Collaborative Engineering: an Airbus case study

This document introduces the main concepts of Collaborative Engineering as a new methodology, procedures and tools to design and develop an aircraft, as Airbus Military is implementing. Airbus designs and industrializes aircrafts under Concurrent Engineering techniques since decades with success. The introduction of new PLM methodologies, procedures and tools, mainly in the industrialization areas, and the need to reduce time-to-market conducted Airbus Military to push the engineering teams to do things in a different way. Traditional Engineering works sequentially, Concurrent Engineering basically overlaps tasks between teams using maturity states and taking assuming risks. Collaborative Engineering promotes a single team to develop product, processes and resources from the conceptual phase to the start of the serial production. The deliverable of the team is an iDMU (industrial DMU), a complete definition and verification of the virtual manufacturing of the product.

Collaborative Engineering Paradigm Applied to the Aerospace Industry

Airbus designs and industrializes aircrafts using Concurrent Engineering techniques since decades. The introduction of new PLM methods, procedures and tools, and the need to reduce time-to-market, led Airbus Military to pursue new working methods. Traditional Engineering works sequentially. Concurrent Engineering basically overlaps tasks between teams. Collaborative Engineering promotes teamwork to develop product, processes and resources from the conceptual phase to the start of the serial production. The CALIPSO-neo pilot project was launched to support the industrialization process of a medium size aerostructure. The aim is to implement the industrial Digital Mock-Up (iDMU) concept and its exploitation to create shop floor documentation. In a framework of a collaborative engineering strategy, the project is part of the efforts to deploy Digital Manufacturing as a key technology for the industrialization of aircraft assembly lines. This paper presents the context, the conceptual approach and the methodology adopted.

Analysing strategic alliances in building construction

Building construction is a highly competitive and risky business. This competitiveness is compounded where conflicting objectives amongst contracting and subcontracting firms sets the stage for an adversarial and potentially destructive approach. There is a need for change in the construction industry—not only to a more cooperative approach to build mutual trust, respect and good faith—but also from a confrontationist and adversarial attitude to a harmonious relationship. It is necessary to change the culture to create a win-win situation. “Strategic Alliances” is one such concept. A strategic alliance is a cooperative arrangement between two or more organisations that forms part of their overall strategies, and contributes to achieving their major goals and objectives. This paper begins with an overview of the Australian building construction industry, then reviews the literature and describes an analysis framework comprising six attributes of strategic alliances—trust, commitment, interdependence, cooperation, communication, and joint problem solving. Given the trend towards greater emphasis on broader contracting firm performance criteria, indicators are proposed as a component of the tender evaluation process for public works.

Strategic alliances in building construction : a tender evaluation tool for the public sector

Building construction is a highly competitive and risky business. This competitiveness is compounded where conflicting objectives amongst contracting and subcontracting firms set the stage for an adversarial and potentially destructive business relationship. Clients, especially those from the public sector, need broader tender evaluation criteria to complement the traditional focus on bid price. There is also a need for change in the construction industry—not only to a more cooperative approach between the constructing parties—but also from a confrontationist attitude to a more harmonious relationship between all stakeholders in providing constructed facilities. A strategic alliance is a cooperative relationship between two or more organisations that forms part of their overall strategies, and contributes to achieving their major goals and objectives. Strategic alliances in building construction may provide a useful tool to assist public sector construction managers evaluate tenders and concurrently encourage more cooperative relationships amongst construction stakeholders. This paper begins with an overview of the Australian building construction industry, then reviews the existing strategic alliance literature and describes an analysis framework comprising six attributes of strategic alliances for application to construction organisations—trust, commitment, interdependence, cooperation, communication, and joint problem solving. These attributes are currently being used to collect data from 70 building construction firms in Queensland to assess their respective levels of strategic alliance. Given the trend towards broader indicators of construction firm performance, these attributes are proposed as a tool for use in the tender evaluation process for public works.

Design for Manufacturing (DFM) – A case study of repetitive measures

Design for Manufacturing (DFM) is a highly integral methodology in product development, starting from the concept development phase, with the aim of improving manufacturing productivity and maintaining product quality. While Design for Assembly (DFA) is focusing on elimination or combination of parts with other components (Boothroyd, Dewhurst and Knight, 2002), which in most cases relates to performing a function and manufacture operation in a simpler way, DFM is following a more holistic approach. During DFM, the considerable background work required for the conceptual phase is compensated for by a shortening of later development phases. Current DFM projects normally apply an iterative step-by-step approach and eventually transfer to the developer team. Although DFM has been a well established methodology for about 30 years, a Fraunhofer IAO study from 2009 found that DFM was still one of the key challenges of the German Manufacturing Industry. A new, knowledge based approach to DFM, eliminating steps of DFM, was introduced in Paul and Al-Dirini (2009). The concept focuses on a concurrent engineering process between the manufacturing engineering and product development systems, while current product realization cycles depend on a rigorous back-and-forth examine-and-correct approach so as to ensure compatibility of any proposed design to the DFM rules and guidelines adopted by the company. The key to achieving reductions is to incorporate DFM considerations into the early stages of the design process. A case study for DFM application in an automotive powertrain engineering environment is presented. It is argued that a DFM database needs to be interfaced to the CAD/CAM software, which will restrict designers to the DFM criteria. Consequently, a notable reduction of development cycles can be achieved. The case study is following the hypothesis that current DFM methods do not improve product design in a manner claimed by the DFM method. The critical case was to identify DFA/DFM recommendations or program actions with repeated appearance in different sources. Repetitive DFM measures are identified, analyzed and it is shown how a modified DFM process can mitigate a non-fully integrated DFM approach.

Design for manufacturing : a review and case study

Design for Manufacturing (DFM) is a highly integral methodology in product development, starting from the concept development phase, with the aim of improving manufacturing productivity. It is used to reduce manufacturing costs in complex production environments, while maintaining product quality. While Design for Assembly (DFA) is focusing on elimination or combination of parts with other components, which in most cases relates to performing a function and manufacture operation in a simpler way, DFM is following a more holistic approach. Common consideration for DFM are standard components, manufacturing tool inventory and capability, materials compatibility with production process, part handling, logistics, tool wear and process optimization, quality control complexity or Poka-Yoke design. During DFM, the considerable background work required for the conceptual phase is compensated for by a shortening of later development phases. Current DFM projects normally apply an iterative step-by-step approach and eventually transfer to the developer team. The study is introducing a new, knowledge based approach to DFM, eliminating steps of DFM, and showing implications on the work process. Furthermore, a concurrent engineering process via transparent interface between the manufacturing engineering and product development systems is brought forward.

An evaluation of a new product data model

Engineering companies face many challenges today such as increased competition, higher expectations from consumers and decreasing product lifecycle times. This means that product development times must be reduced to meet these challenges. Concurrent engineering, reuse of engineering knowledge and the use of advanced methods and tools are among the ways of reducing product development times. Concurrent engineering is crucial in making sure that the products are designed with all issues considered simultaneously. The reuse of engineering knowledge allows existing solutions to be reused. It can also help to avoid the mistakes made in previous designs. Computer-based tools are used to store information, automate tasks, distribute work, perform simulation and so forth. This research concerns the evaluation of tools that can be used to support the design process. These tools are evaluated in terms of the capture of information generated during the design process. This information is vital to allow the reuse of knowledge. Present CAD systems store only information on the final definition of the product such as geometry, materials and manufacturing processes. Product Data Management (PDM) systems can manage all this CAD information along with other product related information. The research includes the evaluation of two PDM systems, Windchill and Metaphase, using the design of a single-handed water tap as a case study. The two PDMs were then compared to PROSUS/DDM. PROSUS is the Process-Based Support System proposed by [Blessing 94] using the same case study. The Design Data Model is the product data model that includes PROSUS. The results look promising. PROSUS/DDM is able to capture most design information and structure and present it logically. The design process and product information is related and stored within the DDM structure. The PDMs can capture most design information, but information from early stages of design is stored only as unstructured documentation. Some problems were found with PROSUS/DDM. A proposal is made that may make it possible to resolve these problems, but this will require further research.

Impacts of concurrency, iteration, design review, and problem complexity on design project lead time and error generation

A case study of an aircraft engine manufacturer is used to analyze the effects of management levers on the lead time and design errors generated in an iteration-intensive concurrent engineering process. The levers considered are amount of design-space exploration iteration, degree of process concurrency, and timing of design reviews. Simulation is used to show how the ideal combination of these levers can vary with changes in design problem complexity, which can increase, for instance, when novel technology is incorporated in a design. Results confirm that it is important to consider multiple iteration-influencing factors and their interdependencies to understand concurrent processes, because the factors can interact with confounding effects. The article also demonstrates a new approach to derive a system dynamics model from a process task network. The new approach could be applied to analyze other concurrent engineering scenarios. © The Author(s) 2012.