously delivered
components that optimized their internal volumes across
radios, but savings did not flow through to Ford.
*
Traditional Audio Head Units
▪ In the past, Ford did not have a common strategy to
design audio head units. Each vehicle platform had
unique:
o Communication protocol
o Mounting strategy
o Styling cues
o HMI strategy
o Mechanism
o Lighting strategy
*
Current Escape Platform Radios
▪ The Escape program currently has six different radios
*
Current Escape Radio Pictures
CDX6 Audiophile
Single CD Premium
Navigation Head Unit
CDX6 Premium
*
New MY09 Escape/Focus Platforms Radios
▪ The Escape platform has three radios with common button
layout, common mechanism, common communication
protocol, common HMI, common lighting, common tuner,
common display, and common mounting scheme.
*
Audio commonality includes the following
components:
Center Stack Multimedia Components
FDM
ACM
Focus FCIM
Escape FCIM
*
Audio commonality includes the following
components:
▪
Common B-side design of FCIM between Escape/Focus, which allows
for studio flexibility of A-surface, without additional large investment
cost to tool up new radios for each program.
Escape Button Set
Focus Button Set
Common Components: PCB, Back cover plate, MSCAN Interface
*
What is common in the new center
stack?
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Display for Escape and Focus platforms
Chassis with common mechanisms
Attachment scheme
Motherboard for the buttons
Tuner
Chip set
HMI
Lighting strategy
*
What is different in the new center
stacks?
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Unique styling design
Unique antenna system
Unique equalization
Unique center finish panel
Unique climate control system
*
Benefits to Ford
▪ Lower development costs
▪ Reduction in DV timing
▪ Lower piece cost
▪ Bold new cockpit interior
design strategy with lower
investments
▪ Lower piece cost for
combined volumes
Escape Center Stack
*
Customer benefits
• Great fit/finish
• Zero deflection
• Common hardware but
unique look between
Escape and Focus
*
Commonality Implementation at Ford
▪ Escape 1PP, August 2006, Job#1, January 2007
▪ Focus 1PP, March 2007, Job#1, August 2007
▪ 2009/2010 MY programs to follow with Next Generation
Center stack base on groundwork of Escape/Focus
- MY 2009/2009.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3Taurus
MKS
F-150
Fusion
MKZ
Mustang
Super Duty
- MY 2010
• Edge
• MKX
*
Commonality Case Study for Water Pump
Components at Ford Motor Company
*
Water Pump Components Case Study
▪ Within Engine products types at Ford, the 2.5L/3.0L Duratec
water pump is subject to radical design changes model year to
model year while the 4.6L/5.4L/6.8L modular water pump is
relatively stable over time.
▪ What is the reason for the stability of the modular water pump
design? It has maintained common interfaces while allowing for
sizing flexibility.
Water
Pumps
3005 3.0L Duratec Engine
2007 5.4L Modular Engine
*
Ford Duratec Water Pump Features
A
B
C
Where’s the
Water Pump?
D
*
Ford Duratec Water Pump Features
Design features that do
NOT change:
Design features that MAY
change:
▪ Pump discharge to block at
tube in rear valley center
▪ Pump mounting location & bolt
bosses
▪ Pump drive mechanism
RESULT –
▪ Bearing shaft diameter, overall
Water pumps require new tooling, new
length, and seal size
manufacturing lines, new test
▪ Impeller OD, blade #, blade
equipment, new development &
shape
durability testing every time the
▪ Pump Speed (depending on
vehicle package changes.
drive mechanism)
*
Ford Modular Water Pump Features
Bearing Size
Housing
Material &
Height
Mounting
Impeller
Bolt Pattern
Size
O-ring Sealing
Joint
Hub ID, Threaded
or Not
Pulley Bolt Circle
*
Ford Modular Water Pump Features
Design features that do
NOT change:
Design features that MAY
change:
▪ Common mounting location &
joint across all variants and
users
▪
▪
▪
▪
- Integrated pump volute in
cylinder block (cannot reverse
rotation)
- Common bolt size (M8) and 4bolt pattern
- Common o-ring joint inserted in
block
- Center location relative to crank
set by block
Housing material for strength
Housing height (short or tall)
Bearing shaft size
Impeller OD, blade #, blade
shape
▪ Threaded or unthreaded hub
for mechanical fan joint
▪ Pulley diameter (ratio to crank)
▪ Common hub to pulley 4 bolt
pattern
▪ FEAD Belt Driven
*
Benefits & Limitations of Modular WP
Benefits:
Limitations:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Pump capacity can be sized for
engine needs (impeller & speed)
Structure can be sized for belt and
fan loads (housing material,
bearing size)
Flexibility to drive mechanical fan
or not depending on vehicle
application
Mix & match features for
application
Some shared test rigs and
assembly equipment
Ability to leverage volumes for
purchasing
Reduced re-engineering costs,
time & effort
▪
▪
▪
Volume in block, difficult to change
block casting
Challenge to move water inlet
Must be FEAD belt driven
Not flexible to reverse pump
rotation
Enablers:
▪ Block joint is stable / unchanging
interface
▪ Decision to package water pump in
center of block V, low early in engine
architecture planning
▪ Common bolt sizing in engine
(standard metric sizes only allowed)
*
Ford Water Pump Commonality Lessons
▪ Commonality can be a “family” of products with some identical
features and some modifiable features.
▪ Maintaining some level of non-flexible interfaces enables
feature and content reuse.
▪ The benefits and limitations of holding common designs must
be weighed when designing for commonality.
▪ Lack of protection or management of any constraints leads to
costly and unnecessary design churn (as in 2.5L / 3.0L
Duratec).
- Note: this does not discuss that the Duratec is FWD or RWD and
the 4.6 L is only RWD. Package is not same for all, and FWD is
more complex from experience, leading to some of the water pump
churn
*
Common Rear Seat Architecture in Ford
Vehicles
▪ Seats are the second most costly items in any car
(after the powertrain).
▪ Ford PD was tasked to develop a common seat
architecture that could be tooled easily and would
be common across the world.
▪ Team developed the R1 seat back architecture,
this was a unique seat back only structure (Metal)
that could accommodate a high mount latch
(Sedan application) or a low mount recliner
(CUV/SUV application)
▪ Seat back was designed to meet the FMVSS
requirements as well as ECE requirements
Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality
▪ Headlamp Switch packs often contain a number
functions such as fog lamp, autolamps, IP
dimmer
▪ Trim packages contain simple black or
occasionally chrome accents
▪ Illumination color can be different based on
brand. Ford is Blue and Lincoln uses White
backlighting
▪ The number of buttons needed can change based
on content
Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality
● Symmetry allows for single push button tool for
each side
● Also allows for two push switches when single
not required.
● Single circuit board designed to accomodate
both designs
Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality
Headlamp leveling
for Europe
● Different trim pieces snap over top to
accomodate black or chrome designs
● Headlamp leveling available for European market
makes the switch truly global.
● Connectors keyed in tooling to prevent
misassembly of incorrect version on vehicle
Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality
Takeaways
● Consider symmetry in design to accommodate
using common parts in multiple locations
● Complexity of bill of materials for each version will
be increased and must be contained
● The content of versions should be known as early
as possible in the design process to ensure best
design for commonality
● Tooling can be used to create keyed components
for each version to control BOM and assembly
complexity
Heuristics for Commonality
▪ (P) To design components and subsystems for commonality
▪
▪
▪
▪
you must understand all of the interfaces that have potential
to drive you to become uncommon. (Anita Bersie)
(D) The greatest leverage in architecting for commonality is
at the interfaces. (Modification of Maier/Rechtin, 274)
(D) If you can think of a limitation for a design’s commonality,
you are likely correct in predicting it’s cause for becoming
uncommon. (Anita Bersie)
(D) The length of time a component design will stay common
is limited by the system architect (or whomever has the power
to change the interfaces). (Anita Bersie)
(D) A system is common when the natural intersection of
technology, politics, and economics is found. (Modification of
Maier/Rechtin, 270)
*
References
▪ The Art of System Architecting, M. Maier and Rechtin, 2nd
edition, CRC Press, 2000
*