c
 


    
 

O


Instron designs and manufactures machines for testing the. properties of all types of material.
One particular plastics testing instrument has been selling around 250 units per year
worldwide. In 1992 at the height of the recession, with margins being squeezed and sales volume
dropping, Instron decided to redesign the instrument to reduce its cost and make it easier to
manufacture.

x




Instron began to undertake change in the late 1980s, which included a programme to institute
concurrent new product development. This was accompanied by pressure for cost reduction, the
introduction of manufacturing changes, and the breaking of the firm into business. teams.

Due to this highly transient and changing environment, there were few restrictions on the way the
redesign project had to be handled. It was one of the first projects in Instron to be run from the
beginning as a concurrent engineering project. A small multi-functional team was formed, consisting of
a manufacturing engineer, a design engineer, a marketing engineer and a draughtsman. The design brief
was to improve the ease of manufacture of the product such that a cost reduction of 20 per cent could be
achieved.
The team was co-located in an area adjacent to the manufacturing facility. Although there was some
initial resistance, the comment was made that 'they don't know how they ever worked without it'. The
ease of communication and sharing of ideas became a more natural part of working life.

Ô



The principles of concurrency were, in general, favorably accepted by departments downstream of
the design process (manufacturing, shop floor, service) and, with some notable exceptions, unfavorably
viewed by the design department. Individuals had concurrency imposed on them in the initial
projects selected; first-line managers had decided that it made good business sense, and that it would
be tried out. Senior management staffs were selected as champions of the cause, with the objective of
overcoming the resistance to change that existed. This came in a number of forms:

1 V



   summarized as 'don't show reluctance to apply the new

º

ideas, attend all the group meetings, nod in agreement, then carry on as before';
2 

   'do what you like, but don't ask me to do it';
º

3 ›
   through overstating the apparent problems.
º

It was not surprising that this resistance existed: people were uncertain about changes in the
authority of the designers, an apparently higher workload, compromised design solutions for the sake of
manufacturability, unqualified (in design terms) manufacturing engineers having a major input in
designs, and the role of the engineering manager being threatened. There were further worries for all
concerned, however. These included reduced product performance, loss of personal contacts (resulting
from resisting people), loss of key iridividuals (who would leave the firm) and higher management
overhead.
d They began by carrying out brainstorming sessions with manufacturing engineers, buyers, members of
the shop floor, suppliers and additional design engineers, to find new and innovative ways to improve the
product. The outcome of these investigations was to draw cost reduced by 49 per cent;
d product range rationalised from 12 to 2 versions;
d unique part count reduced from 141 to 98 (fewer parts to plan, purchase, stock and handle) and total
 number of parts reduced from 300 to 189 (much reduced assembly effort);
d assembly/machining time reduced by 55 per cent;
d project completed on time, with last version being released in April 1994.

Once operational, few problems were encountered and those that did occur were minor in nature. The
success was attributed by the firm to two decisions:

d the selection of the right project ³ one that made it easy to demonstrate concurrency;
d the selection of the right people ³ those who were prepared to be open-minded and have some
enthusiasm for the changes.

The company now views this as a simple project that restored the profitability of an established
product through the use of innovation, ingenuity and new design techniques by the whole concurrent
team. What is also clear is that the product was subject to technical change in only one area ³ the materials
used. The other benefits have all been due to the approach that the firm's management has taken to
its new product development (NPD) process. The firm felt that the project has been a success and that
this method of working would become an institutionalised methodology.

‰



 
1 What is the evidence to support the claim that this project was a success?

This project was claimed as successful project is because the overall cost was reduced
49 percents by

(i) Successfully cut down the product range from 12 to 2 versions.

(ii) Reduced unique part count from 141 to 98 which shorter the planning,
purchasing, stocking and logistic handling process and time.
(iii) Reduced the total part count from 300 to 189 which immediately affect the
overall production performance by reducing assembly or manufacture lead time.
(iv) Successfully Reduced 55 percents of overall assembly or machining time.
(v) Completed project on time with last version being released in April 1994.

Besides the above successful examples, it also can be proved through operational level
which only a few problems were encountered. However, those detected problems were
being categories as minor in nature issue. The company now also has seen this project
as a sample of successful project that restored the profitability of an established
product through the use of innovation, ingenuity and new design techniques by the
whole concurrent team. Instron was used this project method and process as an
institutionalized methodology.
2 Identify the steps the firm took in this project. How did this contribute to the success?

Instron identified the problem that incurred currently pressured by height of the
recession, with margins being squeezed and sales volume dropping. Therefore, Instron
decided to redesign the instrument to reduce its cost and make it easier to manufacture
with below steps and successes,

(i) Select a project that made it easy to demonstrate concurrency

(ii) Form a small multi-functional team, consisting of a manufacturing engineer, a
design engineer, a marketing engineer and a draughtsman to improve the ease of
manufacture of the product to target of cost reduction of 20 percents.
(iii)
(iv) Co-located the multi-functional team in an area adjacent to the manufacturing
facility. The objective is practicing effective collaboration with team members
and to develop a team in become cohesive units of individuals that can
effectively work together and dependent each other to complete tasks. It could
improve effectiveness of communication between each team member and
encourage sharing of idea as a natural part of working life.
(v) Identify the job scope and responsibility for each individual and persuade
departments downstream of the design process (manufacturing, shop floor,
service).
(vi) Select Individuals concurrency imposed them to initial the selected project.
Select management staffs as champions of the cause, with the objective of
overcome the resistance to change.
(vii) Carry out brainstorming sessions with manufacturing engineers, buyers, members of
the shop floor, suppliers and additional design engineers, to find new and
innovative ways to improve the product. The outcome of these investigations
was to draw cost reduced by 49 percent.


 3 How might the main adverse effects be identified and countered?
Establish the questionnaire forms.
(A) [



  summarized as don't show reluctance to apply the
new ideas, attend all the group meetings, nod in agreement, then carry on as
before.
(B) Ô 

  ½o what you like, but don't ask me to do it.
(C) 
  Through overstating the apparent problems.

It was not surprising that this resistance existed: Besides it can easily identified the
adverse effects because of people were uncertain about changes in the authority of the
designers, an apparently higher workload, compromised design solutions for the sake of
manufacturability, unqualified (in design terms) manufacturing engineers having a
major input in designs, and the role of the engineering manager being threatened. These
were reduced product performance, loss of personal contacts resulting from resisting
people, loss of key individuals who would resigned and leave the firm and higher
management overhead.

4 The firm attributed the success to the choice of project and the people selected to carry it out. If a
similar way of working is to be more widely adopted, what might usefully be done to ensure that
other projects are similarly successful?