Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:30:49.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges in the better, faster, cheaper era of aeronautical design, engineering and manufacturing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

E. M. Murman ,
M. Walton  and
E. Rebentisch
E. M. Murman
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
M. Walton
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
E. Rebentisch
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

'Better, faster, cheaper’ (BFC) emerged in the 1990s as a new paradigm for aerospace products. In this paper, we examine some of the underlying reasons for BFC and offer some thoughts to help frame the thinking and action of aerospace industry professionals in this new era. Examination of literature on industrial innovation indicates that aeronautical products have evolved to a ‘dominant design’ and entered the ‘specific phase’ of their product life cycle. Innovation in this phase centers on: incremental product improvement, especially for productivity and quality; process technology; technological innovations that offer superior substitutes. The first two of these are aligned with BFC objectives.

The concepts of ‘value’ and ‘best lifecycle value’ are introduced as conceptual frameworks. Value is offered as a metric for BFC. Risk management is intimately tied to achieving value and needs to be integrated into aeronautical processes. The process technology area is addressed by considering ‘lean’ practices for design, engineering and manufacturing. Illustrative results of process improvements from the seven-year Lean Aerospace Initiative research programme at MIT indicate opportunities to achieve BFC. Concluding remarks offer some challenges to industry, government and academics in aeronautical design, engineering and manufacturing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1040 , October 2000 , pp. 481 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Augustine, N. Augustine's Laws, 6th edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1997.Google Scholar
2. McNutt, R. Reducing DoD Product Development Time: The Role of the Schedule Development Process. MIT PhD Thesis, January 1999.Google Scholar
3. Menendez, J. The Software Factory: Integrating CASE Technologies to Improve Productivity. LAI Report 96-02, July 1996.Google Scholar
4. Hernandez, C. Intellectual Capital White Paper. The California Engineering Foundation, 7 December 1999.Google Scholar
5. Drezner, J., Smith, G., Horgan, L., Rogers, C. and Schmidt, R. Maintaining Future Military Aircraft Design Capability, RAND Report R-4199F, 1992.Google Scholar
6. Utterback, J. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
7. Chase, J., Darot, J., Evans, A., Fernandes, P., Markish, J., Nuffort, M. and Speller, T. The business case for the very large aircraft, AIAA Papar 2001-0589, Reno, NV, January 2001.Google Scholar
8. Liebeck, R.H., Page, M.A. and Rawdon, B.K. Blended-wing-body subsonic commercial transport, AIAA-98-0438,Google Scholar
9. Slack, R. The Application of Lean Principles to the Military Aerospace Product Development Process, MIT SM Thesis, December 1998.Google Scholar
10. Fredriksson, B. Holistic system engineering in product development, The Saab-Scania Griffin, November 1994, pp 23-31.Google Scholar
11. Fabrycky, W. Life Cycle Costs and Economics, Prentice Hall, NJ 1991.Google Scholar
12. Warmkessel, J. Learning to think lean. INCOSE Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference, 5 April 2000.Google Scholar
13. Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. The Machine That Changed The World, Rawson, 1990.Google Scholar
14. Womack, J. and Jones, D. Lean Thinking, Simon & Schuster, 1996.Google Scholar
15. Weiss, S., Murman, E. and Roos, D. The Air Force and industry think lean, Aerospace America, May 1996, pp 32–38.Google Scholar
16. Benefits of Implementing Lean Practices and the Impact of the Lean Aerospace Initiative in the Defense Aerospace Industry and Government Agencies. LAI Whitepaper, January 1999. http://lean.mit.edu/pub-lic/pubnews/pubnews.html.Google Scholar
17. Ippolito, B. and Murman, E. Improving the software upgrade value stream, LAI Monograph, expected publication July 2000.Google Scholar
18. Hoppes, J. Lean Manufacturing Practices in the Defense Aircraft Industry. MIT SM Thesis, May 1995.Google Scholar
19. Thornton, A. Variation risk management using modeling and simulation, ASME J Mechanical Design, 1999, 121, pp 297–304.Google Scholar
20. Browning, T. Modeling and Analyzing Cost, Schedule and Performance in Complex System Product Development, MIT PhD Thesis, December 1998.Google Scholar
21. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Strategic Plan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998 http://web.mit.edu.Google Scholar