Module property verification : A method to plan and perform quality verifications in modular architectures

Modular product architectures have generated numerous benefits for companies in terms of cost, lead-time and quality. The defined interfaces and the module’s properties decrease the effort to develop new product variants, and provide an opportunity to perform parallel tasks in design, manufacturing and assembly. The background of this thesis is that companies perform verifications (tests, inspections and controls) of products late, when most of the parts have been assembled. This extends the lead-time to delivery and ruins benefits from a modular product architecture; specifically when the verifications are extensive and the frequency of detected defects is high. Due to the number of product variants obtained from the modular product architecture, verifications must handle a wide range of equipment, instructions and goal values to ensure that high quality products can be delivered. As a result, the total benefits from a modular product architecture are difficult to achieve. This thesis describes a method for planning and performing verifications within a modular product architecture. The method supports companies by utilizing the defined modules for verifications already at module level, so called MPV (Module Property Verification). With MPV, defects are detected at an earlier point, compared to verification of a complete product, and the number of verifications is decreased. The MPV method is built up of three phases. In Phase A, candidate modules are evaluated on the basis of costs and lead-time of the verifications and the repair of defects. An MPV-index is obtained which quantifies the module and indicates if the module should be verified at product level or by MPV. In Phase B, the interface interaction between the modules is evaluated, as well as the distribution of properties among the modules. The purpose is to evaluate the extent to which supplementary verifications at product level is needed. Phase C supports a selection of the final verification strategy. The cost and lead-time for the supplementary verifications are considered together with the results from Phase A and B. The MPV method is based on a set of qualitative and quantitative measures and tools which provide an overview and support the achievement of cost and time efficient company specific verifications. A practical application in industry shows how the MPV method can be used, and the subsequent benefits

Modular Product Verifications Based on Design for Assembly

The desire to conquer markets through advanced product design and trendy business strategies are still predominant approaches in industry today. In fact, product development has acquired an ever more central role in the strategic planning of companies, and it has extended its influence to R&D funding levels as well. It is not surprising that many national R&D project frameworks within the EU today are dominated by product development topics, leaving production engineering, robotics, and systems on the sidelines. The reasons may be many but, unfortunately, the link between product development and the production processes they cater for are seldom treated in depth. The issue dealt with in this article relates to how product development is applied in order to attain the required production quality levels a company may desire, as well as how one may counter assembly defects and deviations through quantifiable design approaches. It is recognized that product verifications (tests, inspections, etc.) are necessary, but the application of these tactics often result in lead-time extensions and increased costs. Modular architectures improve this by simplifying the verification of the assembled product at module level. Furthermore, since Design for Assembly (DFA) has shown the possibility to identify defective assemblies, it may be possible to detect potential assembly defects already in the product and module design phase. The intention of this paper is to discuss and describe the link between verifications of modular architectures, defects and design for assembly. The paper is based on literature and case studies; tables and diagrams are included with the intention of increasing understanding of the relation between poor designs, defects and product verifications.

Modeling and illustrating requirement prioritization in public e-service development from a value-based perspective

A major problem in e-service development is the prioritization of the requirements of different stakeholders. The main stakeholders are governments and their citizens, all of whom have different and sometimes conflicting requirements. In this paper, the prioritization problem is addressed by combining a value-based approach with an illustration technique. This paper examines the following research question: How can multiple stakeholder requirements be illustrated from a value-based perspective in order to be prioritizable? We used an e-service development case taken from a Swedish municipality to elaborate on our approach. Our contributions are: 1) a model of the relevant domains for requirement prioritization for government, citizens, technology, finances and laws and regulations; and 2) a requirement fulfillment analysis tool (RFA) that consists of a requirement-goal-value matrix (RGV), and a calculation and illustration module (CIM). The model reduces cognitive load, helps developers to focus on value fulfillment in e-service development and supports them in the formulation of requirements. It also offers an input to public policy makers, should they aim to target values in the design of e-services.