Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:33:40.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HVLV ENGINEERING WITH MODULE SYSTEM(S), ETO AND LEAN DESIGN – STUDY ON PRACTITIONER INFORMATION NEEDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Tero Sakari Juuti ,
Teuvo Heikkinen ,
Tero Heino ,
Ilari Graf ,
Juha-Pekka Tomberg  and
Hannu Oja
Tero Sakari Juuti*
Affiliation:
Tampere University;
Teuvo Heikkinen
Affiliation:
Tampere University;
Tero Heino
Affiliation:
Valmet Technologies Corp.;
Ilari Graf
Affiliation:
Meyer Turku;
Juha-Pekka Tomberg
Affiliation:
Meyer Turku;
Hannu Oja
Affiliation:
Konecranes Corp.
*
Juuti, Tero Sakari, Tampere University, Finland, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This research elaborates the engineering design of high value low volume (HVLV) artefacts (aka Capital goods, investment goods). Our goal is to describe what information needs the practitioners have when doing sales engineering and engineering in HVLV projects. The research approach uses Design Research Methodology with four company cases.

Our findings are that engineering design of HVLV artefacts reuses several module systems, module libraries, technology catalogues, engineering-to-order and variety of design support systems, configurators, design guidelines, parametric models and lean-based design reasoning patterns etc. This poses major challenges for the engineers; how to use all relevant information and how to find it from different IT-systems.

This study indicates that in HVLV context such engineering strategy is required, which guides and drives tactical and operational engineering decisions not only within a project delivery but across project deliveries. Operative and tactical engineering is done during the delivery project and value capture is not achieved in full potential if the engineering strategy is neglected or overruled. This is challenge for current modularisation and ETO-methods and tools.

Keywords

Product structuringProduct architectureDesign practiceLean designLarge-scale engineering systems
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2135 - 2144
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Adlin, N., 2022. Formalisation of Information Flows to Support Lean Manufacturing Implementation. Dissertation, Tampere University.Google Scholar
Alfnes, E., Gosling, J., Naim, M., Dreyer, H.C., 2021. Exploring systemic factors creating uncertainty in complex engineer-to-order supply chains: Case studies from Norwegian shipbuilding first tier suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 240. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2021.108211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R., Brunoe, T.D., Nielsen, K., 2022. Platform-based product development in the process industry: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–24. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2044085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkie, S.E., Trucco, P., 2016. Understanding dynamism and complexity factors in engineer-to-order and their influence on lean implementation strategy. Prod. Plan. Control 27, 345–359. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1127446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkie, S.E., Trucco, P., Kaulio, M., 2017. Sustaining performance under operational turbulence. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 8, 457–481. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2016-0077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A., 2009. DRM, a design research methodology, DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer London. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buergin, J., Belkadi, F., Hupays, C., Gupta, R.K., Bitte, F., Lanza, G., Bernard, A., 2018. A modular-based approach for Just-In-Time Specification of customer orders in the aircraft manufacturing industry. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 21, 61. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRPJ.2018.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannas, V.G., Gosling, J., 2021. A decade of engineering-to-order (2010–2020): Progress and emerging themes. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 241. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavali, S.R., Sen, C., Mocko, G.M., Summers, J.D., 2008. Using Rule Based Design in Engineer to Order Industry: An SME Case Study. Comput. Aided. Des. Appl. 178–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.L., Tseng, M.M., 2005. Defining Specifications for Custom Products: A Multi-Attribute Negotiation Approach. CIRP Ann. 54, 159–162. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60073-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, B., Brunoe, T.D., Nielsen, K., 2018. A Conceptual Framework for Stage Configuration, in: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer New York LLC, pp. 101–109. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99704-9_13Google Scholar
Duffy, A.H.B., Ferns, A.F., 1998. An analysis of design reuse benefits, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED ’99). pp. 799–804.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, T., 2007. Architecture-Based Comparative Advantage — A Design Information View of Manufacturing. Evol. Institutional Econ. Rev. 4, 55–112. https://dx.doi.org/10.14441/eier.4.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gepp, M., Foehr, M., Vollmar, J., Schertl, A., Schaeffler, T., 2015. System integration in modularization and standardization programs, in: 2015 Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon) Proceedings. IEEE, pp. 847–852. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SYSCON.2015.7116856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, J., Hewlett, B., Naim, M., 2021. Procurement and Contractual Choices for Engineer-to-Order Supply Chains. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 49, 174–180. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2020.3028027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, J., Hewlett, B., Naim, M.M., 2017. Extending customer order penetration concepts to engineering designs. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 37, 402–422. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2015-0453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, J., Naim, M.M., 2009. Engineer-to-order supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 122, 741–754. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2009.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, J., Towill, D.R., Naim, M.M., Dainty, A.R.J., 2015. Principles for the design and operation of engineer-to-order supply chains in the construction sector. Prod. Plan. Control 26, 203–218. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.880816Google Scholar
Goto, N., Okamura, S., Koga, T., Aoyama, K., 2008. Development of a template design support system, in: 2007 Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2007. pp. 537–546. https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2007-35310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halonen, N., Lehtonen, T., Juuti, T., 2014. Impacts of making design decision sequence explicit on NPD project in forest machinery company, in: Proceedings of NordDesign 2014 Conference, NordDesign 2014.Google Scholar
Haug, A., Hvam, L., Mortensen, N.H., 2012. Definition and evaluation of product configurator development strategies. Comput. Ind. 63, 471–481. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPIND.2012.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, A., Shafiee, S., Hvam, L., 2019. The costs and benefits of product configuration projects in engineer-to-order companies. Comput. Ind. 105, 133–142. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jünge, G., Alfnes, E., Nujen, B., Emblemsvag, J., Kjersem, K., 2021. Understanding and eliminating waste in Engineer-To-Order (ETO) projects: a multiple case study. Prod. Plan. Control. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1903279Google Scholar
Kjeldgaard, S., Brunoe, T.D., Andersen, R., Sorensen, D.G.H., Andersen, A.L., Nielsen, K., 2022. Brownfield Design of Reconfigurable Manufacturing Architectures: An Application of a Modified MFD to the Capital Goods Industry. Procedia CIRP 107, 1293–1298. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskela, L., Ballard, G., Howell, G., Tommelein, I., 2002. The foundations of lean construction.Google Scholar
Kristjansdottir, K., Shafiee, S., Hvam, L., Forza, C., Mortensen, N.H., 2018. The main challenges for manufacturing companies in implementing and utilizing configurators. Comput. Ind. 100, 196–211. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, R.N., Robertson, P.L., 1992. Networks and innovation in a modular system - lessons of up and stereo industries. Res. Policy 21, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mämmelä, J., Juuti, T., Julkunen, P., 2019. Technology Valuation Method for Supporting Knowledge Management in Technology Decisions to Gain Sustainability. Sustainability 11, 3410. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11123410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mämmelä, J., Juuti, T., Julkunen, P., Lemmetty, P., Pakkanen, J., 2020. Method for Evaluating the Value of Technology in the Manufacturing Industry, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48021-9_94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matt, D.T., Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., 2015. On-site Oriented Capacity Regulation for Fabrication Shops in Engineer-to-Order Companies (ETO). Procedia CIRP 33, 197–202. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.06.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakkanen, J., Heikkinen, T., Adlin, N., Lehtonen, T., Mämmelä, J., Juuti, T., 2021. Support for managing partly configurable modular systems. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 2791–2800. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakkanen, J., Juuti, T., Lehtonen, T., 2019. Identifying and addressing challenges in the engineering design of modular systems–case studies in the manufacturing industry. J. Eng. Des. 30. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2018.1552779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, T., 2007. Product Configuration in ETO Companies, in: Mass Customization Information Systems in Business. IGI Global, pp. 59–76. https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-039-4.ch003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy 24, 419–440. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W., Duffy, A.H.B., 2007. The Design Research Pyramid: A Three Layer Framework. DS 42 Proc. ICED 2007, 16th Int. Conf. Eng. Des. Paris, Fr. 28.-31.07.2007 427-428 (exec. Summ.), full paper no. DS42_P_410.Google Scholar
Willner, O., Gosling, J., Schönsleben, P., 2016a. Establishing a maturity model for design automation in sales-delivery processes of ETO products. Comput. Ind. 82, 57–68. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willner, O., Powell, D., Gerschberger, M., Schönsleben, P., 2016b. Exploring the archetypes of engineer-to-order: an empirical analysis. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 36, 242–264. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0339CrossRefGoogle Scholar